Should ‘Britain First’ Now Be Banned ?

[Gromit]

With the conviction of Darren Osbourne, evidence in court shows he was radicalised by visiting the Britain First website over several weeks.
He then went on to kill someone in a terrorist attack, and injury scores of others.

// But the trigger for the attack was far-right internet propaganda he had become obsessed with over just a few weeks. //

// Police said the 48-year-old became radicalised in just three to four weeks, as evidence from devices he used show him reading posts by the former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson, far-right group Britain First and other extremists. //

Surely this shows that Britain First crosses the line from being a genuine protest group, and firmly places them in the position that they encourage terrorism, and indoctrinate gullible fools to commit murder.

Many muslim groups have been proscribed for less. They are on par with Scottish Dawn and should be treated similarly.

[Garaman]

Nobody is claiming you said it was unintelligible, VE, we are just assuring you that it is logically coherent. I now doubt that you know what the phrase means, but then again I recall a similar case where you didn't understand your own phrase.

[Khandro]

Garaman; If you think paragraph 3 of the OP is coherent, you must be on something.

[Garaman]

There is nothing incoherent to me in that paragraph or any other in the OP, Khandro. I am sure there wouldn't be to you and others either if it was talking about a Muslim being radicalised in a mosque and asking whether the mosque should be closed.

[mikey4444]

I have been out all day working, but it seems to me that the there has been a lot of covert support for Osborne, on this thread and the other.

Twas ever thus.

[Baldric]

///and firmly places them in the position that they encourage terrorism, and indoctrinate gullible fools to commit murder///

I can't help but wonder which World Wide Religion gave them that idea?

[Khandro]

Garaman; In para. 3, there are incorrect statements and incoherent assumptions without corroboration and on which the conclusion arrived at in paragraph 4 is based, it just gets worse and worse.

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - // andy-hughes. I didn't for one moment expect that you would follow my link, but I didn't expect even you to dismiss something of which you know nothing at all about, but then I live and learn, and this is AB. //

I have heard 'Tommy Robinson' intereviewed several times, I find it hard to believe that he has found a new way of expressing his paranoic attention-seeking poison, so I am sure you will understand if I pass on the chance to listen to his garbage once again.

[Garaman]

Khandro, Para 3 links a person who has committed an atrocity to radicalisation by a certain group using evidence from his devices. Para 4 says surely this means the group has crossed the line. The OP is asking us if we feel that is enough to warrant banning the group. That would be considered ‘logically cohesive’. It might not be factual, I don't know, but a post doesn’t have to be factual to be logically cohesive.

From what I have read, the programme on abuse seems to have had a big effect on Osbourne's state of mind. Was that the trigger for the atrocity, or did that render him vulnerable to radicalisation?

I've watched a lot of Tommy Robinson interviews. He interviews very well and I often find myself agreeing with what he says. I am not yet convinced that what we see in interviews is what he really stands for, but I hope it is.

[andy-hughes]

Garaman - // I've watched a lot of Tommy Robinson interviews. He interviews very well and I often find myself agreeing with what he says. I am not yet convinced that what we see in interviews is what he really stands for, but I hope it is. //

What I can never get past with 'Tommy Robinson' - which he has in common with absolutely every other self-appointed guardian of the nation's future wellbeing is the colossal arrogance that makes him think he is the person to save us all from a (non-existent) threat which only he and his supporters can see, and the rest of us blunder on in baffled ignorance.

I don't want an 'English Defence League' of self-aggrandising racist boneheads to save me thank you very much.

If I ever do, I'll ask, and until then, I'll thank them to find some other way of wasting their time than shouting and yobbing about the streets, intimidating people whose differences they fear and wish to destroy.

[Zacs-Master]

Well said AH.

[Garaman]

//I don't want an 'English Defence League' of self-aggrandising racist boneheads to save me thank you very much.//

I don’t either, Andy, but it isn’t just about you and me is it? There are a lot of people in the country who do want someone to speak up for their belief that the spread of Islam is a threat to the country.

[fraser]

In answer to the original question should Britain first be banned? No

[Khandro]

andy-hughes; //I have heard 'Tommy Robinson' intereviewed several times....//
I really do not believe this is true, I believe you may have seen one or two, out of context sound bites, shown for nefarious purposes. If I am wrong and you have in fact seen any complete interviews, please say which they were, who was the interviewer, and quote anything he has said which could be construed as to incite either racial hatred or violence.

[mikey4444]

Khandro...not sure which apologist for the Far Right you mean, when it comes to little Tommy Robinson.

Is it Tommy Robinson, or it might be Stephen Christopher Yaxley, or it might be
Andrew McMaster, or maybe Paul Harris, or even someone called Stephen Christopher Lennon ....not sure which alias he is using today.

[-Talbot-]

andy ... How did a none existent threat manage to kill so many people last year?

It may make Answerbankers feel they are superior in moral fibre to anyone who readily recognises there is a threat but ignoring anything Muslim related ... doesn't make that threat go away.

If we start to get 5 or 6 Darren Osbourne's per year trying to kill Muslims, then I will recognise that we have a problem with his like.
Until then I maintain the major problem we have is radical Islamists.

What say you mikey?

[emmie]

talbot
i would say you are spot on.

[Khandro]

//....not sure which alias he is using today. //

Do you really sign your cheques, 'mikey4444' ?

[mikey4444]

No Khandro, of course not, but what has that got to do with some one who has so many aliases ?

I am not sure under which alias he was charged and prosecuted for mortgage fraud in 2012 ? Or under which name he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, in 2003, for convicted for drunken assault of an off-duty police office either ?

[Zacs-Master]

And let’s not forget that Robinson was convicted of assault after head butting one of his own EDL crowd in 2012 / entering the USA illegally in September 2012 using another persons documentation / conviction for ‘Threatening, abusive and insulting behaviour’ in 2010 after chanting “EDL till I die” in a football crowd.

Is this another one of your fruitcake ‘heros’ Khandro?

[THECORBYLOON]

I don't know, you use four or five different names, join a few racist groups, headbutt folk, try to enter a country illegally, commit a wee bit fraud, spend some time in gaol and folk think bad of you. What's the world coming to, eh?