BNP compare UK generals to Nazis.

[v14]

YES YES. omg more comment without understanding. to be expected i suppose.

you are free to say what you like. you must expect though, to take the consequences of your actions.

unless you can find a law that actually says the word FIRE, is illegal, unless there is one.................... nop, thought not. there ain't one.

don't talk shite m8


"What is the definition of Breach of the Peace?

Firstly, it is important to define what breach of the peace is. Breach of the peace prior to the case of Smith v Donnelly [2001 S.C.C.R. 800], had been broadly defined in the case of Rafaelli v Heatley [1949 JC 101 at p104], per LJC Thomson:
"Where something is done in breach of public order or decorum which might reasonably be expected to lead the lieges being

* alarmed or

* upset or

*tempted to make reprisals at their own hand, the circumstances are such to amount to a breach of the peace." This broad definition showed that a charge of Breach of the Peace can arise from virtually any conduct which caused or (can generally be regarded as being reasonably likely to cause) either alarm, annoyance, upset or embarrassment to another person or person."
In fact LJG Emslie even went as far as to state that:
“There is no limit to the kind of conduct which may give rise to a charge of breach of the peace." "



Now I dunno about you but were I per chance to be in a cinema and someone came in yelling "FIRE" that would alarm the shit it of me.

 

[Firemouth]

don't talk shite m8


"What is the definition of Breach of the Peace?

Firstly, it is important to define what breach of the peace is. Breach of the peace prior to the case of Smith v Donnelly [2001 S.C.C.R. 800], had been broadly defined in the case of Rafaelli v Heatley [1949 JC 101 at p104], per LJC Thomson:
"Where something is done in breach of public order or decorum which might reasonably be expected to lead the lieges being

* alarmed or



* upset or

*tempted to make reprisals at their own hand, the circumstances are such to amount to a breach of the peace." This broad definition showed that a charge of Breach of the Peace can arise from virtually any conduct which caused or (can generally be regarded as being reasonably likely to cause) either alarm, annoyance, upset or embarrassment to another person or person."
In fact LJG Emslie even went as far as to state that:
“There is no limit to the kind of conduct which may give rise to a charge of breach of the peace." "



Now I dunno about you but were I per chance to be in a cinema and someone came in yelling "FIRE" that would alarm the shit it of me.

true, but its not the word that is illegal. its the actions you expert to ensue that break laws.

as i said, and you ignore. you can say what you like. just expect to take the consequences. there is no law that, specifically, mentions the word FIRE. as such. blah de blah

 

[v14]

true, but its not the word that is illegal. its the actions you expert to ensue that break laws.

as i said, and you ignore. you can say what you like. just expect to take the consequences. there is no law that, specifically, mentions the word FIRE. as such. blah de blah

Isn't that the same for all laws?

You can robb a post office if you like just expect to take the consequences.

While i'm here, I don't think I've ever heard of a law which states specifically that you cant massage a kangaroos testicles on the top deck of a 49 bus.

I am however fairly sure that there is a law which covers it.

 

[mozr]

It is not any word in particular, it is a restriction of freedom of speech in a civilised society, which is based upon context.

'Fire!' shouted in a burning building is socially acceptable.

'Fire!' shouted in a cinema where there is no fire is not; it is in fact a breach of the peace.

Ergo, if anything Nick Griffin and his cronies said that contravened said law, or even incited racial hatred, it would be a crime.

There is NO such thing as complete and utter freedom of speech, and never will be. In a society, compromise is needed to ensure we all get along without killing each other.

 

[Munkey]

Mr Griffin said: "There is a prima facie case for charging Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, William Hague and David Cameron with waging aggressive war against Iraq... The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials set the precedent when the leaders of Nazi Germany were charged with invading other countries which represented no military threat to Germany."
"Along with the political leadership of Nazi Germany, the chiefs of staff of the German army, Alfred Jodl and Wilhelm Keitel, were also charged with waging aggressive war.

Well Iraq represented no military threat to us and tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have been killed since the invasion. I guess NG has made a valid comparison.

 

[ellie1998]

Well Iraq represented no military threat to us and tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have been killed since the invasion. I guess NG has made a valid comparison.

