Do fuck off you ghastly little authoritarian

David Cameron is planning new powers to muzzle Islamic hate preachers accused of provoking terrorist outrages such as the killing of soldier Lee Rigby.

The Prime Minister wants to stop extremist clerics using schools, colleges, prisons and mosques to spread their ‘poison’ and is to head a new Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force (TERFOR) made up of senior Ministers, MI5, police and moderate religious leaders.

The high-powered group will study a number of measures, including banning extremist clerics from being given public platforms to incite students, prisoners and other followers – and forcing mosque leaders to answer for ‘hate preachers’.

This is simply the banning of free speech.

We currently accept two limits on this right: incitement to immediate violence and libel. And no others. Nor should we accept any others.

The danger to us from Islamic nutters isn\’t what the nutters themselves might do. Yes, they do indeed occasionally kill one or more of us. But the real danger is what the fuckwit politicians will do in reaction to said killings.

60 million people must be denied free speech because two nutters murdered a man? Fuck off Dave, seriously.

118 comments on “Do fuck off you ghastly little authoritarian

  1. Well, to be fair to Davey Boy, their ain’t no nice libertarian solution to this one. If one reran recent history we wouldn’t have flooded the country with third world barbarian peasantry for the problem to take root in. Maybe not have given the rulers of lands full of barbarian peasantry & free hand to turn them into the shit-holes they’ve become.
    Which does tend to be the problem with the whole libertarian philosophy. It works very well in theory but doesn’t survive contact with the real world. The only way to have the sort of freedoms it aspires to is to have a libertarian society protected behind some very strong walls of very unlibertarian raw power.

  2. This is simply the banning of free speech. We currently accept two limits on this right: incitement to immediate violence and libel. And no others. Nor should we accept any others.

    So it is. But actually we accept a lot more bans than that. Nick Griffin was jailed way back when for incitement to racial hatred. Just words. Mere words. And the words he used included the claim that Asian gangs were grooming and then raping White girls. The police charged him for this. Although the jury declined to convict.

    So you can be thrown in jail in Britain merely for speaking the truth.

    I think the ban on Islamists – while stupid and not something that should go ahead – is mild and sensible in comparison with what we have on the books already.

    The better place to start would be immigration reform. Followed by a ban on marriages to anyone from Pakistan. Or anywhere really. Followed by an end to entry to this country for anyone from Pakistan.

  3. Don’t worry: Dave has no intention of stopping millions more of their co-religionists from coming here and having tons of kids at our expense while telling us they plan to outbreed and dominate us.

    Also you can be sure mosques will still have much more freedom of speech than anywhere white English people gather. It’s not as if the government has the means or the will to put a grass in every mosque. They would also likely be embarrassed by the number of Moslem preachers they’d have to arrest.

    No – far safer to simply arrest and persecute any old white granny who shouts at a mosque. That’s more the style of the British State.

  4. How do we de-programme young institutionalised thugs out of prison?

    Young blokes, like abebowale and adebolajo who were brainwashed by British salafist adherents and who require for us all, a strict interpretation of Sharia law as the way for Britain?

    How do we stop it?

    One of these lads was definitely ‘got at’ and inculcated at uni’.

    HMG – need to de-infest militant Islam from the university campuses.

    Politicians, need to apprise themselves of the threat of indoctrination of young impressionable minds in colleges and universities and in prisons too – it is cleverly done.

    The authorities should be aware, of and need take account of – just who, where from and how the funds for the college libraries and new Islamic research facilities are donated – mainly if not exclusively from the Gulf [Libya now not so much] and ask the question – what are their motives?

    Whatever the motives, rest assured they are not wholly altruistic – are they?

    All of Cameron’s rhetoric – is just that Tim, he will forget about this stuff soon enough, Dave and gnats have similar attention spans.
    And anyway, whose kidding who here – “the free, frank and fearless” have long since packed up.

    No comments allowed in any of the ‘broadsheet’ websites and a clampdown on all opinion other than the PC meme – “Islam is a religion of peace” etc. The MSM as usual utterly failing to note that – Islam is also and primarily a political ideology.

    Long ago – Political Correctness and finally Leveson: put paid to free speech in Britain.

    All you need to do is to tune in to ITV, BBC and Skynews – to realise that PC rules the airwaves.

  5. If it’s true that extremist clerics are speaking in “schools, colleges, prisons” then of course we should stop them. The defence of Free Speech requires us to allow people to speak as they choose within the law, not to provide them with a platform.

    Meanwhile, SMFS is making stuff up as usual. Nick Griffin has never been jailed. He once received a suspended sentence for distributing literature about the holocaust which was found to be likely to incite racial hatred. At the trial SMFS is talking about Griffin was acquitted on all charges.

  6. Nautical Nick – No. Anglican and Catholic schools are blameless.

    PaulB – so the British state merely *tried* to imprison Nick Griffin for telling the truth that Moslems were raping white English girls. That’s all right then?

  7. There is a simple flaw in Tim’s argument: it is that a central plank of Islam is to ban or supress freedom of speech for those who oppose Islam. And Muslims are successful at that. E.g. they murder the odd cartoonist or author who disagrees with them, and that makes a hundred other cartoonists and authors abandon or tone down their criticisms of Islam.

    Plus they’ve made strenuous efforts at the UN have criticism of Islam banned worldwide.

    I see nothing wrong in banning the free speech of those aiming to ban free speech.

  8. “Meanwhile, SMFS is making stuff up as usual.”
    Hey Paul, exactly which part of Nick Griffin being arrested & charged with the offense that led to his trial is fiction? He was taken to a police station & held in a cell, not invited round for a coffee in the canteen & a chat. Where I come from that’s jailed. You know. Where you just can’t walk out when it suits you.

  9. Don’t worry folks, the authorities have everything under control; the police have already roared into action to solve the problem of islamists hacking people to death, by arresting people who’ve said anything nasty about muslims on Facebook.

  10. BIS-

    There isn’t a non-libertarian solution to this one either, because there isn’t a solution.

    It’s like asking which political philosophy can solve rape. None of them can. It’s not a matter of structure.

    What we can reasonably (from experience) say is that draconian attempts to suppress speech will fail to have much effect, and will have a serious side effect of repressing the liberty of everybody else. Great cost, little benefit.

