Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@forumhostpb wrote:
The issue is whether or not a person expresses views which might incite others to commit criminal acts.
So what your saying is, that ANYTHING ANYONE says to someone “MIGHT” incite others to commit a criminal act. Does that make what EVERYONE says worthy of a seven year jail sentence?
@Ow£n Ka$h wrote:
@emmalush wrote:
Why has new labour allowed such a disaster, especially when you think back to 1997, education, education, education, was that just a smoke screen for tax, tax, tax.
New Labour haven’t allowed such a disaster. Blinkered people in our society like yourself have allowed such a disaster.
How the hell is it partly my fault that the UK’s youth are the worst in europe?
:roll:
@bob2go wrote:
So, if the BBC had taped a conversation between two muslim leaders talking about inciting muslims to rise up and start bombing people and they passed this to the police, you would be standing on the courtroom steps with placards campaigning for the case to be dropped and the BBC to be charged with incitement to cause racial hatred?
You are missing the point. What Nick said to those who wanted to hear what he had to say, did in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM cause hatred, he is INNOCENT, the crown prosecution know this, new labour know this, and so do every right minded individual on planet earth.
By charging them with an “offence”, is new labours bizare way of trying to put them down, because they hate them, and because they wana stifle YOUR right to speak.
I’ll ask you again, if you spoke words of dislike about someone or something, to an audience of people who did not create hatred from those words, does that make you guilty of incitement to racial hatred?
@bob2go wrote:
This trial IS specifically about ‘Nick and Mark’ (Dumb and Dumber?). Who else has been charged? I think you’ll find that it’s a criminal charge they face and not a civil ‘class action suit’ so it is nothing to do with rights of Freedom of Speech.
So your quite happy never to give your personal opinion about something you dont agree with, and if the government know of it, you can go to jail for seven years?Were you there? Have you seen the prosecution case? Are you on the jury?
Has anyone caused racial hatred due to words spoken by Nick or Mark?The BBC are to applauded for uncovering these scum and passing the footage to the police.
You mean encouraging incitement to racial hatred :wink:I can name 2 people, 3 if we include you.
You dont have proof you idiot.Do you understand some of the obsurdity of this trial now? If we can’t understand the reasoning behind any of your other thousands of posts why should we understand this one? Is this the new BNP website?
Its a website that adores freedom of speech, the owner(s) should be congratulated for allowing you the chance.
[/quote]@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
I think parents need to take more responsibility over their kids behaviour and those that can’t handle their kids should be given support.
What kind of support?
It would also help to have more police on the streets or at least PCSOs or wardens or some kind of visible deterrent.
More police yes, but new labour have taken them of catching non monetry crims in favour for car crimes such as no tax or insurance. Are you going to write a letter to blair and ask him to change his mind :D
There are too many feral teenagers causing havoc in our communities.
If only the kind of people in power you support generally would do what you want…
I think there should be a photo database of every resident within a borough held by the local council. That way, if cctv picks up an incident, or if someone witnesses/is a victim of a crime, then the database can be searched and a suspect can be found.
Why should those non victims or perpretrators of crime have one, surely it should be voluntary, not forced in a dictatorship manner.
We definately need you monitory you incase you commit a crime :wink:
Im sure your looking for an argument of blame here, but where and to whom did he say this?
@PB wrote:
What do you think about it? Is it a necessary weapon in the fight against crime or an attack on your personal liberty?????.
It will only fight crime of those listed who commit offence. If one of them never commits a crime, no need holding it, its a case of presuming guilty whilst innocent, dictatorship police state.
Sadly, like poster Bat, theres too many people not clever enough to stop the old gang party doing this and controlling us big time one day? Might not seem like much now, but it grows steadily, and gets more and more to a tipping point whereby the populous cant fight back.
@bat wrote:
I think it,s a brilliant idea. If you,ve got nothing to hide then why not? I,d have no problems atall with the police having my dna on record or my fingerprints.
If you have nothing to hide, then no one need know your personal data.
@Ow£n Ka$h wrote:
Story here.[/b]
I agree there is a problem, but i’d like to know what makes the BBC think the female in the report is under 20?
Why has new labour allowed such a disaster, especially when you think back to 1997, education, education, education, was that just a smoke screen for tax, tax, tax.
Should we do a cameron and hug a hoodie?
What happened to the days when family values MEANT something, when kids were more loyal to their peers?
You could leave your milk money on your doorstep, leave your door open whilst you nipped down to tut shop, not anymore.
We dont even have a police force anymore, its a police service designed to take money of us.
Who’s going to look after us when were old?
Ahh the green man, are you a pagan mr bigastuff?
@forumhostpb wrote:
Well Emma, as you must know I wasn’t there personally so I can’t directly answer your question. However, at their forthcoming trial no doubt evidence will be put before the Court as to what was said and how it broke the law on incitement.
I expect that those who really care about these two will rush up there to listen to the evidence. As for me – I have a subsequent engagement.
This trial is not specifically about Nick and Mark, but about whether you can punish someone for saying something that constitutes “incitement to racial hatred”, exactly what that is, only the crown prosecution and new labour know, when will we find out, we dont know yet.
NOT ONE SINGLE individual present in that meeting caused racial hatred through Nick’s words. Therefore it cannot be proven he did wrong.
What could be proven, is the BBC caused racial hatred by showing the documentary, therefore the BBC editor who gave permission to broadcast it would be up for seven years.
Indeed, no one has caused any hatred through this whole saga that we know of.
Do you understand some of the obsurdity of this trial now?
