lou Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 Just seeing the bloke is offensive, if he's not allowed to be offensive they should lock him in a veal crate and never release him.
foxoffderby Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 The problem is that he has done it before and I am sure that would impinge on his human rights (Can the law students can confirm this?). This is why it is a nonsense decision in my eyes. True thats what I thought also he has just up a different version of the same party with the same views just under a different name. I must of misheard.
Flynny Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 Good. I saw alot of fuss made about all the BNP and similar marches but not much wrote about this - Neither are right but just found it weird no-one was willing to kicking up a fuss as such or discuss this one much. What have you been reading? It was all over the place. Also it's not like they were being given an hours airtime on a show about reasoned political debate and given a smidgeon of political credibility, either. I think every single newspaper has written articles against this, the only one against banning it I saw was by David Mitchell who called it "despicable" but was concerned about free-speech, it's well argued but I can't quite agree - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...ell-free-speech
Guest Bilo Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 Banning them was the right decision but it seems that some are comparing them to the BNP. For the BNP's many, many faults they've never officially sanctioned violence, never supported the killing of British troops and never supported any act of terrorism against people to whom they're ideologically opposed. The BNP are an irritant and a vile, racist party but not in the same league as Islam4UK. HAH it's been linked to twice already. Sorry. It's alright, it was a good article each time.
MPH Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 i really don't like to see any organisations banned , i'd rather them out in the open so the rest of us can convince them they are wrong .these anti terrorist laws will eventually be misused , i am quite concerned by this , even if it does make me sound like a NWO conspiracy fruitcake with as little offence as possible... i think thats being a bit naive...
hairy Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 Things like this just show how far many of our basic rights have been removed under the banner of The War on Terror
davieG Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 with as little offence as possible... i think thats being a bit naive... Not if you don't believe banning them will stop them or deny them further publicity which even those in favour of banning think will happen.
Finnegan Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 I don't know if anyone's read it yet but there's a fantastic article by David Mitchell on the Guardian website.
MPH Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 Not if you don't believe banning them will stop them or deny them further publicity which even those in favour of banning think will happen. oh i just meant that we wont be able to get them to change their minds on their beliefs As this is what the post i responded to was suggesting we might be able to do...
lou Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 Banning them was the right decision but it seems that some are comparing them to the BNP. For the BNP's many, many faults they've never officially sanctioned violence, never supported the killing of British troops and never supported any act of terrorism against people to whom they're ideologically opposed. The BNP are an irritant and a vile, racist party but not in the same league as Islam4UK.It's alright, it was a good article each time. No, they prefer to keep that sort of talk to their meetings but we all know what theyre really about
Zingari Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 with as little offence as possible... i think thats being a bit naive... no offence taken yes on reflectioni admit it does sound naive , i agree , but banning any organisation is fraught with other dangers that impinge on the basic premise of free speech , but as i have already stated in my last post post, we already have the "Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006" which effectively limits free speech anyway ,, so i just say again that this is a potential minefield as we have religious groups who seem to want the protection of not being offended but still want the right to offend
Finnegan Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 No, they prefer to keep that sort of talk to their meetings but we all know what theyre really about Plus, there are plenty of skinhead gangs to do that stuff for them.
Zingari Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 Things like this just show how far many of our basic rights have been removed under the banner of The War on Terror that sounds a bit like global elite / NWO conspiracy stuff to me
Flynny Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 I don't know if anyone's read it yet but there's a fantastic article by David Mitchell on the Guardian website. Fuck yoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooou
Finnegan Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 Fuck yoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooou
lou Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 Get a room, or take it to Mod chat... no one wants to watch your flirtations