  11. Kill TEFOR before it takes off! This institution won’t go after extremist clerics or radicalized people. Their primary target will more likely be members and affiliates of the UKIP.
    Worse, I could end up in the slammer for posting this comment.

  12. If we only ban incitement and libel am I free to shout “allahu akbar” in a crowded departure lounge?

  13. Ah yes, David Cameron the ‘betrayer of Conservatism’ a radical Europhile with his perverted interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty.

  14. Why would anyone here defend Griffin? He is a neo-Nazi, and was obviously attempting to stir up racial hatred because that’s what he does. The only question is whether he did so within the law or not, which is something to be tested by the courts.

    I don’t want to see even Nazis being harassed by the police, but Griffin was deliberately pushing the boundaries of the law; he deliberately made himself a target.

  15. Paul, stop being so wilfully naive. The process of being hauled into court is punishment in itself and quite clearly has at least a chilling effect. Griffin wasn’t temprarily arrested to calm things down in a rumble, or something. He was targetted.

    Now okay, you’re sanguine with the State arresting people for holding opinions; after all, it’s not you in the frame, it’s other people. But some of us do care about this kind of thing.

    In general, it seems that what we’ve learned over the past 40 years is that the cost of open borders is a police state. Was this really a good deal? I don’t think so.

  16. “…he deliberately made himself a target.”

    By speaking the truth about the industrial scale grooming occurring across this country ?

    For shame.

  17. @Paul
    No, you come off it. Held at a police station is deprived of liberty. Being released on bail conditions is deprived of liberty & has the same effect as being released from prison on license. Like most people, I don’t do these fine legal shades of definition because one feels exactly like the other to the poor sod who’s the victim of it.
    It was arrest without due cause, as the jury later found. And as IanB often says, the process is part of the punishment. Nick Griffin was fortunate to be the notorious Nick Griffin. Happen to someone not so in the public eye, they’d be pressured to plead guilty or suffer the consequences.

  18. @Dave
    Sorry, but what’s wrong with being a NeoNazi? This isn’t Germany, thank heavens. Would you be OK with jailing communists for their opinions?
    -he was attempting to stir up racial hatred because that’s what he does-
    But not what a jury found.
    Sounds like you really don’t like the freedom of speech thing, doesn’t it?

  19. Senior Ministers, MI5, police and moderate religious leaders are about the last people I would want deciding what free speech should look like.

    Ralph Musgrave said: *There is a simple flaw in Tim’s argument: it is that a central plank of Islam is to ban or supress freedom of speech for those who oppose Islam.

    I see nothing wrong in banning the free speech of those aiming to ban free speech.*

    Surely the best response is for the state to support everyone’s freedom to speak rather than to try and suppress the freedom of those who happen to be exercising it but are saying unpleasant things.

    Associated with this but not relating to speech is that policing the streets in an impartial manner so when for example women get harassed for not having their hair covered the intimidation is taken seriously and nipped in the bud.

    A problem is the partial behaviour of the state, the corner it has painted itself and us into and the way it seeks to carve up communities along race and religious lines and then get those groups jumping up and down trying to curry favour with the state.(as evidenced by the TERFOR proposal including ‘moderate’ religious leaders – that approach failed in Bradford)

  20. BIS>

    If you want to ignore the explicit statements I make to the contrary of what you claim I said, there’s very little point responding to you.

    “But not what a jury found.”

    They found he wasn’t provably breaking the law in doing so. That certainly doesn’t mean he wasn’t very obviously trying to stir up racial hatred.

    Rupert>

    If you don’t realise that people like Griffin will indeed attempt to twist anything they can into material for inciting racial hatred, then you’re very naive. The fact is that the slurs the people like the BNP were throwing around were what made everyone assume the story was a complete fabrication. We all know that certain types of jobsworths are terrified of appearing to be racist, so when someone like Griffin attaches himself to an issue, it just ensures the jobsworths will do nothing.

    Do you think Griffin doesn’t know that? He couldn’t care less about children being abused longer if he can incite hatred as a result.

  21. My oh my, Progressive logic. It’s the fault of the man who spoke, because he was the wrong kind of man to speak.

    Dave, if you really think that Griffin should have been endangered by speech laws, you’re the Nazi here.

  22. Ian>

    If you think I said anything along those lines, you need to read more carefully. ‘Endangered’?

    It’s not the fault of the man to speak because he’s the wrong kind of man. He said the wrong things because he’s a bad man. We are all clear on that, right?

    Personally I think the best way to deal with bottom-feeders like him is to give them a platform – they don’t do well in the light of day – but that doesn’t change the fact that Griffin was deliberately picking a fight with the laws we do have.

  23. Also, I may as well add that anyone under oppressive laws is “picking a fight” with those laws. Gay men prior to 1967, for instance, were picking a fight with the law every time they went about their private business.

  24. Ian>

    I assure you, Nick Griffin is well aware that he’s usually being ‘secretly’ filmed or otherwise monitored.

  25. “He said the wrong things because he’s a bad man.”
    Who says so? The progressive liberal, Dave.
    Sorry, Dave, but I don’t think he’s a bad man. He’s never done me any harm. He has some opinions I may or may not share.
    So whose opinion trumps whose here?

  26. Ian>

    “Gay men prior to 1967, for instance, were picking a fight with the law every time they went about their private business.”

    And murderers do the same. So what? Even if you support their actions, you can’t complain they’re being unfairly targeted if they deliberately make themselves a target. A gay man in the sixties who’d made a public exhibition to make a point could hardly complain about being arrested when that’s what they’d have intended.

    Griffin was trying to get himself arrested; he wanted to be able to play the martyr card. It seems it worked with you, at least.

  27. BIS>

    Have a look at some of the things he’s said. I have no doubt that he’s a bad man just based on the things he openly stands for – hatred, racially motivated violence, and so-on. If anyone listened to him and he gained power, the UK would become a nightmare totalitarian Nazi regime. Yes, I think that’s enough to say he is a bad man.

    To take an example from this thread that we’ve already mentioned, if Griffin really cared about children being abused he’d have quietly passed the information to social services. Instead, he preferred to make political capital out of their continued suffering. Still not willing to condemn him?

