The Grauniad versus Le Pen

[Russethouse]

[quote user="le bouffon"]One may be wrong here but hypothetically speaking it is not against forum rules to re-apply for membership whatever the circumstance but to mislead is,therefore do not hold your breath.Dicky you may prefere to walk around in your underpants but I think it`s a bit cold![/quote]

Make no mistake, a banned person may re-register however I'm afraid they rarely retain the respect of the other forum members and Admin is liable to ban them without further warning should they infringe the rules again.

Mod hat off.

Mr Griffiths was found innocent this time, but why I do not know, the snippets of the film I saw of him made my blood boil.

When this man has lit the blue touch paper no doubt he will retire to some safe 'bunker' somewhere leaving innocent bystanders to pay the price, lets hope its not my child, or yours Bouffon, who are caught up in this. Please do not think it will not affect you as you live in France, I'm pretty sure these organisations are international and  I doubt if France will escape !

[Tresco]

Mr Griffiths was found innocent this time, but why I do not know, the snippets of the film I saw of him made my blood boil.

Nick Griffin is an egotistic, self aggrandising fool.

Makes my blood boil too.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, which isn't over yet:

I do believe in free speech; I'm lucky, and I have said this before here, because at present, the law of the UK protects/prevents me, to some extent from hearing things, to put it simply, that are  (to me) just plain outrageously offensive, wrong, twisted, perverse etc. I don't want to hear it, I think it is wrong, all this white supremacist shit, and appaerently, at the moment (wrongly I feel) the law is on my side.

The fact that at present the law affords me some protection from their words, is little comfort, because I expose myself to their worst every day . The worst group I can access in the UK isn't the BNP, but as they are  'a legitimate political party' let's give them a mention.

The BNP forum is only for BNP members, you cannot speak or ask questions or argue otherwise. You cannot join in the 'free speech' debate unless you are a fully accredited member. To me that means that BNP members are only encouraged to engage in conversation with, erm, other BNP members. So much for 'free 'speech.

If you write an email to them, believe me, it will not be published on their, 'contact us' page, unless it's content agrees totally with their aims, or, there is a chance in a million, if you say something like 'i'm black, lesbian,  arab, a jew, gay... and I have concerns in common with you, they might let you in, for a laugh.

In which case, your 'letter' will have a little rider saying something like 'we know this is controversial, but we are the party of free speech'.

Oh dear, yes, it's controversial,  because you, if you are of descent other than , errm, 'british (and what would that be, celt, anglo, saxon, norman, roman, dane), ....  you will not be represented by any BNP member elected; no, either, you will be 're-patriated' or your life 'outlawed'. Nice.

Their 'news' pages age a joke; They are dullards, the laziest 'reporting' I have ever witnessed, and they operate to the same level as the worst tabloids.

I'm protected from their worst excesses, and I don't agree with it - the fact that they cannot say what they want - but I still loathe them, and i'm glad I am not exposed to them more than I choose to be

I wish more people were aware of of  they operate, but you have to read it daily to get the full flavour, and check the stories out,  and I think most would baulk at the level of reportage if nothing else. It is only over years of tracking the twists and turns of their leading members that you get the full 'flavour'.

I won't link to them.

My opinion:  they are a  disgrace, worse than any other 'legitimate' political party.  As someone interested in the 'News'/ 'Media, in the reporting of and /or subversion of  facts, they are the worst/ (best) I have ever seen.

[Dick Smith]

And of course the Griffins of this world have their own agenda, ie power for them, in which their present slavering supporters (did you see the Neanderthals around him when he came out of court?) will have no more say than they have now.

Outcast - who are you? Why won't you say? What are you afraid of?

[Tresco]

Dicksmith,

Did you miss the 'Euphoric France' thread, here in this very post bag, where Le Bouffon accidentally  'outtied' himself as Outcast etc, by using his wifes 'user name' to post,  slagging me off on the basis of my sexuality, and then doing some hasty deletions/editing..........yet, too late.

http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/2/591399/ShowPost.aspx#591399

 

[Ron Avery]

Tresco wrote "The BNP forum is only for BNP members, you cannot speak or ask questions or argue otherwise. You cannot join in the 'free speech' debate unless you are a fully accredited member. To me that means that BNP members are only encouraged to engage in conversation with, erm, other BNP members. So much for 'free 'speech."

