Is There A Pro England Rally Today
News1 min ago
Why Should We Keep Him In Our Country?
56 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
VE,
When mad men like Mair and Osborne commit murder, part of the process of understanding their motives is to look at material that may have influenced them. No different from Islamic hate preachers who influence other mad men to commit terrorist acts.
Britain First was accessed by both murderers shortly before their crimes. Though that is not guilt by association, they do have blood on their hands.
When mad men like Mair and Osborne commit murder, part of the process of understanding their motives is to look at material that may have influenced them. No different from Islamic hate preachers who influence other mad men to commit terrorist acts.
Britain First was accessed by both murderers shortly before their crimes. Though that is not guilt by association, they do have blood on their hands.
"When mad men like Mair and Osborne commit murder, part of the process of understanding their motives is to look at material that may have influenced them" (stress added).
Agree with that bit, Gromit. But not with this bit: "though that is not guilt by association, they do have blood on their hands". How is that supposed to work as a piece of logic?
But let's take your principle - "understand motives and influences" - in the case of Osborne, and take it one step further than the wise and the just thought necessary tb the time.
For days every, like every reference to Osborne by BBC, Sky etc. mentioned without fail that he'd subscribed to, liked, or got an automated message from the BF and the Tommy Robinson websites. Exactly these same "far-right influences" were mentioned constantly during Osborne' trial. I'm not wrong about this, am I? Anybody miss that?
Now let's take another fact which some might think at least equally relevant when exploring motivation. It was mentioned, but strangely didn't attract nearly the same interest as the "far-right" hypothesis. It was the testimony of his wife that her husband had become extremely angry after seeing the BBC program "Three Girls" about the gang rapes in Rochdale and their cover-up by the police and social services.
It's quite easy for some people, especially those with little self-control (Osborne was unemployed and an alcoholic, wasn't he?) to get very angry about certain types of crime, as I'm sure you'll agree.
So maybe the BBC program was a bigger contributor to the mosque murder than either BF or Robinson. Maybe the BBC, too, has got "blood on its hands".
PS: Tell you what, won't see any more programs like "Three Girls" on the Beeb, will we?
Agree with that bit, Gromit. But not with this bit: "though that is not guilt by association, they do have blood on their hands". How is that supposed to work as a piece of logic?
But let's take your principle - "understand motives and influences" - in the case of Osborne, and take it one step further than the wise and the just thought necessary tb the time.
For days every, like every reference to Osborne by BBC, Sky etc. mentioned without fail that he'd subscribed to, liked, or got an automated message from the BF and the Tommy Robinson websites. Exactly these same "far-right influences" were mentioned constantly during Osborne' trial. I'm not wrong about this, am I? Anybody miss that?
Now let's take another fact which some might think at least equally relevant when exploring motivation. It was mentioned, but strangely didn't attract nearly the same interest as the "far-right" hypothesis. It was the testimony of his wife that her husband had become extremely angry after seeing the BBC program "Three Girls" about the gang rapes in Rochdale and their cover-up by the police and social services.
It's quite easy for some people, especially those with little self-control (Osborne was unemployed and an alcoholic, wasn't he?) to get very angry about certain types of crime, as I'm sure you'll agree.
So maybe the BBC program was a bigger contributor to the mosque murder than either BF or Robinson. Maybe the BBC, too, has got "blood on its hands".
PS: Tell you what, won't see any more programs like "Three Girls" on the Beeb, will we?
The BBC Programme was a dramatisation of real events, and was based on truth. If Osborne was seeking retribution for that, he would have driven to Rochdale not Finsbury Park. Britain First and Robinson preach anti muslim, so anyone from that faith, whether innocent or guilty are their targets. And dimwits like Mair and Obsborne take their message to a vilent extreme.
From their (BF) web site - so the official line.
Britain First rejects racial hatred in all its forms.
British ethnic minorities regularly attend our events and activities.
Britain First opposes Islamic extremism and mass immigration because they are a danger to the British people.
Britons from all backgrounds are welcome to join our struggle to put British people first.
I can't agree with them but their target is not all Muslims.
Britain First rejects racial hatred in all its forms.
British ethnic minorities regularly attend our events and activities.
Britain First opposes Islamic extremism and mass immigration because they are a danger to the British people.
Britons from all backgrounds are welcome to join our struggle to put British people first.
I can't agree with them but their target is not all Muslims.
Ymb,
Contrast the fluffy comments on the Britain First website, with the comments of the Judge who sent Golding and Fransen down.
Judge Justin Barron said their words and actions “demonstrated hostility” towards Muslims and Islam, and prosecutors warned that Fransen and Golding could have caused the case to collapse.