  28. BIS: We all know that Griffin wasn’t jailed. If you want to persist in claiming that he was, I’ll leave you to it.

    I’ve not yet expressed an opinion on the fact of his arrest and trial, but I will. First, he was arrested and charged because the police and the Crown Prosecution service thought he might well have committed the offence of making public speeches intended to stir up racial hatred. Second, I am in favour of such an offence existing in law. Third, his speeches contained some facts, but it wasn’t the factual content that got him into trouble. Fourth, his defence was that any hatred stirred up by his speeches would be religious not racial: the jury eventually accepted it. Fifth, the police have extensive powers of arrest, and many people are inconvenienced by them despite having committed no offence. If there’s a serious proposal here to take away those powers, let’s hear it.

  29. A gay man in the sixties who’d made a public exhibition to make a point could hardly complain about being arrested when that’s what they’d have intended.

    Except we’re talking about, say, a gay man in private, being filmed and shopped to the Plod.

    You may want to believe that every law is just and ever lawbreaker a sinner, Dave. Some of us think it was wrong to persecute gays even when it was legal.

    I am mesmerised by the intellectual convolutions Progressivism inflicts on the brain. Apparently people arrested under unjust laws are “asking for it”, the dirty sluts.

  30. Fifth, the police have extensive powers of arrest, and many people are inconvenienced by them despite having committed no offence. If there’s a serious proposal here to take away those powers, let’s hear it.

    *raises hand*

  31. Suffer all ye who are unclean, for the list is long.

    For far too long, the Trots, Marxists and Stalinists have first wrested and then steered and censored and now command the political agenda.
    Setting their agenda on the ‘middle ground’ this so called middle ground is called Socialism in Britain.
    Their language rules are strict and anyone who does not conform to the cultural Marxism of political correctness is deemed to be off reservation.
    If you are ‘off reservation’ then it can only mean one thing and you will be demonised; a racist, as a denier, or a NeoNazi – if they really hate you.
    Thus, reasonable MP’s who unerringly tell the real truth as Peter Lilley can and does – are deemed by the left wing intelligentsia and the MSM to be ‘right wing’ and men like Griffin is of the “far right”.

    That’s free speech?

  32. Ian>

    You persist in destroying strawmen. Does that give you some sense of accomplishment? I didn’t say the law was just or unjust, I said that those deliberately making themselves targets can’t complain they’re being unfairly targeted.

    “Except we’re talking about, say, a gay man in private, being filmed and shopped to the Plod.”

    No, we aren’t. We’re talking about Nick Griffin repeatedly making these statements in semi-public meetings. The correct analogy would be of a gay activist having sex on the podium at a meeting of activists which was known to be infiltrated by police.

  33. Edward>

    “and men like Griffin is of the “far right”.”

    Your point might have more weight if Griffin wasn’t an out-and-out Nazi. Yes, he’s ‘far right’, for as much meaning as that’s ever had.

  34. Dave, Griffin could have taken the information about child grooming to the police. But then what would have happened. Probably what happened when everyone else, including the victims, tried to tell the police. And why is his actions of making a political point any different to other people in politics. Both Tories and Labour make political points out of the sufferings of others. And charities make even more of a point about such sufferings. Charities have to, as their whole existence depends on such sufferings.

  35. Dave, you are still, remarkably, apparently declaring that anyone persecuted under an unjust law has only themself to blame for, er, making an exhibition of themself. It is not a straw man to point this out; firstly because it’s not a straw man fallacy anyway, you berk, and secondly because the comparison between speech criminals and gays under the gay laws are entirely apt.

    The State makes something illegal that shouldn’t be illegal; people who do this thing are criminalised and persecuted, and then people like yourself say it’s their own fault.

    And, Griffin was secretly filmed at a private meeting. Apparently in your tortured logic, being secretly filmed is also a person’s own fault because they’re neither psychic nor have X-Ray vision.

    Fookin’ ‘ell.

    This reminds me; somebody here a while ago declared that Emma West was enjoying being poster girl for racists. Was that you as well? Sure sounds the same as the weirdiness you’re spouting in this thread.

  36. I always wonder why people like Griffin are so quickly arrested and charged for minor cases of racial incitement while Anjem Choudary is not even arrested though he is stirring racial incitement even more. In fact, Anjem seems to be more successful at it than Nick has been if we go by recent events.

  37. Ian>

    You’re still imagining that I said anything similar to your straw-man point. Try reading what I wrote instead of listening to what your invisible shoulder alien is telling you I said.

    As I’ve repeatedly stated, we’re not talking about whether a law is just or unjust, but whether someone deliberately making themselves a target can complain about being unfairly targeted.

  38. Well, the answer there is that in Post-Marxist theory, only hegemonic groups can be oppressors (whites, men, straights), so non-whites can’t be racists, by definition.

    Proggie laws as we all know are derived from Gramscian post-marxism, based on this oppressor/oppressed class system. Only oppressor classes can commit proggie crimes and, indeed, all members of oppressor classes are guilty of them, in thought if not indeed. Hence, all whites are racists, all men are rapists and all straights are, er, gaycists.

  39. Dave

    1) You don’t know what a straw man is. Very few people who invoke the term on the internet seem to.

    2) You might not be talking about whether a law is just or unjust, but the rest of us are. Try joining in.

    In practical terms, it is pretty useless to declare that a black man hanging from a tree was asking for it, without the more important discussion of whether lynchings are just or not.

  40. Ian>

    Another straw man. Well done. And then another. Try talking about the same thing we’re talking about, which is whether Nick Griffin was unfairly targeted, not the justness of the law under which he was targeted.

  41. OK Paul, let’s try & answer your question in relation to Nick Griffin’s arrest.
    The man was filmed making a speech in which he made some remarks that may or may not have been an offense. The police presumably had the film as evidence. As far as I’m aware Griffin made no denial of having made the remarks. There was no question of him being a flight risk. As far as evidence gathering was concerned the police needed to ask him only two questions. Were you there? Did you make the remarks? There are no other questions they could have asked him, really, are there? Intent’s for a court to prove, not the police.
    So what was the point of taking him into custody? As far as I remember he was arrested in Wales, taken in custody to Halifax & detained for at least a day.There’s numerous occasions every day where people are arrested & charged on all sorts of criminal matters don’t end up with them being held in cell? Or being carted half way round the country. Whole thing was a badly managed piece of theater designed to show interested parties how tough the authorities could be on anyone not toeing the PC line. Went badly wrong when a jury threw it out. Hell, the substance of his remarks are all over the papers currently.
    Like Ian’s said again above, the process is the punishment. So you have to look at Griffin’s arrest in the same manner as his subsequent trial. Intent. And the intent was to intimidate. Hence a description of “jailing” is a fair description of what happened. Would you prefer abducted?

