Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Nick Griffin not guilty
29 Answers
Why was Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, hurled through the courts twice and each time found not guilty of inciting racial hatred? When he just using his right to freedom of speach when he called Islam "a wicked, vicious faith".
And subsequently because Nick Griffin was freed, why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown state "the law needs to be changed"? Surely the law was changed to cover religous hatred, after Nick Grffin was initially charged? But apparently not to the satifaction of the Muslims, who say the present law only protects, Jews and Catholics.
Does anyone else feel that we are entering into dangerous territory when the state can freely alter or bring in new laws, when the judgement of a court of law does not fit in with their political agenda?
And subsequently because Nick Griffin was freed, why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown state "the law needs to be changed"? Surely the law was changed to cover religous hatred, after Nick Grffin was initially charged? But apparently not to the satifaction of the Muslims, who say the present law only protects, Jews and Catholics.
Does anyone else feel that we are entering into dangerous territory when the state can freely alter or bring in new laws, when the judgement of a court of law does not fit in with their political agenda?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The state can freely do that anyway; it's just that nowadays, it'd be more justified. Not that I think they care, because despite repeatedly being told that the Iraq breeds hatred in young Muslims, Blair still insists it was the right thing.
I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head when you say no-one apart from Christians and Jews are covered. I don't really see why we should be giving certain religions preferential treatment whilst claiming to be a society of equal opportunities. But hey, what do I know? And wouldn't you be dissatisfied if, as a non-Christian or non-Jew, they have protection and it's open season on you faith?
I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head when you say no-one apart from Christians and Jews are covered. I don't really see why we should be giving certain religions preferential treatment whilst claiming to be a society of equal opportunities. But hey, what do I know? And wouldn't you be dissatisfied if, as a non-Christian or non-Jew, they have protection and it's open season on you faith?
that sums this government up, they dont get something going the way they want after a democratic vote ,like tony blair recently , well just bring in the parliament act and get it that way. which proves what a farce our so called democracy really is.
But this not guilty verdict proves what the vast majority want and think but are scared to say openly.
But this not guilty verdict proves what the vast majority want and think but are scared to say openly.
taken to court by the crown pros. service , he was found not guilty. this was something of a supprise for them so, even though british justice has taken its course, they are unhappy enough to try and move the goal posts. I am disgusted with this bare faced we know best attitude of people we have voted for and trusted to hold securely our values and wishes. i just fail to understand their agenda, the jabberwokki makes more sense, what the heck is up with them?
And they allowed Hamza (and others) to preach anti-British hate speeches in public for MONTHS without doing anything.
Yet again it is very two faced. The muslims can say what they like but we musn't upset them to keep race relations quiet.
But one British politician says what millions of others are thinking and they get hauled before the courts.
Yet again it is very two faced. The muslims can say what they like but we musn't upset them to keep race relations quiet.
But one British politician says what millions of others are thinking and they get hauled before the courts.
The law won't happen, though; it's all ideological smoke'n'mirrors to make the Government look pro-Muslim and justify tracking 1600 of them who, at worst, have probably advocated Sharia law.
I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of ******-off Muslims out there- but I doubt there are 1600 ready to don a backpack, stroll onto a bus and detonate.
Furthermore, keeping Nick Griffin in the public eye allows there to be one more threat, one more thing to add to the tension, so that the negative governance can be continued...in a way, it's kinda clever.
I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of ******-off Muslims out there- but I doubt there are 1600 ready to don a backpack, stroll onto a bus and detonate.
Furthermore, keeping Nick Griffin in the public eye allows there to be one more threat, one more thing to add to the tension, so that the negative governance can be continued...in a way, it's kinda clever.
-- answer removed --
I guess Nick Griffin was not being blasphemous against muslim religion as muslim religion isn't protected here under those laws.... it's all very murky isn't it?
That Hamza man was inciting hatred against the Christians? he's in prison or banned from England or something lol.... anyhows, here is 16th century law and blasphemy as is to present..... have a read, it's rather amazing. What was Nick Griffins defence? btw.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/blasphemy.html
That Hamza man was inciting hatred against the Christians? he's in prison or banned from England or something lol.... anyhows, here is 16th century law and blasphemy as is to present..... have a read, it's rather amazing. What was Nick Griffins defence? btw.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/blasphemy.html
Being ****** off with the way that muzzies can do and say as they like and the rest of us just have accept it? They have profitted from positive dicrimination for years so this slightly redresses the balance towards freedom of speech for British people. If we don't like what they do we can say it ,the same as muzzies can say what they think of us. Fair enough.
jonnythebosh- what is this "positive discrimination" you're on about? How does calling Islam a "wicked, vicious faith" redress the balance? Because from where I am, it does nothing but stir up hate and cause tensions between Muslims and the rest of the UK. Hatred begets hatred, violence begets violence, anyone with a brain switched on can see that.
I understand one of the reasons he was prosecuted was because he suggested that at some point in the future there would be terrorist attacks in Britain on Britons perpetrated by home grown muslims.
Well looky here, guess what? He was proven absolutely dead right...........so his 'racist' rantings were, in fact, prophetic.
Last week Dame doo dah (sorry, have forgotten her name), the head of MI5 said more or less the same thing: can we expect her to be hauled before the courts?
The fact of the matter is the government and the oh so PC CPS wanted a high profile conviction to say to the country this incitement (why is it incitement? me saying I don't like chocolate is hardly an incitement to violence against a slab of Dairy Milk - it is opinion) will not be tolerated, whereas, ironically, all they have managed to do is highlight the fact, very publicly, that two juries felt he did not do anything wrong.
Well looky here, guess what? He was proven absolutely dead right...........so his 'racist' rantings were, in fact, prophetic.
Last week Dame doo dah (sorry, have forgotten her name), the head of MI5 said more or less the same thing: can we expect her to be hauled before the courts?
The fact of the matter is the government and the oh so PC CPS wanted a high profile conviction to say to the country this incitement (why is it incitement? me saying I don't like chocolate is hardly an incitement to violence against a slab of Dairy Milk - it is opinion) will not be tolerated, whereas, ironically, all they have managed to do is highlight the fact, very publicly, that two juries felt he did not do anything wrong.
flip-flop, look at my second answer and stop looking at things so one-dimensionally...every time a comment like yours appears, Mr. Blair's annoying smile gets a little broader.
Also, I think if you called Cadbury-Schweppes a "wicked, vicious company" they'd have every right to sue you. Look at McLibel- that took years to resolve even though the defendants had stacks of evidence. You would have none. You'd be paying badly for that one comment....
Also, I think if you called Cadbury-Schweppes a "wicked, vicious company" they'd have every right to sue you. Look at McLibel- that took years to resolve even though the defendants had stacks of evidence. You would have none. You'd be paying badly for that one comment....
Quite simply, if you don't like the way that we in this country attempt to protect those of a minority ethnicity or religion, then go elsewhere. And if they don't bother with the same protection, and you find yourself a minority castigated for what you believe in, and at the hands of unrestricted racial abuse, then you'll have no choice but to crawl back again. And then you'll be one of those immigrants the BNP want to send back to where they came from...
