MP quizzed by police over bhurka comments

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
Daily Wail

An MP was investigated by police for inciting racial hatred over controversial comments about the burkha following complaints from a human rights association.



Conservative MP Philip Hollobone said wearing the garment was the religious equivalent of 'going round with a paper bag over your head'.

During a parliamentary debate last month he urged the House of Commons to 'seriously consider' banning the garment.



Now it has emerged police received a complaint about the Kettering MP a few days after his comments from the Northamptonshire Rights and Equality Council (NREC).

Officers rang Mr Hollobone to say a complaint had been made but the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case a few days later as there were no grounds for prosecution.

Debates in Westminster are protected by parliamentary privilege but Mr Hollobone said the complaint could have related to comments made inside or outside the Commons.

He criticised the 'hypocritical and 'patronising' NREC today for championing freedom of speech while attempting to have him prosecuted
Now, apart from the fact that he should rally consider wearing one himself, I'd just like to point out that this is what Parliamentary Privilege is in place to protect - FREEDOM OF SPEECH, most importantly, freedom in the House to speak as one's own conscience dictates, without fear of prosecution.
 
#2
Well put.

I can't help but suspect that the media feel they have to publish everything that is said in commons. Further, if they end up publishing something offensive, they want to blame anyone except themselves.

This wouldn't have been a story if some observer in the house had have thought, "ooh, that's a bit offensive, maybe I shouldn't jot that down."
 
T

trowel

Guest
#3
Biped said:
An MP was investigated by police for inciting racial hatred over controversial comments about the burkha following complaints from a human rights association.



Conservative MP Philip Hollobone said wearing the garment was the religious equivalent of 'going round with a paper bag over your head'.

During a parliamentary debate last month he urged the House of Commons to 'seriously consider' banning the garment.



Now it has emerged police received a complaint about the Kettering MP a few days after his comments from the Northamptonshire Rights and Equality Council (NREC).

Officers rang Mr Hollobone to say a complaint had been made but the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case a few days later as there were no grounds for prosecution.

Debates in Westminster are protected by parliamentary privilege but Mr Hollobone said the complaint could have related to comments made inside or outside the Commons.

He criticised the 'hypocritical and 'patronising' NREC today for championing freedom of speech while attempting to have him prosecuted
Now, apart from the fact that he should rally consider wearing one himself, I'd just like to point out that this is what Parliamentary Privilege is in place to protect - FREEDOM OF SPEECH, most importantly, freedom in the House to speak as one's own conscience dictates, without fear of prosecution.
Sounds like a definite case of wasting plods time. Wonder when the arrests will be made.
 
#4
Freedom of speech-a quaint concept that Labour will ban if re-elected.

You have been warned.
 
#7
Northamptonshire Rights and Equality Council, typical luvvies who think they are more important than the law. Glad they were fcuked off at the high port - in the end. Rather symptomatic of the state things are in though, having to pander to every Tom Dick and Harry. Surely Plod would have heard of Parliamentary privilege and told them from the get go?
 
#8
vvaannmmaann said:
A non story then?
Indeed, though as biped pointed out, this is what Parliamentary Privilege is in place to protect and not protect the thieving, corrupt twats from being prosecuted for their financial scamming of the public purse.
 
T

trowel

Guest
#9
Majorpain said:
Arrests? The Northamptonshire Rights and Equality Council (which i believe was formerly the Northamptonshire Racial Equality Council), is a fine beacon of multicultural Britain. Just look at how representative they are:






You can see their hard work at http://www.wellingboroughrec.org.uk/
I see what you mean Major. I stupidly didn`t grasp that the cream of modern British society were involved. :(
 
#10
Ord_Sgt said:
Northamptonshire Rights and Equality Council, typical luvvies who think they are more important than the law. Glad they were fcuked off at the high port - in the end. Rather symptomatic of the state things are in though, having to pander to every Tom Dick and Harry. Surely Plod would have heard of Parliamentary privilege and told them from the get go?
To be fair I rather suspect that there are not too many Tom, Dick or Harry's working for NREC or similar organisations.
 
#11
Majorpain said:
Arrests? The Northamptonshire Rights and Equality Council (which i believe was formerly the Northamptonshire Racial Equality Council), is a fine beacon of multicultural Britain. Just look at how representative they are:






You can see their hard work at http://www.wellingboroughrec.org.uk/
Cosseted employment of the un-employable at taxpayers expense.

No wonder taxes are high and rising.

Sack the fcuking lot and close whatever quango they are in.
 
#13
Quote,
"Sack the fcuking lot and close whatever quango they are in."


They can't close this and other quangos, they're Liebours core vote.

Sorry "Edited for mongness"
 
#14
I'm surprised nobody in Plod realised the comments were untouchable by them. Or was local plod running a book on how long it would take CPS to twig they couldn't do owt..?
 
#17
StickyEnd said:
I am sick of seeing bhurkhas on the streets. It is an emotional reaction rather than rational. I cannot trust anyone that hides their face.
I see what you are saying StickyEnd, but you may want to redefine part of that that statement :lol:

 
#18
Arte_et_Marte said:
StickyEnd said:
I am sick of seeing bhurkhas on the streets. It is an emotional reaction rather than rational. I cannot trust anyone that hides their face.
I see what you are saying StickyEnd, but you may want to redefine part of that that statement :lol:

Where did you get that photo of me?
 
#19
buttonsin3s said:
vvaannmmaann said:
A non story then?
Indeed, though as biped pointed out, this is what Parliamentary Privilege is in place to protect and not protect the thieving, corrupt twats from being prosecuted for their financial scamming of the public purse.
Yes but the sad thing is that it appears Plods knowlege of this fundumental point is non existent...you'd think that amongst the ranks of the thin blue line/plethora of 10 GCSE/3 A level/2.1 degrees(politics is a popular choice) that abound these days some 'senior fast tracker(5' 1" ethnic minority) would say...no point in even wasting the time for a phone call 'cos' perhaps we have real criminals to catch...but hey..!!.. as we don't even have a 'serjeant at arms' that is able to see off 'knobber of the yard' when he comes calling this story is hardly suprising
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
To be fair to the plod, they only 'quizzed' the bloke, they didn't arrest, caution, search his office or send him of to a Socialist Brothers Reprogramming Community.

As noted, this bloke is saying something many of us agree with, this being that this piece of oppressive religious attire is socially devisive, not only to the wearer, but any they attempt to communicate with who do not share their modus operandi for social engagement. Parliamentary Privilege serves a very useful purpose in this respect in that it protects our democratically elected when they say the otherwise unsayable in parliament. This legal get-out is NOT one to be used for hiding from the law when a criminal act (inciting racial hatred) is done by said Parliamentarians. This get-out only protects them from matters heard in the libel courts.

It leads nicely of course to the next burning issue; the lack of free speech thanks to Labour. If it's good enough for a Parliamentarian to say and not face criminal penalties (they are words is all), then the same get-out should apply to everyone else. The point is: Labour should not have made vocal disagreement with religious practices a potentially criminal offence at all. They have barred us from mocking and questioning dubious moral and social practices, so long as they are described as being religious. That is insane.
 

Latest Threads

Top