  42. We should recognise that majority Islamic regions are no longer British, withdraw the power of the state from them, set up borders, and get on wirh our lives.

  43. Dave-

    You’re boring me now. I’m off to watch paint dry.

    You could more profitably spend your time reading up on what a straw man fallacy is.

  44. If only I could channel the Killing Rage into motivation to work! If I did, “Untitled KSP Clone” would be finished in a matter of hours!

    PaulB and Dave, please stop acting as apologists for the rape of children, unless you want to see the inside of a prison cell (without being “jailed”, of course)! Your words are inciting a great deal of hatred in me towards you.

  45. Steve @ 48 – I’m the Steve from earlier on in the comments. It’s all very confusing, this proliferation of Steves, so if you don’t mind I’m going to call you Geoff.

    Geoff, I don’t think redrawing the borders of our country is a good idea, we don’t need our own version of Kosovo in the midlands.

    Although to some extent the State has partially receded from certain areas. The police and social services turned a blind eye to the rape gangs for years. We have asymmetrical law enforcement in this country.

    If, for example, you are a black MP or black football player and make a racist comment on Twitter, the police do nothing. If you’re a white guy, they’ll launch a criminal investigation against you.

    I don’t believe that the police should be arresting people on the basis of their expressed opinions at all, but it’s even more toxic to society to have some people treated differently before the law than others.

  46. I always wonder why people like Griffin are so quickly arrested and charged for minor cases of racial incitement while Anjem Choudary is not even arrested though he is stirring racial incitement even more.

    Not to mention the fact that 15% of convicted terrorists in the U.K. were associated with ol’ Anjem – probably more given that that statistic predates Richard Dart and the killers of Drummer Rigby. I find it hard not to believe that there is a mysterious relationship between his organisation and the state.

  47. The problem with clerics who are already citizens – as the problem with clerics who are residents or foreigners could be solved by ensuring that they do not gain citizenship or entrance – is not merely that they speak but that they are given public platforms on which to speak. The government does not have to ban theocratic opinions so much as it has to stop lending its support to institutions that give them space.

  48. I wonder what’ll happen to Speaker’s Corner. Perhaps it’s where we’ll have to make our last stand.

  49. Yes Mr Lud. Just south of the old Tyburn Tree. How appropriate. But even those poor sods weren’t expected to pay for their own rope.

  50. Should I see you there, Mr in Spain, it’ll be my pleasure to make your acquaintance at last.

    But I’m feeling gloomy. We’re whistling in the wind. Smart people think the criminalisation of hate is a Good Thing. Dark days.

  51. PaulB – “Meanwhile, SMFS is making stuff up as usual.”

    What stuff would this be? Was he arrested for speaking the truth? Yes he was. Was he put in a jail cell and not allowed out? Yes he was. Did the jury sensibly decline to convict? Yes they did. Everything I said was and is true.

    “Nick Griffin has never been jailed. … At the trial SMFS is talking about Griffin was acquitted on all charges.”

    So he was. Acquitted that is. But he was first arrested and placed in a police cell. All for speaking the truth. Well, on this one small sub-matter anyway.

    14PaulB- “[Jailed] is another way of saying [arrested and held at a police station]? Come off it.”

    We so cannot use the word jailed for being held in a police cell. What word should we use then? Sorted? Pre-packaged? What?

  52. Dave – “Why would anyone here defend Griffin?”

    No one is defending Griffin. But the laws that should protect him will also protect us. Except they do not protect him or his rights and so we will have to find out if they also protect us.

    However notice the idiocy of the law that you and Paul are defending – it forces other people into defending Griffin. He could not present himself as a martyr if you did not make him one.

    “He is a neo-Nazi, and was obviously attempting to stir up racial hatred because that-s what he does. The only question is whether he did so within the law or not, which is something to be tested by the courts.”

    No. The only question is whether matters of fact and political opinion are to be settled by a court of law or the court of public opinion. The only question is whether our Lords and Masters have the power to decide what we can or cannot hear – or not.

    “I don-t want to see even Nazis being harassed by the police, but Griffin was deliberately pushing the boundaries of the law; he deliberately made himself a target.”

    Really? How far do you go with this? So when Oscar Wilde sued for defamation he only had himself to blame when he was jailed for sodomy? Alan Turing only had himself to blame because he called the police when he got ripped off by his underage rent boy?

    Dave – “Have a look at some of the things he’s said.”

    It does not matter. No one is defending his views. Just his freedom to say what is true and obvious.

    “To take an example from this thread that we’ve already mentioned, if Griffin really cared about children being abused he-d have quietly passed the information to social services.”

    Sorry but can you explain why you think the police and social services, having ignored the victims when they complained, would suddenly leap into action when Griffin told them?

    “Instead, he preferred to make political capital out of their continued suffering. Still not willing to condemn him?”

    He tried to draw public attention to this issue. He did the best he could. And in fact I doubt that anyone would have ever been arrested if Griffin had not been put on trial. That forced some people to look into the issue and then to actually report on it. He broke the politically correct consensus that we should not talk about such things.

    But all that is irrelevant. He was jailed for telling the public about something that was true. That is the issue. We do not have free speech in this country. We are fairly close, or at least not so far away, but we have lost a lot of rights and this is one of them.

  53. Richard Allan: please tell me which of my comments you think is an apology for the rape of children, and I’ll give your request due consideration.

    Incidentally, why hasn’t Ian B insisted here that arresting people for having sex with children is a manifestation of neopuritanism and that the men involved should be treated with all sympathy in light of the cultural context?

  54. SadButMadLad – “I always wonder why people like Griffin are so quickly arrested and charged for minor cases of racial incitement while Anjem Choudary is not even arrested though he is stirring racial incitement even more.”