 In this statement Mrs T, lies the reason by which Griffin and his mate got off,  well at least part of it, it was a closed meeting and only people who had been invited were there, so the arguement was that they were not inciting anyone, because those there were of a similar viewpoint.  The other fact highlighted in the case and by SKY News (and that the BBC seems reluctant to admit,)  is that if the  BBC undercover reporter had not filmed the speeches and then the BBC broadcast them to the nation who would have been any the wiser outside of the BNP?  With all the publicity that the case has now given the BNP and the,  in my opinion complete overkill of coverage of the aftermath of the trial at Leeds, includuing Griffin's celebrations, you do wonder what kind of idiots are running BBC News or is this just another unavoidable consequence of 24 hour news channels having nothing else to fill up 24 hours with?.  

[Tresco]

Ron, sorry I have no Brit TV, but I agree roughly.

I can't stand NG or his ilk, anyone here who knows me know that, but after studying the facts that were available I thought there was no way the case could (or even should) be won.

I know little about the law, but part of that belief was based on who they were speaking /talking to - people who needed no encouragement to 'hate' people of other races at all. It's as if they just go round encouraging eachother to be more hatefull, but there were no innocents there, at the recorded and taped meetings.

Of course, some of the charges will be tried again - no info as to which yet, but I'll say again, I don't think the law is good as it stands, to bring these cases, regardless of my personal, and very stongly held beliefs.

I hate those fascist ...... EDIT wow, did you all know you can say w**kers without asterixes

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Tresco - full agreement. Nonethless, these vermin must not be denied

platform from which to spout thier illogical and offensive gibberish.

Their repugnant views can only be countered by cool heads and reason

(not that I don't allow myself the occasional daydream of kicking them

vigorously and  repeatedly in the testicles). It really doesn't

matter whether one is thinking about the UK or France or Belgium or

Germany or Italy or wherever: the misery and division these people seek

to spread is the same. They must be heard and then they must be countered.

Edit: I suppose I should mention a vested interest. Even after serveral

(five?) generations of intermarriage in the UK, my semetic features and

middle Eastern surname remain. Griffin, Le Pen et al would

probably want to deport me "back" to Tehran where my wine drinking and

pork eating habits would be dimly regarded. If I were allowed to

remain, would I be treated as a "full" citizen? Would my children?

[le bouffon]

Tesco what is the opposite of a facist?And if you are going to show your real self ie swearing(abeit with asterisk) I hope that the mods are alert to you.

[Iceni]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Mr Griffiths was found innocent this time ...

[/quote]

At the risk of disagreeing with a Mod, no such thing Gay, only guilty or not guilty (beyond reasonable doubt etc). Perhaps a case for Not Proven ??

Unlike its rebellious cousins across the Atlantic the UK does not have a proper constitution so it is difficult to define any "rights" to free speech etc.that can be defended. One can still THINK racist thoughts but one is seemingly not allowed to express them though Captain Hook seems to be an exception.

The opportunities for one of these modern day blackshirts or other extremists being elected at local, county, national or European levels is facilitated by the absurd system of first past the post - fine in the days when there were only 2 parties but long overdue for a change to ensure > 50% support  even on 2 nd/3rd choices with STV or similar.

BTW pls do not think that I support the BNP and that ilk.

John

not

 

[le bouffon]

Under UK law(not scots law,not proven etc)when one as been through  the due proccess of law and found not guilty then one is innocent  ie innocent until proven guilty,fact.Free speech is just that,it is a little bit like being a little bit pregnant you are pregnant or you are not,free speech or no free speech.P.R.what did TB promise to paddy pants down in `97 before the election,could it be P.R.?

