it's been shown recently in uk courts that 'context and intent are irrelevant' when it comes to these kind of salutes. Radcliffe needs to be made an example of.
The Guardian's Owen Jones attacked outside London pub in a premeditated assault.
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
- Status
it's been shown recently in uk courts that 'context and intent are irrelevant' when it comes to these kind of salutes. Radcliffe needs to be made an example of.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,907
Man of Honour
Oh aye, the spilt beer thing is the defence lawyer grasping at straws. Even if it was true, it still wouldn't be a reasonable defence against assault. My dispute is with the claim that it's proven that the attack occured because Jones has a superior status group identity. I think it happened because the attacker is a violent person who disliked Jones personally on the basis of Jones' public persona, politics and prejudices. The left/right thing is a massively over-simplified false dichotomy.
Also, he's clearly stupid. This is a goldmine for Jones. Minor injuries, major political capital.
Which is why I think it is a believable defence regarding the symbols - I think this thug who's name I can't be bothered to remember is stupid and ignorant enough for the claim to be true.
Man of Honour
Such compelling arguments in here today.
That was a direct quote of a judge's words in court as a formal opinion in their position as a judge. It's a legal precedent. You are wrong to dismiss it that way.
Don
Scottish courts, you lads down in England and Wales are still pretty safe.
Fair enough, I mean this aspect is down to subjective judgement of this person and neither of us was in the court etc... or actually know either way, we're both reliant on what has been reported and our personal beliefs re: how likely/plausible it sounds. I agree that this guy doesn't come across as being very bright.
"Combat 18 and white power”
“Chelsea FC no asylum seekers”
2 badges in this guy's possession that the GD usual suspects are insisting leave it uncertain whether he was racist scum.
Hilarious how far they'll bend over backwards to excuse these lowlifes.
“Chelsea FC no asylum seekers”
2 badges in this guy's possession that the GD usual suspects are insisting leave it uncertain whether he was racist scum.
Hilarious how far they'll bend over backwards to excuse these lowlifes.
Caporegime
Damn right utter scum. Chelsea fan filth, send him back
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
And in at least one case in the ability to get triggered about someone who isn't a Tory and who happens to believe in Society?
What are you referring to with reference to the post you quoted?
Soldato
And yet a black walks down the street wearing a 'Black Panthers' or a 'Black Power' t-shirt and everything is fine.
Commissario
IIRC Black Panthers were not actually (in general) violent, they were (at least initially) protecting the likes of black voters...they were also often in their heyday operating as basically neighbourhood watch and trying to prevent crime and doing things like organising social welfare programs back int the 60's (for the original group), and from memory faced a lot of the violence etc that many of the equal rights groups did at that time.
Unlike combat 18 etc whose sole existence is to promote hate and violence
Unlike combat 18 etc whose sole existence is to promote hate and violence
Soldato
Please tell me you’ve accidentally omitted words after “a black”...?
Permabanned
Hmmm, they don't sound like a load of big Boy Scouts to me... I think your memory may be being a bit selective!
"Black Panther Party members were involved in many fatal firefights with police: Huey Newton allegedly killed officer John Frey in 1967, and Eldridge Cleaver led an ambush in 1968 of Oakland police officers, in which two officers were wounded and Panther Bobby Hutton was killed. The party suffered many internal conflicts, resulting in the murders of Alex Rackley and Betty Van Patter.
In 1967, the Mulford Act was passed by the California legislature and signed into law by governor Ronald Reagan, establishing strict gun laws that stripped legal ownership of firearms from Black Panther members and prevented all citizens, black and white, from carrying firearms in public.
In 1969, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover described the party as "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country."
Man of Honour
But I'm sure they too see themselves as protectors and their violence as justified and defensive. Is there a difference in actuality or merely a difference in the degree of success of PR?
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
I take it that you are referring here to members of Combat 18? I'm not familiar with these people, Wikipedia describes them as "a neo-Nazi terrorist organization". Who exactly do you believe they are "protecting"?
Permabanned
As stated in the Wikipedia article I assume you are quoting from, they were formed to protect BNP members from anti fascists:
In early 1992, the far-right British National Party (BNP) formed Combat 18 as a stewarding group whose purpose was to protect its events from anti-fascists.[9][8] Its founders included Charlie Sargent[8] and Harold Covington.[10] C18 soon attracted national attention for threats of violence against immigrants, members of ethnic minorities and leftists.[11] In 1992, it started publishing the Redwatch magazine, which contained photographs, the names and addresses of political opponents. Combat 18 is an openly neo-Nazi group that is devoted to violence and hostile to electoral politics, and for this reason Sargent split decisively from the BNP in 1993
Man of Honour
Nobody. Who exactly do you believe they're protecting?
Oh, wait, you didn't say you thought they're protecting anyone? Well, neither did I. Any reason why you're pretending I did?
Is it worth remembering that the charming chap we're so eagar to defend wasn't convicted of membership of these esteemed organisations but in fact, his involvement with them was merely used to evidence that the crime he did commit was fueled by hate.
- Status