    Because the politically correct think that White people are the problem. The source of all evil. Whereas, in the Gramsci-sense and Ian B points out, non-White people are not hegemonic and so have no power and so cannot be racist or whatever.

    Thus we do in practice have a two tier justice system where some laws are applied against White people but not against non-Whites. Regardless of what the law actually says.

    Although in the early days of the Race Relations Act they did actually charge a few non-White people. Mainly Blacks making comments about Asians if I remember right.

  55. Wondered when that one would come up.

    I’ve never defended “having sex with children”. My position has always been very clear, but I daresay you enjoy misrepresenting it, so I will repeat it. Sigh.

    Human beings sexually develop from their early teens onwards. It is therefore not necessarily abnormal for a normal human to find an underage teenager sexually attractive; that is, it is not a sexual dysfunction. Paedophiles are characterised by being attracted to the *absence* of sexual development, so it is irrational to put into that class, somebody who finds a sexually developed teenager attractive.

    None of which defends rape, or sex with children. Does it, Paul?

  56. SMFS: it’s no good. You don’t get to change the meaning of words to suit whatever nonsense you’ve made up.

    The suggestion that Griffin was a lone voice speaking out on the issue is false. Ann Cryer, the MP for Keighley, was vocal about it starting in 2003. Anna Hall made a documentary about it for Channel 4 (its broadcast in 2004 was delayed because the BNP was exploiting the film for political propaganda).

    Griffin’s attitude to the issue was “if we get a riot out of it we’ll walk the election”. He wasn’t arrested for talking about it – ask Cryer and Hall. He was arrested for using it and other issues to stir up hatred against whole groups of people.

  57. PaulB – “SMFS: it’s no good. You don-t get to change the meaning of words to suit whatever nonsense you-ve made up.”

    Funny that is just what I was thinking about you. Was Griffin arrested? Yes he was. Was he locked up over night in a jail? Yes he was. Therefore he was jailed. Perhaps you think that being forcibly placed in a police cell ought to have some other meaning besides the plain obvious English language reading, but it does not. He was jailed.

    “The suggestion that Griffin was a lone voice speaking out on the issue is false.”

    A good thing I did not suggest it then.

    “Anna Hall made a documentary about it for Channel 4 (its broadcast in 2004 was delayed because the BNP was exploiting the film for political propaganda).”

    Or more accurately the government lent on the BBC to delay broadcast until *after* the election because they thought it might give the BNP votes. Which the BBC shamefully agreed to.

    “He was arrested for using it and other issues to stir up hatred against whole groups of people.”

    How does the truth stir up hatred? He was arrested exactly as I said – for attempting to stir up racial hatred by telling us something that was exactly and specfically true that our Lords and Masters did not want us to hear. Among other things.

    Not one thing I have said so far is wrong. You have had to rely on lying, on redefining words to suit your case and strawmen. Brilliant.

    But no wonder if you support this kind of thing.

  58. Ian B – “There isn-t a non-libertarian solution to this one either, because there isn-t a solution.”

    But that depends on what you mean by a solution. We can reduce the problem. Britain used to be a Christian country. Which meant that most men could marry very easily and without much trouble or expense. The Middle East has polygamy. Which may only be used by a small-ish number of men but has the effect of pushing up the costs of marriage for all men. Which means marriage is delayed. Getting married in your mid-thirties is not unusual. Hence the popularity of situational homosexuality in the Middle East.

    Which also means that women are rare and valuable. So they have to be locked up and protected. Outside the home there is a large population of young men starved of sex or any substitute apart from each other. When they come to a Christian country and see women walking around, they make the reasonable assumption that they are cheap.

    Now this can end two ways. They can adopt our values. Or we can adopt theirs. Populations that have had to put up with large Muslim populations tend to adopt theirs. See New Delhi for instance. Or just watch Zorba the Greek.

    We are helping in this process because we are junking our Christian heritage as fast as possible. The Libertarian solution is for men to marry as many wives as they like. Embracing that dysfunctional Middle Eastern culture. So we will end up locking up women too. Or just accepting that they will be raped if they go out. As one in four Swedish women now are.

    Or we can enforce more traditional marriage patterns.

    “What we can reasonably (from experience) say is that draconian attempts to suppress speech will fail to have much effect, and will have a serious side effect of repressing the liberty of everybody else. Great cost, little benefit.”

    Indeed. But it is coming anyway. As no political party, no university, no group of educated people anywhere in the West, has any belief in free speech except in the abstract. The least tolerant work places are those that are best educated – at least in the liberal arts. Those people will go on to rule us and their values will win in the end.

  59. Was he locked up over night in a jail? Yes he was.

    No he wasn’t, he was released the same day. Not that it makes any difference, “jailed”, in the context of the English legal system, simply does not mean “held overnight in police custody”. Everyone here knows that.

  60. Ian B: you’ve posted several comments to the effect that it does no particular harm for a man to have sex with a 14-year-old girl. Do you want me to look them up for you?

  61. PaulB – “Not that it makes any difference, [jailed], in the context of the English legal system, simply does not mean [held overnight in police custody]. Everyone here knows that.”

    I disagree. The word covers that meaning precisely. That is why we all say Martin Luther King was jailed in Birmingham. When he wrote his Letters of Birmingham Jail. His aim was to get arrested and then clog up the jails. Admittedly he was held for eight days not one night, but there you go.

    Unless, of course, you want to claim MLK was not jailed either? In which case perhaps you might like to explain to us all what new and interesting definition of jailed you are using given it does not mean being locked up in a cell?

  62. PaulB – “you-ve posted several comments to the effect that it does no particular harm for a man to have sex with a 14-year-old girl. Do you want me to look them up for you?”

    I have no particular sympathy for Ian B-s argument here, but first of all, it is unlikely that having sex with a 14-year old does any harm to a man, unless he is arrested. Which also seems to be one of those laws that until recently has only applied to White people. Billie Holiday once said that when her parents got married, her father was 18, her mother 15 and she was three. Her mother-s life was obvious f**ked up from that moment on, but I am not sure it was the sex that did it.

    However that simply makes the obvious point – what these men did is made worse by the sex, but it is not actually the sex that is the problem. It is the grooming, the drugs, the alcohol, the rapes, the systemic pattern of abuse, the pimping out and so on. To focus on the sex and the sex alone is to grossly mislead and distort the issues at hand.