[Dick Smith]

I'm not sure what all of the above gibberish is meant to convey, but if you are accused of a crime and there is a reasonable doubt that you did it you are declared not guilty - not 'innocent'. In effect this would be attempting to prove a negative.

Now, Outcast, can we come back to my challenge to you to say exactly who you are and under what other identities you have posted/are posting on this forum? What are you hiding this time?

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="Iceni"]Unlike its rebellious cousins across the Atlantic the UK does not have a proper constitution so it is difficult to define any "rights" to free speech etc.that can be defended. One can still THINK racist thoughts but one is seemingly not allowed to express them though Captain Hook seems to be an exception.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, John.  You're not allowed to express racist sentiments in France either.  Plenty of laws about it.   Nothing to do with the UK or US written or unwritten constitutions.

[le bouffon]

Come on dicky you claim to be intelligent,if one is found not guilty under english law(not dickies law) then one is innocent,innocent until proven guilty,no come dicky do not dissapoint me I thought you were clever.

[Tag]

Sorry my dear Bouffie, but you are wrong. All that not guilty means ( in criminal law terms) is that the evidence was insufficient to convince either a jury or the relevant judge that you were guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You might like to consider the meaning of the occasional police statement at the end of a trial when the defendant has been found not guilty: we are not looking for anyone else in connection with this crime. In civil cases, the burden of proof is lower: on the balance of probabilities. On this basis, someone who has been found not guilty in a criminal court (or let off on a technicality) can be found liable in civil law and be forced to pay damages. I think the van Hoogstraaten case is an example of this.

[Dick Smith]

And in this case the fascists weren't found not guilty on making racist and prejudicial remarks, that was agreed, they were said to have done so in front of an audience (known hereafter as 'the slime') who believed the same trash as the speakers, so it was unlikely that they would be incited to racial hatred because they were already racist bigots.

Now, are you going to answer the question - which other identities have you used or are using at the moment to post to this forum?

[le bouffon]

Dicky please do pm me because you are now becoming  irrational and to save you any more embarrassment I await the pm.ps Tag innocent until proven guilty,that mean anything any more.

[Dick Smith]

Just as I await an answer to my question.

[le bouffon]

Please pm myself and lets take off the forum whatever is causing you to feel the need whatever that is.

[JohnM]

I've just done some pretty extensive internet searching and found that the "innocent until proven guilty" quote is being abused. It seems that the phrase is actually "presumed" innocent until proven guilty. As always, the devil is in the detail and "presumed innocent" is not the same as "being innocent". I take this to mean that people who are found "Not Guilty" must be treated as if they are innocent. As mentioned earlier, it does NOT mean that they ARE innocent.

I hope this helps.

 

 

[Iceni]

[quote user="SaligoBay"]

[quote user="Iceni"]Unlike its rebellious cousins across the Atlantic the UK does not have a proper constitution so it is difficult to define any "rights" to free speech etc.that can be defended. One can still THINK racist thoughts but one is seemingly not allowed to express them though Captain Hook seems to be an exception.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, John.  You're not allowed to express racist sentiments in France either.  Plenty of laws about it.   Nothing to do with the UK or US written or unwritten constitutions.

[/quote]

SB - as I am sure that you are aware, I know even less about the laws of France than I do about those of England.

I am always confused as to an apparent "right" to free speech - enshrined in a written constitution for some lucky countries - being contradicted by laws preventing free expression. Being realistic these 2 will never meet though any Govt that thinks that laws will prevent violence against people holding a different view (whether rival football "supporters" or BNP vs foreigners) is deluding itself.

John

not

 

 

[crdale]

Unlike its rebellious cousins across the Atlantic the UK does not have a proper constitution so it is difficult to define any "rights" to free speech etc.that can be defended. 

 

The big advantage of not having a written constitution is that nothing is against the law unless their is a law against it whereas as soon as you write a constitution down you either limit ones freedom it is not allowed unless the constitution says so or it extends it to a ridiculous extent you have a right to bear arms even if you have an arsenal large enough to equip a small army

 

Chris