Britain First - Paul Golding

[agchristie]

Appears at court today but what of the charges he faces? The 'uniform' charge is bizarre to say the least. Short video in the link where Golding outlines the situation.

https://www.britainfirst.org/video-britain-first-leader-paul-golding-speaks-essex-court-today/

[ChillDoubt]

Whilst I wouldn't generally give the bloke the time of day, he does have a point.
I wonder how many prosecutions resulted from this?:

http://thebodyoftruth.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/tbot-meme-7.jpg

[andy-hughes]

Mr Golding appears to be making a fundamental mistake in assuming that his self-righteousness is a defence in law.

Exposing a ‘terrorist’ without apparent proof, certainly in terms of legal action, is simply vigilantism which leads to mob violence against potentially innocent people. Just because Mr Golding says someone is a terrorist does not make it a fact.

His comparison with none-prosecuted paedophiles is the classic defence of the hard-done-to – look at them they are worse than me!

That is perfectly true, but the none-prosecution of one crime does not mean that his crime should not be prosecuted, that is not how the law works. If it did, every thief would walk free because GBH thugs are walking free.

Mr Golding does appear to have a point about the ‘uniform’ prosecution – it will be interesting to see how that goes.

[Buenchico]

A more neutral report:
http://m.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/11485184.Swanley_far_right_leader_in_court_to_deny_harassing_woman_in_her_home/

[ChillDoubt]

Exposing a ‘terrorist’ without apparent proof, certainly in terms of legal action, is simply vigilantism which leads to mob violence against potentially innocent people. Just because Mr Golding says someone is a terrorist does not make it a fact.
------------------
In that case, I would have to ask why he's not being prosecuted for slander/defamation of character as opposed to harrasment?

[naomi24]

^Me too. Is the 'terrorist' he exposed actually a terrorist?

I agree the uniform thing is bizarre.

[Svejk]

I couldn't take my eyes off his Adolf haircut.

[agchristie]

It had previously been reported in the media the name of the person who allegedly trained the leader of the 7/7 bombers.

BF leafleted the road in question and left. Chris' link sheds further light.

[Svejk]

Wasn't he named in Chris's link?

[naomi24]

If I’m reading this right the terrorist has been afforded some sort of legal anonymity? Or have I got it wrong?

[naomi24]

It might be - but then again, it might not.

[agchristie]

Chill - your first link throwd up a valid question as does your second. Could it be that there is more than a grain of truth in BF's claims?

Naomi - yes, the named person was given anonymity.

[naomi24]

Mmmm.... well, then we have a problem. The question is who is the enemy? The man who trained the terrorists - or the man who exposed him? I know where my thoughts lie.

[agchristie]

Methyl - not sure why you consider the issues here as a waste of time or is it that the party is too repulsive in your eyes, so much so that a potential injustice doesn't matter?

[agchristie]

Naomi, exactly.

There has been a lot of rubbish reported about the thuggish behaviour by the BF on their marches and demonstrations. Look at Hexthorpe, S.Yorks and the locals whose lives are blighted by the asb and intimidation of Roma immigrants. The disrespect shown by an anti BF protestor in Dover towards an 80 yo woman who served in the Falklands. The march in Rotherham and the passionate speech by the impressive Jayda Fransen, deputy leader.

The march last weekend at Rochester was met with protestors, many who had their faces covered up, trying to block their progress unsuccessfully. Very strong public opinion here voicing disapproval over a mosque which has been given planning consent.

No arrests involving the BF and many activists without 'uniforms' displaying patriotism but many choose to deem it racism.

Ms Fransen is standing for the BF on the 20th where UKIP are set to rout the opposition in Rochester & Strood.

[Buenchico]

>>>I would have to ask why he's not being prosecuted for slander/defamation of character as opposed to harrasment?

Probably because you can't be prosecuted for slander/defamation! It's not a criminal offence and you can only sue someone for it if you've got an extremely large amount of money to spend on lawyers.

[agchristie]

Fair comment Chris.

The leaflet put through doors made no reference to race or racism and I think the charge of harassment will not be an easy prosecution. The uniform issue is a non-starter for me.

[ChillDoubt]

Probably because you can't be prosecuted for slander/defamation! It's not a criminal offence and you can only sue someone for it if you've got an extremely large amount of money to spend on lawyers.
----------------------
So I guess the person he has supposedly 'outed' is not overly fussed at having their name linked to terrorism and the 7/7 bombings/false allegations of terrorist activity.
At a glance, it would appear that one person is being prosecuted to the full letter of the law and beyond whilst another is using it to their absolute advanatage in preserving anonymity.

Fair enough. I smell something fishy and I'm not talking about the contents of Baldrick's apple crumble, as Blackadder might say.

[agchristie]

Quite right Chill, it's a perverse situation. It wasn't Golding who outed him either, it was widely reported in the press who he was and his background.