  63. SMFS: King was held in the Birmingham City Jail for eight days (until he posted bail), awaiting trial for contempt of court having breached an injunction. That is not the same as spending a few hours under arrest at a police station.

    Full marks for the MLK reference, but your argument is still hopeless. Try typing “jailed” into google. You’ll get a page of news headlines about people being jailed. In every one the person has been convicted and sent to prison. That’s what the word means with reference to the English legal system. I don’t believe that you don’t know that.

  64. PaulB – “King was held in the Birmingham City Jail for eight days (until he posted bail), awaiting trial for contempt of court having breached an injunction. That is not the same as spending a few hours under arrest at a police station.”

    How does it differ from spending a night in the cells? King chose not to post bail. He was not tried. He was not convicted. But he was jailed.

    “Full marks for the MLK reference, but your argument is still hopeless.”

    You have failed to show how. You have also conceded everything except this minor pathetic linguistic quibble. The fact is I am right, we do have more restrictions on our freedom than TW wrote. Griffin is a good example of this. Who was arrested for mere words. I even pointed out he was acquitted thanks to the good sense of a British jury.

    “Try typing [jailed] into google. You-ll get a page of news headlines about people being jailed. In every one the person has been convicted and sent to prison.”

    I just typed “Martin Luther King jailed” into Google. The first five responses I got referred to the Birmingham incident. When he was not convicted and he was not sent to prison per se.

    Or perhaps you might like to google H. Beatty Chadwick who spent 14 years in prison on a contempt of court charge, but was never convicted of any crime. Are you saying he was not jailed?

    I would think that when Google does not agree with you about a common useage you might want to re-think.

    71Matthew L – “Capitalising [white] like that is somewhat of a red flag, imho.”

    In the same way that Bernard Levin was once approached by someone who insisted that all the asterix in the newspaper was proof of a vast Jewish conspiracy?

    I capitalise a lot of things. White is one of them. Black is another. Asian is a third. But by all means, read whatever paranoid conspiracy theory you like into it.

  65. You’re quite right, it’s pointless to argue with your Humpty Dumpty definition. Let’s just agree that Griffin was arrested and released the same day, and move on.

  66. Which also seems to be one of those laws that until recently has only applied to White people. Billie Holiday once said that when her parents got married, her father was 18, her mother 15 and she was three.

    She appears to have been wrong, so there goes that one rather eccentric data point.

  67. Followed by an end to entry to this country for anyone from Pakistan.

    I think the problem here is more one of Nigeria than Pakistan. I’m not sure hacking people’s heads off is really done much in Pakistan, Daniel Pearl’s murder and a handful of others aside. But a medieval-style murder carried out blatantly in front of onlookers barely makes the news in Nigeria, especially if it is in the north and even if a couple of hundred are killed. The street -level violence in Nigeria needs to be seen to be believed, and that these two turned out to be from there (I could tell by the faces, confirmed by the names) was of little surprise.

  68. Waaaay too late.

    Free speech went overboard fifty years ago, when “racism” became a leftist screeching point.

  69. PaulB – “You-re quite right, it-s pointless to argue with your Humpty Dumpty definition.”

    I look forward to future threads in which you assert that Abu Qatada can be held in any form of immigration detention we like as it is not actually jailing him until he is convicted. Fourteen years H. Beatty Chadwick was in prison. Not convicted even once. So of course he was not jailed right?

    “Let-s just agree that Griffin was arrested and released the same day, and move on.”

    Of all the things to agree on we are unlikely to agree on that, but even if we did, it would be the least important element of this thread. But it is nice of you to concede everything I have said is true. I like the smell of childish butthurt in the morning. It smells of victory.

    74BenSix – “She appears to have been wrong, so there goes that one rather eccentric data point.”

    Hey, who are you going to believe – a total legend with a strange father fixation or the racist American government?

    75Tim Newman – “I think the problem here is more one of Nigeria than Pakistan.”

    Well I would hate people to think I was not an equal opportunity bigot so by all means, let us ban travel to and from both. And marriage. A total trade boycott would not be a bad idea either.

    “I-m not sure hacking people

  70. 75Tim Newman – “”I-m not sure hacking people-s heads off is really done much in Pakistan, Daniel Pearl-s murder and a handful of others aside.”

    It is an Islamic thing I think. I doubt there is any country with a sizeable Muslim population where it is not fairly routine.

    “The street -level violence in Nigeria needs to be seen to be believed, and that these two turned out to be from there (I could tell by the faces, confirmed by the names) was of little surprise.”

    And to think Britain refused to support Biafra. Not one of our finest moments by a long shot.

    Still not too late to support independence for the Delta.

  71. PaulB, above, seems to be having some sort of problem with girls of 14 having sex. Worth remembering the average, population adjusted, age of consent across the EU is under 15. Here in Spain it is 13. It’s the UK that’s abnormal in restricting the freedoms of individuals in their private lives.

  72. Steve, you wrote

    ” No. Anglican and Catholic schools are blameless.”

    How about Northern Ireland? A more successful of dividing people I can’t think of. And, given the law as it now stands, how can one justify Anglican and Catholic schools without accepting Muslim schools on the same basis.

    Now then, do you think that radical religion is less likely if there are religiously segregated schools? Do you really think that would reduce feelings of alienation?

  73. I thought this was a thread about hate speech, not sex. Anyway, Paul-

    Ian B: you’ve posted several comments to the effect that it does no particular harm for a man to have sex with a 14-year-old girl. Do you want me to look them up for you?

    Yes, and we’ve discussed the issue in other threads at length. You seem to be asserting here that there is some particular harm. Jackie Collins bedded Marlon Brando when she was 14. What was the particular harm which occurred?

    Sexual harm is a matter of context and coercion. It’s not sex that is a problem, it’s rape that is a problem. Yes?

    SMFS @65

    For what it’s worth, I agree. I have myself argued that the basic difference between the Occident and Orient is family structure, and from that most culture problems arise, including treatment of women.

    But this was a thread about hate speech, not sex gangs, and I was saying that there wasn’t a libertarian solution to hate speech, but nobody else has one either.

