Level playing field that's all we ask.

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/3x5zoys

So this chap was threatened by a £1,000 fine if he did not take down his 'Lost Cat posters'.

I wonder if those Muslims who posted their 'Anti Christmas posters' were likewise threatened?

http://tinyurl.com/259ze43

I don't think so somehow, I wonder why?

[NazNomad]

Maybe because Tower Hamlets isn't in Bedfordshire?

[Ankou]

probably, but because it was (allegedly) thousands of posters across so many council boroughs, its unlikely the mail or express will report on each and every one aint it?

[NazNomad]

Using two unrelated stories from areas that are controlled by Councils 60 miles apart as an excuse for yet more muslim-bashing, AOG?

Reported - Racism.

[wolf63]

Am I the only one who is concerned about the welfare of the missing cat?

[Ankou]

wolf, i'm sure it'll be fine now, its gone national and its on answerbank. what more could it ask for?

[naomi24]

Naz, I trust you're joking when you say you've reported AOG for racism. If you're talking racism, then you're talking about the law of the land - not petty council bye-laws, so you can hardly damn AOG for comparing the two.

[DrFilth]

poor cat stuck outside in this freezing cold weather, hungry lost and cold and some dipstick is moaning about a few posters.
what a crazy world we live in

[DrFilth]

when i say some dipstick moaning about posters , i meant the council, not you aog

[NazNomad]

"... so you can hardly damn AOG for comparing the two. "

They aren't being compared.

I know it, you know it ... and AOG sure a **** knows it.




Now, if Mr. Catpanderer had been in Tower Hamlets and been asked to take down the posters in Tower Hamlets by Tower Hamlets Council, then yes, of course you can compare the two stories ... but this wasn't the case, was it now?

[naomi24]

Naz, oh, but they are being compared and quite rightly so. I repeat, we're not talking about local council rules - the Muslim posters should have been dealt with immediately not by the council, but by the law of the land. If anything is blatantly racist and deliberately designed to create offence, that poster is. I think AOG has made a very valid point and good for him.

[anotheoldgit]

NazNomad

This evil poster campaign was not just in London, it was nationwide.

http://tinyurl.com/36636h6

I take great offence at my posts criticising Muslim/Islam as 'Muslim Bashing', they are all perfectly legal criticism against the offensive acts perpetrated by Muslims against this country, it's traditions, and it's peoples.

[ChuckFickens]

One big difference would be the phone number/ contact details.

Cat poster, genuine contact details without any concerns about hiding identity. (possibly even a landline number and an address)

Christmas poster, almost certainly a unregistered mobile number and if anyone does answer it they won't say where they are or who they are.

It's pretty difficult to fine anyone when you don't know who they are.

[DrFilth]

if you look at the two posters, one is dull and the other has a lovely picture of a cat that would brighten up the area

[youngmafbog]

May I remind all that being Muslim is a relgion and it is not related to race.

This racist slur is typical of people who disagree but cant think of a valid reason.

In this case AOG is being perfectly reasonable.

As for your question AOG I think Naz's reply answers it very succinctly

[anotheoldgit]

youngmafbog

Thank you for you input.

Regarding /// Naz's reply answers it very succinctly ///

I was not making a definite comparison between the two incidents, only a general observation, the link being about the right to put up posters and not the posters location.

[New Judge]

Although we cannot prove it, I believe those seeking to explain the different handling of these two matters by virtue of the fact that they were handled by different councils are misguided.

Despite the fact that these two matters were handled by two quite different councils I believe they would have been treated in just the same way as they were had they been dealt with by the same council. I do not believe that Bedfordshire council would have pursued the anti-Christmas posters with as much vigour as they persecuted the cat owner (that is if they pursued it at all and especially if it occurred in, say Luton). Similarly I do not believe that Tower Hamlets council would have ignored the cat owner’s posters in the same way as they did the anti-Christmas offerings. Yes, it’s quite true that apprehending the anti-Christians may be more difficult, but with the council’s powers afforded to them by RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) they should not have too much trouble. But I don’t think too much effort would have been made anyway.

Perhaps the easiest way to understand AOG’s point would be to consider what the reaction of Tower Hamlets Council officers would have been if the posters had suggested that the festival of Eid at the end of Ramadan is “evil”. It would be interesting to know how long they would have lasted in somewhere like Brick Lane.

[McMouse]

I believe the cat was found in a wheelie bin, or was that another story?

[ludwig]

The council's going to have a bit of a headache if Cat Stevens ever goes missing.

[Huderon]

Gosh, wouldn't it help if people actually found out what the Bedfordshire incident actually involved rather than believing everything written in the paper ?

On an interview in PM on Radio 4 tonight ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qskw - the interview starts around 26 minutes into the programme), the chap did explain, very calmly, what had happened ... no sign of anger about the issue at all. Someone from Bedford council explained their side of it too ... and did also say that they wouldn't have prosecuted, but felt that Harding should be aware of the fact that, given the sheer number of posters, what he did could be interpreted as fly-posting for which the fine is £1000.

As for the Muslims, I very much doubt that, unlike Mr Harding, they put a contact phone number on their posters !