Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Your spelling is better Emma, when you copy & paste from BNP propaganda material.
Oh ho ho ho – I’ve just spotted this on a Reuters news flash
@Reuters Press wrote:
“……… Griffin, from mid-Wales, is charged with using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred.
Collett, from Leicestershire, faces four similar charges.
Griffin, a Cambridge University graduate, and Collett were charged in April 2005 after the BBC screened a secretly filmed documentary “The Secret Agent” in 2004. The programme showed the pair giving anti-Muslim speeches to activists.
Oh no – they were actually filmed stirring up hatred against Muslims. Dear oh dear that will never do.
I wonder how they will talk their way out of this one???
:lol:
@bunny_boiler wrote:
anyone got a big pot for bunnies?
I’m with you on this provided that you include both cats and foxes in your boiling pot.
@emmalush wrote:
Well they were taken to court, but tell me oh mighty one, do take part in this question, dont hide, what incitement did Nick or Mark create????
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.
Interesting. It appears that a number of these ”matches” are from people who have had their DNA sample taken (and which has subsequently been matched against forensic crime scene samples) where they have NEVER been convicted of a criminal offence.
In other words they were either lucky enough, clever enough, not to be caught by ”conventional” means.
If samples are only taken from convicted criminals, then there is perhaps the possibility that an unconvicted criminal will go on getting away with their criminality.
Would this justify the taking and holding of samples as at present or should the practice cease on the grounds of restricting a person’s privacy?
For information Mr B I believe that DNA ”matches” are in the order of millions :1 and in some cases billions :1 and not mere thousands :1.
If a so-called ”match” is only in the order of thousands :1 then it is discarded as not being close enough unless there is other really compelling evidence in support.
In essence therefore, if a DNA ”match” shows that the person ”did it” – i.e. their unique genetic fingerprint has been matched to say a semen sample taken from a rape victim – then they have no convincing way to deny having done it.
Alternatively……. imagine if you will that a person could openly stir up hatred based on their opinions of ethnicity or religion (in private OR in public) especially in a group that shared their views, and that no action was taken against them for this.
What kind of message would THAT be sending to our fellow UK citizens???
It is a very short step indeed between this and the holding of public meetings to incite recial hatred and thereby contributing to our society being undermined.
Typical Media. They didn’t mention that it was pouring with rain at the time and the driver couldn’t see an effing thing without the windscreen wipers working.
Pity that they couldn’t have been fixed though.