Got to be a 1st as I actually agree 100% with this.

Think the bnp are dicks but also believe they have the right to be dicks if they want.

 

[jaffa]

The guy is an MEP so therefore he had a majority wherever he stood for election, so he has every right to express his views.

I don't agree with his views but as ellie said, he has a right to be a dick if he wants.

 

[Bronto]

Question time is on BBC 1 soon, apparently Nick Griffin makes a complete idiot of himself on there

 

[jaffa]

Question time is on BBC 1 soon, apparently Nick Griffin makes a complete idiot of himself on there

Well he only had to speak for that to happen...not that hard........lol

I won't watch it though, don't like programs like that, they are no better than those other morning shows like "I slept with 50 men so who is the dad"

They are controversal and argumentative but I guess thats why people watch them.

 

[mozr]

I am really excited about question time tonight.

The chance for intelligent people (audience, and panellists) to ask this raving fucking tossbag some nice, neat logical questions will be great.

 

[v14]

I don't agree with his views but as ellie said, he has a right to be a dick if he wants.

Judging by his performance on QT I'd say he's abusing the right to be a dick.

What a fackin buffoon.

 

[mozr]

Indeed.

He is a shallow twit of a man.

You can see the troughs which he wallows: Iraq, immigration, EU policy, the recession.

These are the places he picks his votes.

He is a fucking chameleon. A pro Jew fascist!

 

[v14]

Deary me, according to GeeeMTV there seems to be a fair bit of public sympathy for ol' Nicky boy after last nights QT.

Makes ya proud to be British.

 

[nara]

all this about not letting him on question time is balls too - you have to let him on if your meant to be impartial.

I must admit that I had my doubts about this. Now that I've watched the program I realise it was a masterstroke by the BBC!

I doubt if even emarald would vote BNP after watching that embarassing performance. I almost felt sorry for him.










........I said "almost". Anybody who felt sympathy must have less than two brain cells to rub together. Perfect BNP fodder.

 

[emarald]

I must admit that I had my doubts about this. Now that I've watched the program I realise it was a masterstroke by the BBC!

I doubt if even emarald would vote BNP after watching that embarassing performance. I almost felt sorry for him.
........I said "almost". Anybody who felt sympathy must have less than two brain cells to rub together. Perfect BNP fodder.

In my opinion Jack Straw was equally as bad and if you remember the poll on here Nara, nearly 50% said they would consider voting BNP, so why you keep naming me when it comes to the BNP I do not know,I just see both sides.
As for Griffin not a lot you can credit him with, but you have to wonder why they are becoming so popular.

 

[mozr]

That is the most reasoned point you have made on this forum emarald.

The BNP are increasing in popularity, and to my mind it is a direct result of the dissatisfaction with mainstream politics, and politicians.

 

[emarald]

The BNP are increasing in popularity, and to my mind it is a direct result of the dissatisfaction with mainstream politics, and politicians.

By that you mean immigration policy and multiculturalism.

After what the Equality and Human Rights Commission ruled the BNP is going to change to BRP British Rainbow Party

 

[v14]

The British National Socialist Party has a much snazzier ring to it.

Well, if the shoe fits....

 

[mozr]

By that you mean immigration policy and multiculturalism.

Nope.

Multiculturalism is not the problem. It is an easy scapegoat, rather than addressing the real problems, poverty, social deprivation, unemployment, crime, etc.

The BNP do very badly in truly multicultural districts. There are problems in areas where integration does not take place, where social cohesion suffers because of the speed of change, and pressure on resources. This should be addressed sensibly.

We are a nation built on immigration, and I for one am proud of that.

 

[emarald]

The BNP do very badly in truly multicultural districts.

Got to question that statement, Yorkshire and the Humber is a diverse region, with 8 per cent of people from a BAME group - only London and the West Midlands are more ethnically diverse. 20 per cent of Pakistani people in Britain live in the region. The work of the BME third sector helps people from the communities they represent and they help make all communities in the region stronger and more cohesive.this was taken from Yorkshire and Humber Black and Ethnic Minority Voluntary Community Sector conference - Corporate - Communities and Local Government

I think you will find British National Party won the MEP election for Yorkshire and Humberside