The British National Party‘s Nick Griffin and Mark Collett give the stuff that lingers round the bath tub rim a bad name. Their previous thoughts are a matter of record. Here’s a little selection from The Times. And yet party leader Griffin also tries to claim that the BNP is removed from such transparently evil nonsense.

So how is the public interest served in respect of the BNP? Did the BBC documentary investigation and the subsequent legal action give Griffin and co more publicity than they might otherwise merit? Should the BNP be tolerated but ignored? Or is the public interest served by investigating the party to expose potential wrongdoing?

The final section of the form which you have to fill in to get authorization for secret filming at the BBC says:

Consider the public interest served by revealing the behaviour, whether the intrusion and any deception involved is proportionate to the seriousness of the behaviour, whether the behaviour could be revealed without the secret recording, and the prima facie evidence

The aim of secretly filming a British National Party meeting was presumably to demonstrate that within their own circles the BNP use language which might justify the charges Nick Griffin and Mark Collett went on to face, and then were acquitted of. The BBC might consider making public exactly how they justified the secret filming for the BNP programme on that form.

It’s a tough call. Seeing Griffin break out the champagne, reminded me of the old expression – ‘if you’re going to get ’em, get ’em good…’ [MG]

Postscript: At ITN I was once unlucky enough to reply to a viewer’s complaint which turned out to be from one of Griffin’s people. My correspondent posted my email address on a website that led to a few hundred assorted oddballs contacting me. They managed to combine abuse with racism and anti-semitism in a particularly incoherent verbal cocktail. Nice.