Nick Griffin off the hook

#1
Oh well, look at it this way though, we wont be bashing our system for being too PC in this case :lol: !
 
#3
whiffler said:
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)
 
#5
Rebel_Without_A_Clue said:
Whiffler wrote:

I think they've done well to get off everything. Hopefully they'll be careful about what they say next

Those remarks illustrate the sinister nature of the PC argument. You now have to be careful about telling the truth.
Oh Jaysus not another one.

I really can't be bothered to do this all again.
 
#6
... charges of using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred and two alternative charges of using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred.
Cynicism on:

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?
 
#7
On the basis of this decision, I can asume that the same charges aagianst Abu Hamza will result in a not guilty verdict :?: :twisted:
 
#8
stoatman said:
... charges of using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred and two alternative charges of using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred.
Cynicism on:

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?
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.
 
#9
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.
 
#10
Steven said:
stoatman said:
... charges of using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred and two alternative charges of using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred.
Cynicism on:

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?
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.
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...
 
#11
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? :lol: 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 :roll: .

<- Is not a fan of the BNP.
 
#12
stoatman said:
Jailorinummqasr -- assuming you're not being sarcastic, comparing contrast what Nick Griffin says to what Abu Hamza says...
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
 
#14
midnight said:
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?
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#15
Jailorinummqasr said:
On the basis of this decision, I can asume that the same charges aagianst Abu Hamza will result in a not guilty verdict :?: :twisted:
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.....
 
#16
All it needed was two BNP sympathisers on the jury to prevent a conviction. Normally 10-2 is allowed, but one juror was ill, so 10-1 was required. 4 counts not guilty, on the rest the jury did not return a verdict.
 
#17


Eurgh, ugly in mindset, ugly by nature. What a big joke. Looking at them who can't believe there is a gram's worth of commonsense in the lot of them. Agreed LB, but I hope this isn't the end of what could have been a way of shafting them proper.

ITV News just reported that Griffin and Collett are celebrating their win..... at the local curry house :D Coat's on.
 
#18
Better them than nobody, eh?
Best get a note off to all those Tory , LibDem and Labour MP's that defeated the Government's latest rubbish that they are 'nobody' then.
 
#19
How far-reaching is the law in cases like this?

It was a door-locked private meeting, supposedly between 'friends'. Can the law now dictate what we say in private?
 
#20
Awol said:
How far-reaching is the law in cases like this?

It was a door-locked private meeting, supposedly between 'friends'. Can the law now dictate what we say in private?
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/about/race-relations/

Defining racist incidents
All forces have now adopted the proposed definition of a racist incident, which is: ‘a racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’.
My bold

So if any person, whether present or not at your conversation in private, thinks that your conversation is a racist incident, then it is. Thank you, MacPherson.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top