Met Constable arrested for terrorism offences

Again, see my wider point.

We've seen a ballet dancer boycotted because she expressed right-wing views. There have been recent articles which have talked about how mentioning in theatrical circles that you're a Conservative is career-limiting. Look at the abuse the Lawrence Fox has endured for, frankly, saying what a majority of people think.

I'm not condoning right-wing extremism. I am though making a point that it all seems a little unbalanced.
You're doing a bit of finest "whataboutery" which is distracting from the reality, until they discover someone who is a member of a proscribed left/far left org, you can't judge the balance.
 
Last edited:

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
There was a PC in a Northern Force who was a BNP member. It never affected his work and nobody knew about it, but he was outed when 'Dope not Hope' or one of those Leftie groups hacked into the BNP's membership base, and he was sacked.

There was a bus driver in Sheffield or somewhere who was also sacked for BNP membership. He take his case to the ECHR and won due to the fact it interfered with right to free association as the BNP was a legal party.

I always wondered how that worked out. Does police policy override the ECHR. Hmm, I wonder.
Was the bus company a private company, I would presume so in this case.

The Race Relations Act Amendment 2000 extended the remit of the 1976 Act to all public authorities including the Police.

Now the Officer you cite as an example above would have been allowed to join the Police pre 2000, he would not be post 2000 and if he did he would have had to lie on his application, as it does ask if you are or have been a member of the BNP. So not just membership beinhlg an issue, but lying about it too. A willingness to distort the truth is not what is publicly acceptable in an organisation which us supposed to uphold the law.

Not sure what happened to coppers who were BNP members prior to the 2000 Amendment when it came in though.

 
If National Action are so dangerous and so prevalent, why haven’t it’s members simply rebranded as something else entirely that isn’t proscribed? The answer is that they are a non-entity who are only mentioned in the media to further demonise the entire right wing of British politics.

Without the occasional deployment of a terrifying bogeyman there is a danger that those with conservative leanings might be revealed as the caring, decent people they usually are.

And obviously, we can’t have that.
Who said it was so prevalent?

Not sure of your point, do you believe he should have stayed?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
You're still doing it. Why? You're better than that.
Okay, a less flippant answer:

Because the vehemence of some of the Hard Left organisations which are still allowed to be in the mainstream is every bit as bad as some of the proscribed organisations on the Hard Right.

See my example above: the Shadow Chancellor advocating violence against political opponents.

What's the difference?

I'll save you the time: none.
 
Was the bus company a private company, I would presume so in this case.

The Race Relations Act Amendment 2000 extended the remit of the 1976 Act to all public authorities including the Police.

Now the Officer you cite as an example above would have been allowed to join the Police pre 2000, he would not be post 2000 and if he did he would have had to lie on his application, as it does ask if you are or have been a member of the BNP. So not just membership beinhlg an issue, but lying about it too. A willingness to distort the truth is not what is publicly acceptable in an organisation which us supposed to uphold the law.

Not sure what happened to coppers who were BNP members prior to the 2000 Amendment when it came in though.

Yes but European law is higher than national law, so the the ECHR which Blair introduced into national law in 1998 would trump the 1976 Act.
 
Okay, a less flippant answer:

Because the vehemence of some of the Hard Left organisations which are still allowed to be in the mainstream is every bit as bad as some of the proscribed organisations on the Hard Right.

See my example above: the Shadow Chancellor advocating violence against political opponents.

What's the difference?

I'll save you the time: none.
Thing is, "direct action" wasn't an incitement for violence or terrorism was it? It was about protesting, As long as they keep within the law it's OK.

John McDonnell says he supports using non-violent direct action

That'll be the difference eh?

Just for clarity here, as much as I think Farage is a **** of gigantic proportions, I think he should be allowed to have Sunday lunch without being harassed, as I said on here previously.
 
It does seem this Constable has been naughty.

As commented above, I am confused with the one indecent image. At a minimum, I would imagine in the region of the low thousands due to the way evidence is collected.

Any ideas?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Thing is, "direct action" wasn't an incitement for violence or terrorism was it? It was about protesting, As long as they keep within the law it's OK.

John McDonnell says he supports using non-violent direct action

That'll be the difference eh?

Just for clarity here, as much as I think Farage is a **** of gigantic proportions, I think he should be allowed to have Sunday lunch without being harassed, as I said on here previously.
Ah, ok. Uncle John says he meant non-violent direct action protest.

Well, ok then. Because I believe what cuddly sweater-wearing Uncle John says when he doesn't know he's being filmed.
 
Uncle John is a doctrinaire fantasist who would be shocked to his core if he saw real violence whilst at the same time promoting it. Met many like him and have no time at all for them.
 

Awol

LE
Ah, ok. Uncle John says he meant non-violent direct action protest.

Well, ok then. Because I believe what cuddly sweater-wearing Uncle John says when he doesn't know he's being filmed.
Let’s not forget that he is an ardent admirer of IRA ‘bravery’ and they weren’t exactly renowned for their ‘non-violent’ approach to politics.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top