    It is also worth remembering that Europe suffered a wave of terrorism in the 1970s from Communists (e.g. the Red Brigades) but we didn’t ban communist rhetoric. Maybe we should have done, but I don’t think we could have done; the belief was too widespread to suppress. Islamism is an idea. It’s very hard to ban ideas.

  74. Let-s just agree that Griffin was arrested and released the same day, and move on.

    Of all the things to agree on we are unlikely to agree on that…

    No, of course you wouldn’t agree about that, because it’s the documented truth.

    it is nice of you to concede everything I have said is true. I like the smell of childish butthurt in the morning. It smells of victory.

    You don’t like to play nice, do you? To be clear: almost everything you have said is false.

    Your argument about this point (which is minor but illustrative of your indifference to the facts) has come down to claiming that someone being confined to prison in the USA for 14 years by court order is the same as a person being held for a few hours by police in England.

    Since you claim to think google agrees with you, I suggest you find us a some instances of UK news reports using “jailed” to mean “held for a few hours by the police”.

    In future, you should bear in mind that just because no one bothers to contradict you doesn’t mean that any intelligent reader doesn’t know that you’re lying.

  75. SMFS (and Mr in Spain) and PaulB, you’re surely both right: if Griffin was held in gaol for a few hours then strictly speaking he was gaoled, deprived of his liberty by force. On the other hand, when we speak of somebody being gaoled we tend to be referring to the sentence handed down on a successful prosecution.

    As to a libertarian solution to hate speech, I don’t see that there has or ought to be a solution, libertarian or otherwise, to hate, or to its articulation. In fact I find the suggestion that there should to be theocratic and totalitarian. People sometimes hate (at the risk of expressing the bleeding obvious), that’s an unpleasant fact of life but one without which love would have little meaning.

  76. Worth remembering the average, population adjusted, age of consent across the EU is under 15. Here in Spain it is 13. It’s the UK that’s abnormal in restricting the freedoms of individuals in their private lives.

    BiS: Thanks for the reminder. Would what was done in this case have been a crime in Spain, if rape couldn’t be proved?

    Ian B: similar question to you – should what was done be illegal, and if so what should the law be to make it so?

  77. It is worth adding at this point that Paul B’s reason for a semantic argument about the word “jailed” is a diversionary tactic, to avoid discussing the actual issue that people under current laws are- let us say, made persons of interest to the police- due to what they say.

    Let us take the girl who was silly enough to involve herself with the State by becoming Yoof Crime Commissioner. A few silly tweets became known, and she was promptly “investigated” by the police for potential hate crimes.

    So of course they dropped it- it would be an embarrassment to actually force her through the courts- but nonetheless she had some days of the terror of a criminal conviction. For tweeting.

    This is clearly oppressive, whether or not she was “jailed” at any point (in that case, no). People may spend months under investigation, and then may face the enormous stress of a court case. They may eventually be acquitted. But even if they are, this is oppressive.

    But Paul doesn’t want to address that, hence his obsessing over one word.

  78. Yes Paul, I think threatening women with violence to get sex should be illegal. But I really think that’s a matter for another thread. We’re up to 86 comments here already, and this is about laws against Islamic preachers, not rape.

  79. Paul does like to divert the conversation when he’s strayed on dodgy ground, doesn’t he Ian? Bit of mud slinging doesn’t seem to bother him, either. But just to tidy up his rather inane inquiry:
    Spain, like most of the lower end AoC jurisdictions takes a much more mature line than the hysterical Brits. There’s specific exceptions where the youngster might be considered to have consented under duress. So whilst my neighbours’ stunningly mature 13 y/o can while away an erotic afternoon with some lad close her own age, an old geezer like me slipping his hands down her thong could find himself in a whole world of trouble. And I’d very much doubt if the circumstances of the article Paul linked to would have had the Spanish authorities turning a blind eye for very long. Not a lot of ethnic tolerance down here. You want to live here, you respect the rules

  80. Ian B: so if threats of violence could not be proved, it would be legal under your choice of laws.

    BiS: ok, so in Spain girls are protected from predatory men if the authorities take a dislike to their ethnicity. I prefer a system in which the protection applies regardless.
    __

    If you like we can leave this until another thread where you proclaim the joys of a liberal attitude to the age of consent.

  81. Ian B: so if threats of violence could not be proved, it would be legal under your choice of laws.

    Well, that’s how laws normally work; you need to prove something happened.

    What you’re effectively saying in this curious manner that appears to be trying to put words in my mouth is something like-

    “so if force could not be proved, rape would be legal under your choice of laws”.

    I mean, this is a ridiculous argument. Of course you have to prove things. That’s how the courts work, for crying out loud.

  82. PaulB – “You don-t like to play nice, do you? To be clear: almost everything you have said is false.”

    Nothing I have said is false. And I try to be a little less of an arse than the person trying to wind me up.

    “Your argument about this point (which is minor but illustrative of your indifference to the facts) has come down to claiming that someone being confined to prison in the USA for 14 years by court order is the same as a person being held for a few hours by police in England.”

    You continue to lie with a degree of utter shamelessness that I find quite impressive. No, that is not my argument. You said:

    “Try typing [jailed] into google. You-ll get a page of news headlines about people being jailed. In every one the person has been convicted and sent to prison.”

    Mr Beatty was not convicted. I simply asked if you therefore thought he was not jailed? Even though he spent 14 years in prison. At no point I can see did I compare his case with Griffin-s.

    “Since you claim to think google agrees with you, I suggest you find us a some instances of UK news reports using [jailed] to mean [held for a few hours by the police].”

    But I have never claimed the two mean the same thing. So it is irrelevant. I have said that being placed in a prison cell is being jailed.

    “In future, you should bear in mind that just because no one bothers to contradict you doesn-t mean that any intelligent reader doesn-t know that you’re lying.”

    Come on Paul. My views are hardly popular here and yet even a blind retard can see you are getting your butt kicked. It is embarrassing.

  83. Sadly there are people Abu Qatada who do incite to violence but are still free.
    Also sometimes people Anjem Chowdry for example who incite to violence but people who are ignorant of Islam do not understand it.
    We need to put Robert Spencer in charge of choosing who to prosecute and explaining why.