MPH Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 No, they prefer to keep that sort of talk to their meetings but we all know what theyre really about http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/uncovered/pg07.htm Who says today’s politicians lack convictions. The British National Party is brimming with them – all of a criminal nature. “The BNP will crack down on crime and restore public safety and confidence,” its website states. But despite claiming to be a party of law and order, the BNP is home to criminals, racist thugs and football hooligans. The ranks of the criminals extend to the very highest level of the party. They include: Nick Griffin (Party Chairman) Received a two-year suspended sentence in April 1998 for inciting racial hatred. His magazine The Rune carried obscene anti-Semitic and Holocaust denial material as well as crude racism. Tony Lecomber Tony Lecomber (Group Development Officer). In 1985 he was convicted on five counts for offences under the Explosives Act, including possession of homemade hand-grenades and electronic timing devices. Sentenced to three-years imprisonment. In 1991 he was sentenced to another three years imprisonment for unlawful wounding for his part in an attack on a Jewish schoolteacher whom he caught trying to peel off a BNP sticker at an underground station. He has a total of 12 convictions. Colin Smith (South East London organiser). Has amassed a total of 17 convictions for burglary, theft, stealing cars, possession of drugs and assaulting a police officer. John Tyndall (founder of the BNP). Six convictions. In 1962 he was jailed for organising a paramilitary organisation. Four years later, he was again sent to prison for possession of a loaded gun. In 1986, he was convicted for incitement to racial hatred under the Public Order Act and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. Warren Bennett (Chief Steward). Supposed to keep order in the party yet has convictions for football hooliganism. In 1998, he was deported from France with over 50 other Scottish hooligans, including several BNP members. Steve Belshaw (East Midlands BNP organiser. Was convicted in 1994 for assaulting a lawyer in his home-town of Mansfield. At the time, Belshaw combined his BNP membership with Combat 18 activity. Kevin Scott (North East Regional Organiser). Was convicted in 1993 for hurling a glass at a black customer in a pub. Alan Gould (Waltham Forest Organiser). Was convicted in 2000 for racially abusing people in a local pub. He told the court that it was the drink getting the better of him. Robert Bennett Robert Bennett. A leading activist in Oldham BNP during the 2002 elections campaign, Bennett has served five years in prison for the gang rape of a woman. He has also served seven years for armed robbery and has over 30 convictions in total. Mick Treacy. The Oldham organiser has five convictions for violence, theft, and handling stolen goods Darren Dobson. Found guilty of racially aggravated assault at Oldham magistrates in November 2001. Fined £300. Connected to football hooligans in the Oldham area, and has links to the nazi terror group Combat 18 Darren Hoy. April 2002, the BNP supporter was sent to prison for 3 months for racially abusing people as they left an anti-fascist rally in Oldham.
Guest Bilo Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 No, they prefer to keep that sort of talk to their meetings but we all know what theyre really about That's because we have the good fortune to have been born with a brain but there are some people out there who may see the BNP as anti-violence, there's no way anyone could ever see this mob as that. They openly support terrorism and murder, it's in the public domain. The BNP keep such talk behind closed doors because if they were open about inciting violence, they would rightly be banned too.
lou Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 That's because we have the good fortune to have been born with a brain but there are some people out there who may see the BNP as anti-violence, there's no way anyone could ever see this mob as that. They openly support terrorism and murder, it's in the public domain. The BNP keep such talk behind closed doors because if they were open about inciting violence, they would rightly be banned too. but I dont agree that theyre any less dangerous.... such a radical group as Islam4UK with its openess to airing their very extreme views is never going to gain massive public support. The BNP are more likely to get support from the (albeit thicker!) general population and stir up more religious hatred than these extremist Muslim groups will, which makes them more of a danger to the stability between different racial/religious groups in the UK in my opinion.
Guest Bilo Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 but I dont agree that theyre any less dangerous.... such a radical group as Islam4UK with its openess to airing their very extreme views is never going to gain massive public support. The BNP are more likely to get support from the (albeit thicker!) general population and stir up more religious hatred than these extremist Muslim groups will, which makes them more of a danger to the stability between different racial/religious groups in the UK in my opinion. I don't disagree that they are very damaging to community cohesion but people like the BNP are best kept in the open. Look at Nick Griffin on Question Time when he was made an utter fool of in front of millions, any credibility anyone thought he might have had was exploded in that hour. The BNP are a joke run by clueless idiots and supported by morons, the chances of them ever becoming a political force in this country are close to non-existent. Their stated aim is to gain a foothold through the ballot box, Islam4UK want to impose (and impose is the key word, seeing as they believe democracy to be unislamic) a Sharia state by any means necessary.
Guest Basildon Fox Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 but I dont agree that theyre any less dangerous.... such a radical group as Islam4UK with its openess to airing their very extreme views is never going to gain massive public support. The BNP are more likely to get support from the (albeit thicker!) general population and stir up more religious hatred than these extremist Muslim groups will, which makes them more of a danger to the stability between different racial/religious groups in the UK in my opinion. Do you not think that both sides will gain support over this though. Racism imo is a 2 way street and loners and the disenchanted from both ends of the spectrum may well see this sort of over exaggerated incident as a reason to join the cause no matter how ludicrous. It is a known fact that racism rears it's ugly head more during recessions.
Samilktray Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 If we are to change the world, we must first change ourselves - Samilktray 2010.
Guest Bilo Posted 12 January 2010 Posted 12 January 2010 If we are to change the world, we must first change ourselves - Samilktray 2010. EMO
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.