Britain First potentially stopped from hosting demo

£6,000 required for a barrister, please do give generously!
I'm sure the Bedfordshire Police can afford a decent enough Barrister to stop these shitstirring shitstirrers from stirring any more shit.

The shitstirring racists. ( BF, not BP.)
 
I believe it is true that the police try to ban right wing idiots from holding demos, but left wing idiots get free reign. Islamic idiots even more so.

It would be better if they all shut up, but until then there should be a level playing field.
can't recall any Muslamics invading Churches and giving out copies of the Koran...
 
I would make the EDL and UAF march together and each marcher has to hold the hand of someone from the other side.
Ah but what if a certain protester has a hook for a hand?
 
Here in the UAE we can come to work, have to be sponsorsered, can't claim any benefits, become permanent residents and as part of the process have a HIV and hepatitis test every three years. If you commit as serious crime you are jailed and deported. I know the UAE has a long way to go but why can't they do the same in the UK?
Because the UAE is an autocratic hellhole for its citizens who aren't rich or well-connected.

How many of those foreigners who get kicked out of the UAE are getting kicked out for being ill and out of those, what proportion were really ill and what proportion upset their employers for asking to be paid or not raped?

Saudi is another good example. They may have strict laws but what protection have you got against being accused of witchcraft by your employer if you decide to push back against not being paid?

Anyway, BF should probably be allowed to demonstrate so long as it's legal. Look what happened to the attempts to silence the grievances of the EDL; the Guardian has ended up touting some of the less extreme lines of that group.
 
Because the UAE is an autocratic hellhole for its citizens who aren't rich or well-connected.

How many of those foreigners who get kicked out of the UAE are getting kicked out for being ill and out of those, what proportion were really ill and what proportion upset their employers for asking to be paid or not raped?

Saudi is another good example. They may have strict laws but what protection have you got against being accused of witchcraft by your employer if you decide to push back against not being paid?

Anyway, BF should probably be allowed to demonstrate so long as it's legal. Look what happened to the attempts to silence the grievances of the EDL; the Guardian has ended up touting some of the less extreme lines of that group.
I posted that in the wrong thread. Apologies
 
I think I know why we used black hessian to cam our wagons on exercise in Germany during the 80s and early 90s-it was to appease the Moslems and other R**heads (oops I've used the R word)
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
Not a good idea to ban them, I think. Perhaps there have been legitimate concerns raised in which case they ought to be considered, but then the same consideration should be given to any legitimate concerns when the next political nut-job group decides to exercise their rights to peaceful protest.

I hate these people, not just for their ignorant and hateful politics, but also for making me support them in any way shape or form.

I need to wash my hands.
 
@Sadurian, you're not supporting them in any way, just letting them have the same rights as everyone else. Still makes you want to wash your hands though doesn't it.

The best way to handle shouty mongs is to let them shout so the world can see what mongs they are.

We also have the right to then call them the cnuts that they are.
 
That video showed exactly what an ignorant bunch of retards the BF are.

They showed complete disregard for the traditions and sanctity of Mosques. Hats on head, wearing shoes, disturbing people's prayers and preparations, violating the privacy of the Mayor's home. Why the feckers believe they have some affinity or connection with the Army, Defence or even most of the human race is quite beyond me.

The muslims they berated on the other hand were respectful and polite (if a bit bemused). I'm sure some were pleased with the present of a Bible and the words of Jesus Christ. The BF clearly don't realise that true muslims revere Jesus as a prophet as well!

Personally I think the best approach with really stupid people should be to ignore them but unfortunately some equally stupid people will be unable to resist raising to the bait. So, all in all, to prevent the police and innocent people being caught in the middle it is probably best to ban the retards. Oh, for an ignore button in life outside ARRSE.
 
Anyone got Paul Goldings personal address?

I was just thinking about knocking on his door and protesting about, oh, anything really.

Then again, there will be dog shit all up the path, soiled nappies and beer bottles to negotiate and the horrid smell of cheap cigarettes, stale chip fat and desperation.
 
Banning free speech because you do not like what is being said is not a slippery slope, it is a sheer cliff face from which there is no coming back.
 

pinksniper

Old-Salt
Anyone got Paul Goldings personal address?

I was just thinking about knocking on his door and protesting about, oh, anything really.

Then again, there will be dog shit all up the path, soiled nappies and beer bottles to negotiate and the horrid smell of cheap cigarettes, stale chip fat and desperation.
Probably the same as the deputy Jayda, they do seem clicky, probably been friends with benefits since forever
 
Burying a pig under a new mosque build is funny though. Would they demolish or find a koranic loophole to work around ?

No one should have the right not to have their religion offended. They chose to believe in fantasy, tough tits.
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
Offending someone's religion is not on. You may not agree with it and shouldn't be made to abide by it, but to go out of your way to offend it is being inflammatory.

Whatever you think about someone's life and beliefs, it doesn't give you the right to openly mock them in a way designed to make them react.
 
Offending someone's religion is not on. You may not agree with it and shouldn't be made to abide by it, but to go out of your way to offend it is being inflammatory.

Whatever you think about someone's life and beliefs, it doesn't give you the right to openly mock them in a way designed to make them react.
Remind me.... When was the last time some God Botherers protested at a showing of the Life of Brian with banners threatening to cut people's heads off in the UK ?
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
I don't know, has it ever happened? Life of Brian was not, however, intended to offend. It poked gentle fun at the idea behind religion in general but was never intended to be an inflammatory provocation.

If you expect religious folk to obey the law and be peaceful then you treat them the same way. If you deliberately denigrate their religion in a manner intended to get a violent reaction then you are inciting violence. You can reasonably expect people to behave in a peaceful and law-abiding manner but not when you are provocatively trashing their deeply-held beliefs.

That goes for any religion. There is a big difference between taking the piss or questioning their tenets and acting in a manner knowingly designed to offend and provoke them.
 

Latest Threads

Top