Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by welshblokemiles, Feb 2, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Oh well, look at it this way though, we wont be bashing our system for being too PC in this case !
and the BBC link to explain.
I think they've done well to get off everything. Hopefully they'll be careful about what they say next.
Um why should they? They were found not guilty of any wrong doing. (sort of)
RWAC, they were on trail for race hate not purgery!
Oh Jaysus not another one.
I really can't be bothered to do this all again.
Isn't incitement to racial hatred not yet an offence? And it definitely wasn't back in 2004.
Were they then tried for a crime which does not exist?
On the basis of this decision, I can asume that the same charges aagianst Abu Hamza will result in a not guilty verdict
Incitement to Racial hatred has been a crime in the UK for 30 odd years.
You have confused this with the religious hatred law which failed to get on the books as yet.
To expand slightly ....... I think they could have been found guilty, but suspect that those bringing the case took the jury for idiots and assumed guilty verdicts on badly thought through argument.
The defendants and other BNP bods shouldn't assume they have a right to say absolutely anything, and get into/kick off more trouble.
Being on the extremist end of radical-moderatism, I hope all involved reflect on what they have one through. Griffin got a wake up call, and DPP got a kicking on PC-itis.
Good point. Please forgive me my stupidity.
Jailorinummqasr -- assuming you're not being sarcastic, comparing contrast what Nick Griffin says to what Abu Hamza says...
Actually, they aren't "off the hook" just yet, excuse me jumping to conclusions, but it does look likely.
When you talk about the truth, lets be honest, the truth is relative. You can twist it to an extraordinary degree!
When I asked a kid to leave the store when I was duty manager, I laughed and called him a loser, to which I recieved a torrent of abuse. When my boss proceeded with police action, he told me to not mention calling him a loser, and to deny that I provocated him in any way. Why? Because calling him a loser, in his opinion, was a fact, not a slur. Why should that be provocation? The lad now has a criminal record for 2 years for the anti social disturbance.
A bit uncomfortable for me to be honest, but there we go.
So, in regards to the BNP, they do exactly that - tell it like it is, in their opinion. The "truth" no less .
<- Is not a fan of the BNP.
50:50 There were two days in a row when the defence teams in these cases were using virtually identical arguements to defend their respective clients. I only link Hamaz and Griffin w.r.t to charges on 'race hate'. The other charges hamza face do not map across....
Thinking about from a legal perspective and being an arrse piont picker, I am not sure Jews are considered a distinct racial group therefore I'm confused about hamza being on charges of racial rather than religous hatred. Just a thought?1
Having the BNP in court to protect my right of free speech,sickening,jail the lot of them for simply being members.
Better them than nobody, eh?
I do hope not....you and I have been subsidizing the Egyptian con artist since he landed - disability allowance from the DSS plus various other benefits for his extensive personal entourage.... .... I was rather hoping our limp-wristed Gubmint had a plane ticket with his name on it.....
Separate names with a comma.