Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It is a fair point that the courts get it wrong. Some people have been released ten, fifteen years after they’ve served their time, and it would be tragic if they recieved the death sentence, but im not advocating they die, im saying those like huntley and the evil fuk who got 40 years, we know beyond a shadow of any doubt they are guilty should die.
The ONLY way mark and nick could be found guilty is if the CPS and new labour sting things. There is a law against inciting racial hatred, it means that if theres evidence that it was caused, then the law was broken, which they didn’t do, so its impossible they will be sentenced, even you know that. Its just a stunt to dent the BNP’s image, but it has backfired, the BNP has grown with the publicity.
My othapedic NHS manager friend who is a liberal, says we should bring back the “matron”, WISHES we locked up criminals more, she believes we should train the unemployed before allowing a foreigner to do the jobs first, thats exactly what the BNP want. You see, it just goes to show you the pathetic myth that the BNP are hidiously “far right extremist thugs in suits”, liberals agree with some of their policy.
Have you read the BNP manifesto? Someone go there and read some of it, then come back and tell us what you think?
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
So the source of your 68% is an unknown radio presenter on some sports radio station.
Something like 5 to 6 million people tune in, very unknown…
If you think he works for the world’s best selling newspaper you’re probably wrong considering the population of the UK. It just shows how wrong your statistics are.
He said his newspaper is the most sold on earth.
Most of our exports go to Europe, we benefit from EU legislation such as the minimum wage and maximum working time directive
Why do we have to give the eu £39 million everyday to have that?
the UK benefits from collective political strength by being part of the EU.
Who is better capable of spending your money, you or someone else? Meaning, wouldn’t it be better to spend our collective £39 million that we pay every single individual working day that we live and breathe via taxes on us rather than paying expensive suits to do so in 5 star accomodation, travel and wages?
If we need a prison, and we do, shouldn’t we decide to build one with the daily cost of say £39 million to do so?
1 in 3 Hospitals are set to close (again political anylysts and other hospital workers in high places on talksport, and my good friend who’s an orthapedic manager in a midlands hospital), again, wouldn’t it be better if we used some of that £39 million that we pay every single individual working day that we live and breathe via taxes to save those hospitals and peoples jobs?Some of us are still proud to be English, how dare those marxists allow a foreign multi-national flag to fly over our land.
When push comes to shove, i’ll be the one pushing you off the white cliffs of Dover.
Can anyone tell me what use either of this evil pair are to us in our society?
Huntley wont be ever able to get a job, because no one would trust him, no one would want such evil working with them, bad for business, so he’ll get a “new life”, changed appearence, which will cost us more of OUR money, that should be spent on US.
The evil terrorist will have to leave the country, and so for the next 40 years, he will cost us atleast £36,000 a year.
So why dont we just kill execute them, im sick and tired of going to work and paying for their lodgings.
Im telling ya, people are getting fed up of this namby pamby bleeding heart liberal approach. If voting someone else doesnt work, they’ll take to the streets, or it will get so bad, people wont wana walk the streets, a closed society, which would suit this government.
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
So, his “hypocrisy” is to oppose the death sentence in Britain and in Iraq? Where did you get the 68% from? You probably don’t realize but you can’t be part of the EU if you have the death penalty. It’s foolish to support the death penalty.
The hypocrisy is blair wanting the kind of government in iraq that wants sadam executioned yet he dont agree with executioning here, that he’s willing to send our people to be executioned fighting his war.
Jon gaunt on talksport said 68%. Im not a fan, but he does have a largely supported radio show, a colum in the most sold paper in the world apperently, and hes reguly on tv talk shows, set to do question time soon, and present a night time political show on sky news, he must know his stuff.
WE GET OUT OF THE EU, AND LEAVE YOU THERE. Then you and your left wing fantasists can fund them to the tune of £39 million PER DAY running your knuckles to the bone bleeding.
@slayer wrote:
I LISTENED to the whole interview and whilst I am no supported of Blair, he was quite categoric in what he said and the stance of the government- the reported was a complete pr/at who continually harped on with a question because Blair wouldn’t actually use the word “yes”
Why are you looking for a cheap argument?
Did blair say he agreed with sadam being executioned? NO.
The reporter asked him a question, and blair started crying, looking for cheries hand to hold and wishing his mommy was there to wipe his nose.
WHY? Because new labour dont agree with that part of the democraticly elected “government” they have in Iraq, and he knows full well if he did and say so, he would have to allow it here because 68% of us want it too.
His sentence was too light, he should be shot, but he got a worse sentence than that evil fuk who murdered the soham girls :roll:
Me thinks he got 40 years to gain votes for bush, cynical? ner, a realist. Him and sadam get sentenced just days before the election…
Its easy peasy fooling the general public.
@forumhostpb wrote:
Well Emma it all depends on the ‘Twelve good men and true’ doesn’t it? If the jury believes the evidence put before them and returns a ”Guilty” verdict, then your two mates are in for several years of forced sodomy eh??? :lol:
This is my point, those present at the meeting didnt cause racial unrest of any discription, so they are innocent unless new labour and the crown prosection sting things.
I want to know why the bbc isnt in court for incitement to racial hatred by publishing something that may have caused racial hatred.
Smacks of a one sided law system to me.
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
If parents can’t cope with their kids then there should be specialist help organisations they can easily turn to to give them counselling.
What kind of help? Who decides how to be a parent?
The town hall already has your details so why not add a photo for every resident. I think it would help because it would facilitate the identification process for people involved in loutish or criminal behaviour in public. Instead of putting photos in newspapers or making e-fits you could just search the council database for a matching face. Then you could question the person and try to establish if it really was him/her.
But should those who dont commit crime be allowed to keep their details private if they wish?
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
@emmalush wrote:
Im sure your looking for an argument of blame here, but where and to whom did he say this?
It was part of the secret recording.
Not quite, that was a bbc new labour searchlight thing.
Where and to whom did he say this?
@forumhostpb wrote:
Whether or not a person is guilty of an offence in law (on incitement) is up to the Courts to decide, after hearing any evidence.
So the question still needs an answer, did they cause racial unrest? As it cannot be proven (because it didnt happen), then they are innocent.
In this case you two mates were grassed up by the BBC.
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT, what was said to the audience at the meeting, is different criminally to what the bbc published, in terms of punishment.
