The Guardian's Owen Jones attacked outside London pub in a premeditated assault.

Status
Not open for further replies.
dowie said:
Well that is a different argument, I don't disagree that it is possible I disagreed with your previous statement that it was plausible.

The most plausible explanation here is that he was a far right **** bag, he had far right symbols because of this and he knew exactly what they were and that this attack on Jones was because Jones is an (admittedly annoying) leftie and the attacker is a far right thug.

The defence argument that he didn't even know what these symbols were, didn't know what the badges were and only attacked Jones by chance over some spilt beer is just some weak BS they tried on, it isn't plausible.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Angilion said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I haven't read the full article so apologies if it's been reported but have they found any of the Combat 18 chap's social media accounts yet?
 
garnett said:
"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.
Click to expand...

And yet a black walks down the street wearing a 'Black Panthers' or a 'Black Power' t-shirt and everything is fine.
 
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
 
Werewolf said:
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
Click to expand...

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."
 
Werewolf said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
Angilion said:
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?
Click to expand...
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"?
 
stockhausen said:
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"?
Click to expand...

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
 
stockhausen said:
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"?
Click to expand...

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
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom