Britain First potentially stopped from hosting demo

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
If you discriminate against people who are racist, are you a racistist?

I think I agree with vampireuk. As with any other word, phrase or action, it is the intent that is most important. Sure you can cause offence accidentally, but that is not being racist. You can use all sorts of neutral language and be racist in intent, or you can use traditionally racist language and not use it in a racist context.
 
So you care not for the context a word is used in and simply think its use makes the person a racist then?
 
Care to comment or are you just going to negatively rate anything you don't like.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Bunch of muppets

But I somehow doubt Bedfordshire Plod would apply for an injunction if it was Unite Against Fascism planning a demonstration.

Peaceful protest is a democratic right in this country as far as I remember.
TBF by preventing a Britain First Demo they've also prevented a UAF counter demo, so it's like a two-for-the-price-of-one deal.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Back OT...

On reflection, I think the mouthbreathers should be allowed to march. Assuming the Muslim community don't rise to the bait, the best counter to BF is BF themselves.
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
I agree. The potential problem is that the Muslims also have young idiots looking for a fight. If the larger community can keep those hot-heads under control then the BF march should just run out of steam. They might decide to storm a building or two or smash up an Indian takeaway, but the police can handle that sort of thing.

If the Muslim idiots are allowed to fight the BF idiots, however, then the BF have what they wanted, which is media reports of Muslim aggression against their democratic march. The Daily Mail would have a field day.
 
As loathsome as it is to allow BF/UAF/Andy Choudhary to demonstrate freely, it it utterly, utterly vital that they be allowed to spew their bile without hindrance. Because if true believers are muzzled in their ability to just speak their minds (and 99% of the time come across as utter spackers), and attempt to sway either public or government opinion then they'll feel further and further marginalised. That's when they'll resort to dramatic acts like kidnappings and/or executions like the Front de la Liberation du Quebec did with James Cross and Pierre Vallieres.

Like it or not, dramatic acts tend to focus both public and government attention to the alleged grievance at hand, whereas just allowing choppers to get all shouty and blow off their steam allows said choppers the feeling that they've actually accomplished something.
 
Do you have anything to add beyond demonstrating a command of the "bullshit" button, @vampireuk ?

You're not really saying anything, to be honest. What "argument" do you think I've lost?
 
Vraiment? What about, ta guelle, con? <wink smilie>

I know that the word has more than one meaning, but c*nts certainly is one of them. Naturally, they'd protest that it wasn't the meaning intended.

Of course. Pure coincidence. No derogatory intention at all.
Oh I don't dispute it was intended to offend, I was just pointing out that the insult used was a bit less coarse with a different translation.
 
Do you have anything to add beyond demonstrating a command of the "bullshit" button, @vampireuk ?

You're not really saying anything, to be honest. What "argument" do you think I've lost?
Your inability to explain if you think context is important when it comes to certain words or whether the use of them is racist no matter what. Do keep up.
 
So you care not for the context a word is used in and simply think its use makes the person a racist then?
It does help if you actually address a comment to somebody, rather than just randomly spouting.

Your question is puerile and frankly, not worth a reply.
 
I agree. The potential problem is that the Muslims also have young idiots looking for a fight. If the larger community can keep those hot-heads under control then the BF march should just run out of steam. They might decide to storm a building or two or smash up an Indian takeaway, but the police can handle that sort of thing.

If the Muslim idiots are allowed to fight the BF idiots, however, then the BF have what they wanted, which is media reports of Muslim aggression against their democratic march. The Daily Mail would have a field day.
Is there actually much evidence of Muslim young idiots? I know they have their share of unsavoury clots, but are they as antagonistic as BF - who "patrol" in a Snatch, invade Mosques and generally get in the face of every Muslim they possibly can?
 
I believe it is more the white converts with ginger face pubes who cause issues.
 
May as well add my tuppenceworth. I really don't give a Sh1t about small mobs of protesters of any persuasion but I am saddened that I have to think before I comment on such matters in case someone gets offended.
 
Back OT...

On reflection, I think the mouthbreathers should be allowed to march. Assuming the Muslim community don't rise to the bait, the best counter to BF is BF themselves.

It isn't often you say something I agree with, but this is one of those rare occasions!
 
Islam or a few radical Islamists?
By Islam, we're called Christians for a reason, we believe Jesus Christ was/is the Son of God, hence Christians.

Islam teaches, he was a prophet, on a par with Abraham and, all the other prophets of the Old Testament.

They also teach that, as a Christian I'm a non-believer and, worth less than the camel shit on their slippers.

We (Christians) believe in 'live and let live', they believe in absolutism, the list is endless but, the reason the 'moderates' appear 'reasonable' in this country is because, they are in this country and, have to abide by our laws (most of the time).
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top