“I have no doubt it was their joint intention to use the facts of the case for their own political ends,” the judge said.
// “It was a campaign to draw attention to the race, religion and immigrant background of the defendants.” //
// Kent Police recorded at least three days of abuse. One saw Golding film Fransen attempting to enter a fast food restaurant near where the defendants had gang raped a 16-year-old girl and shouting abuse at the people inside.
But the man, a woman and two teenage girls targeted were not involved in the trial and had not committed any criminal offences. //
Jusge them by their actions not their woolly statements.
Contrast the fluffy comments on the Britain First website, with the comments of the Judge who sent Golding and Fransen down.
Judge Justin Barron said their words and actions “demonstrated hostility” towards Muslims and Islam, and prosecutors warned that Fransen and Golding could have caused the case to collapse.
“I have no doubt it was their joint intention to use the facts of the case for their own political ends,” the judge said.
// “It was a campaign to draw attention to the race, religion and immigrant background of the defendants.” //
// Kent Police recorded at least three days of abuse. One saw Golding film Fransen attempting to enter a fast food restaurant near where the defendants had gang raped a 16-year-old girl and shouting abuse at the people inside.
But the man, a woman and two teenage girls targeted were not involved in the trial and had not committed any criminal offences. //
Jusge them by their actions not their woolly statements.
//Judge Justin Barron said their words and actions “demonstrated hostility” towards Muslims and Islam//
Justin other wigged fool, then. Hostility to Islam is illegal now, is it? At worst that's only a "thought crime", isn't it? In fact hostility to Islam is just as defensible both morally and intellectually as hostility to White Supremacism (a version of hate crime exhibited and approved by many on this site).
I would argue more justified on account of Islam's being the greater danger.
Justin other wigged fool, then. Hostility to Islam is illegal now, is it? At worst that's only a "thought crime", isn't it? In fact hostility to Islam is just as defensible both morally and intellectually as hostility to White Supremacism (a version of hate crime exhibited and approved by many on this site).
I would argue more justified on account of Islam's being the greater danger.
Gromit: I notice you are ignoring the...
// Kent Police recorded at least three days of abuse. //
Ignoring nothing of the sort, Gromit. In fact didn't even mention it. Objecting to the judge's ignorant defence of an intolerant ideology.
I disapprove of the abuse and do not quarrel with the sentence.
// Kent Police recorded at least three days of abuse. //
Ignoring nothing of the sort, Gromit. In fact didn't even mention it. Objecting to the judge's ignorant defence of an intolerant ideology.
I disapprove of the abuse and do not quarrel with the sentence.
//Islam is equal in law//
This is ridiculous nonsense.
People[i are equal under law. In the particular case that means Muslims. As a libertarian and a conservative I subscribe completely to that principle.
But Islam? Islam is as worthy of respect as Mormonism or Scientology. Or Stalinism or Nazism.
Its numerous absurdities identify it strongly, if not importantly, with the former two. Its moral enormities, especially [i]and] importantly with the latter pair.
This is ridiculous nonsense.
People[i are equal under law. In the particular case that means Muslims. As a libertarian and a conservative I subscribe completely to that principle.
But Islam? Islam is as worthy of respect as Mormonism or Scientology. Or Stalinism or Nazism.
Its numerous absurdities identify it strongly, if not importantly, with the former two. Its moral enormities, especially [i]and] importantly with the latter pair.
// I wonder what he'd need to do to commit an extraditable offence? Try harder?//
easy - glad you asked that one
it has to be a crime on both sides of the atlantic ( two parties in the extradition agreement )
and it is not just the title ( 'theft or larceny or whatever' ) but the substantive offence
so - "being very bad" is not enough
nor is - "member of AL qaeda - I'm sure of that !"
so fr'instance Puigdemont ( I know you are itching to quip - who de den? as only a deep thinker would) is gonna be extradited on the grounds of misuse of public funds ( crime in both Spain and Germany) and NOT fomenting rebellion as that is not a crime in Germany
simples kinda
easy - glad you asked that one
it has to be a crime on both sides of the atlantic ( two parties in the extradition agreement )
and it is not just the title ( 'theft or larceny or whatever' ) but the substantive offence
so - "being very bad" is not enough
nor is - "member of AL qaeda - I'm sure of that !"
so fr'instance Puigdemont ( I know you are itching to quip - who de den? as only a deep thinker would) is gonna be extradited on the grounds of misuse of public funds ( crime in both Spain and Germany) and NOT fomenting rebellion as that is not a crime in Germany
simples kinda
