Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s not Uncle Luigi that’s the problem – it’s Don Franco who issues the ”orders”.
Look folks – all this stuff about burning the Pope and so on was a joke …. honestly it really was and I didn’t mean a word of it – not even one word (OK Don Franco???). There’s no need for the boys to pop over from Sicilly for a swift word or two, I’ll put it all right here and now.
So……..
Guy Fawkes, whose glorious life we celebrate today, was entirely right in his actions and was cruelly misunderstood by a Protestant Parliament. He was viciously tortured and summarily executed in flagrant breach of all of his Human Rights. Attempting to blow up the houses of Parliament was entirely justified in the light of the gross discrimination that was shown towards the one true Church of Rome. There can be no excuse for seizing lands and properties of good Catholic citizens whose only ”crime” was to show allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor in preference to the Crown of England.
I now fully realise and understand that Protestantism flies in the face of the teachings of the one true (Roman Catholic) Church and that the Pope is its undisputed head.
(Phewwwww … that ought to do it.)
‘Fraid so ….. and it’s the sound of all the neighbours setting fire to the environment that pisses me off a bit. Thoughtless bstards – don’t they realise that they are dooming mankind to a horrible death as the glaciers melt and drown us all???
Still I suppose that some good comes of all this Guy Fawkes stuff. Little do they know that the effigy on the bonfire is symbolically that of the Pope and they are celebrating the burning of all those Catholic bstards all those years ago. That’ll teach ’em to try and blow up our Protestant Parliament.
Our local BNP spokesperson has gone uncharacteristically quiet methinks.
It is, I suspect, because Emma’s two principal scriptwriters are banged up on remand awaiting their big day at Leeds Crown Court.
Meanwhile, all the neo-Nazi skinheads that voted for the lovely (and bankrupt) Sandra Doncaster are currently unrepresented on their Local Authority. I wonder if they’ll all have a whip round to pay off her debts???
Excellent thread Owen, and most helpful to our users in assisting them to avoid cash point fraud.
An additional word of warning. If your card is retained by a cash machine (perhaps by being trapped by a ‘Lebanese Loop’) whatever you do DO NOT attempt to recover it as the thieves will always be lurking nearby to retrieve it and if they see you messing with their card stealing kit, they will almost always attack you.
Stay near the machine and use your mobile to call the Police (999 Emergency). Tell them that you need ”urgent assistance” and why. Thy will almost always rush to get there to help you.
iT’S NOT UNTIL TOMMORROW DUMBO !!!
Oh dear oh dear – Emms’s not going to like this one little bit. Bet she calls you a Fascist or denounces the ”lies of the anti BNP press”.
(BTW the anti BNP press is ALL the press with the exception of official BNP publicity releases).
See???? Told you. The Hoff cares …. he really really does (as do we all at JustChat) !!!
@emmalush wrote:
@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.
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:
@emmalush wrote:
@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?
Oh Emma – I think that you are making a supreme effort to be thick, and succeeding.
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. In order for the ”BNP Two” to be brought before the Courts they have to be charged with the offence of incitement. In order to be charged they first have to be arrested by Police – and Police powers of arrest extend only to situations where they have ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ that an offence has been committed.
In this case you two mates were grassed up by the BBC.
In any event the CPS has to be satisfied that there is a reasonable chance of securing a conviction before allowing a prosecution to proceed.
So no Emma it doesn’t apply to ”ANYTHING ANYONE says to someone” but it sure as hell does apply to the grossly racist and bigoted mouthings of a pair of cheap sunglass wearing back street thugs.
@emmalush wrote:
@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 ?
As it happens Emma – yes it does make a person guilty. Theissue isn’t whether the audience ”wants” to hear or even if it by and large agrees with what is said. The issue is whether or not a person expresses views which might incite others to commit criminal acts.
Words of ‘dislike’ are not necessarily an offence. ”I hate Joe Bloggs and his wife Mary Bloggs” would not lead to a criminal procecution whereas ”I hate Joe Bloggs and his wife Mary Bloggs because they are Muslims and we should all rise up against them and ….etc etc” would undoubtedly lead to an appearance in the Leeds Crown Court.
Also please try to distinguish between the criminal offence of ”inciting” as opposed to the criminal offence of actually carrying out the act that you were incited to do. It is enough to show that a person was actively encouraging others to commit a criminal act, to prove the offence of incitement – whether those incited subsequently went on to break the law, or not as the case may be.