  84. Given that the police have already felt the collars of 11 people for exercising their right to free speech on twitter and facebook, allegedly for racist or anti-religious comments, possibly not particularly articulately, one would think that there are already laws in place with which Islamic clerics promoting violence and hatred of infidels could be prosecuted.

    One of the instances was apparently, according to an East Sussex police spokesman, in connection to an incident in Woolwich on Wednesday. I think he may have been referring to the brutal killing of a young husband and father by the adherents of a barbaric, medieval cult.

    It is strange that the police will go after those giving vent to perfectly understandable frustration and anger yet, quite correctly, did not take action over Richard Dawkins rightly describing Islam as one of the great evils of the world.

    We need to let the Islamic clerics say what the hell they want but we should be equally free to say openly and honestly what we think of Islam. We should be free to challenge the beliefs of this pernicious cult without its adherents closing down debate by having its critic arrested and prosecuted for hate speech.

  85. SMFS, I’m probably being very dim, and the point is a trivial one in the context of what the thread is supposed to be about, but you did say, “Nick Griffin was jailed way back when for incitement to racial hatred”. And you went on to accept that the jury acquitted. In which case you must have meant, shurely, that he was held in a cell by police pending questioning and/or held on remand prior to trial. How else could Griffin have been gaoled?

  86. SMFS: “Mr Beatty was not convicted. ”

    Contempt of court has wildly different rules, that is not a good example.

  87. “BiS: ok, so in Spain girls are protected from predatory men if the authorities take a dislike to their ethnicity. I prefer a system in which the protection applies regardless.”

    PaulB
    If you weren’t a complete & utter tosser you’d learn to read. I specifically said the rules here apply to everyone. No free passes for ethnic sensitivity. Get it?
    UK has a lot of catching up to do. So do you.

  88. DocBud said: *… one would think that there are already laws in place with which Islamic clerics promoting violence and hatred of infidels could be prosecuted.*

    Hatred and wishing violence towards infidels, westerners, decadent non-believers or whatever else is a loophole in the identity politics we are subjected to. There is no visible infidel population or community able to pressure the state into protecting them.

  89. Basically, nobody in power can start to fix this thing until they ditch the paradigms of the New Left. They aren’t going to do that. That’s why we’re fucked.

  90. BiS: I suppose “tolerance” means something different in your idiolect. I acknowledge that I am but an imperfect reader of it.

  91. Yes Paul. We’ve seen tolerance. In Oxford.
    It’s beyond me why you equate treating people without favour equates to intolerance. The french expect foreigners in France to respect french laws & customs. The spanish the same. I don’t have any problem with that as a guest in those countries. Don’t suppose Tim does, the other side of the border. Where I was last week. I took off my spanish mindset & put on my portuguese one half way across the bridge. Their country, their rules. I don’t wander around Europe & N. Africa in a little bubble of England.

  92. “nobody in power can start to fix this thing until they ditch the paradigms of the New Left. They aren t going to do that.”

    You can see whats going to happen, already. It’s started round the Baltic, in France, parts of Germany, Italy. There’s going to be one helluva nationalist backlash. It’ll probably pull the EU down as it whips round. Might even pull some of the nations apart. Wouldn’t be surprised if it went the whole nine yards with the ethnic cleansing, camps, the works. once it gets started it’ll be very hard to stop.
    Problem with the Left is, although they constantly rant about the “far right”, they can’t conceive anyone would actually support it. Their only response is more of the same. The Left is the only game in town, at the moment. You keep ignoring people, they’ll eventually get fed up & take their ball home.

  93. BiS: I think “tolerance” means treating people fairly. So when you wrote ” Not a lot of ethnic tolerance down here” I thought you meant they treated disfavoured ethnic groups unfairly. What did you mean?

  94. SMFS:

    Nothing I have said is false.

    Was he locked up over night in a jail? Yes he was.

    That’s false.

    the government lent on the BBC to delay broadcast until *after* the election because they thought it might give the BNP votes. Which the BBC shamefully agreed to.

    The BBC delayed the screening of a Channel 4 documentary? That’s ludicrously false.

  95. Don’t be fooled by Dave’s grandstanding on this issue. If he was to put this into actual practice (as opposed to reactive window-dressing) it would be a major tactical change. The path chosen by successive governments since WW2 has been to maneuvre and position in such a way as to puppeteer both right and left. Currently the Islamists and left have an alliance, similar to the 1960s Irish Provos and left alliance. This is a battlefield in which the objective is to win the flag. Except there are 2 flags. Hence Al-Jazeera is broadcast from Washington and Noam Chomsky is an Establishment ‘malcontent’. Hence why no matter whether you vote Labour or Conservative you get identikit clones working to the same covert government plan. So, Islamist radicalist preaching of an extreme minority nature will continue unabated or even more intensely in London (to send radicalized idiots to support UK foreign policy in Syria just as before with Bosnia, Libya, etc.) Ordinary Muslims who just want a peaceful life will, ironically, take the heat. MI6 is pulling the strings here.

  96. It occurs to me that if people feel moved to make some comment on Islam via twitter or facebook, the best think to say would simply be: Richard Dawkins says Islam is one of the great evils of the world. I agree.

    Given that, as far as I can tell, Richard Dawkins has, quite rightly, not been questioned about any of his comments on Islam, let alone spent sometime in a cell, it would seem unlikely that anyone could be prosecuted for quoting him and agreeing with the quote.

  97. Clearly being held in a cell is not being ‘jailed’. That is a sentence at the end of a trial.

    Nick Griffin is not right wing. The BNP calls among other things for a return to nationalised industry.

    We can’t control the Internet so why try? It makes us look weaker than we are.

    That said, I think this problem is bigger than two blokes killing another bloke. I think we will see murder on a grand scale eventually.

  98. Most dictionaries, including the Oxford Dictionary, define jail along the lines of being a place where people accused or convicted of a crime are held.

  99. PaulB – “That-s false.”

    You continue to rely on low-grade blogs of zero credibility. Whipping around your fellow Trots network is not proof of anything.

    “The BBC delayed the screening of a Channel 4 documentary? That-s ludicrously false.”

    Well OK, I will grant you it was Channel Four. But as your link says:

    Groups such as Unite Against Fascism, the 1990 Trust, and the National Assembly Against Racism began to flood Channel 4 with requests to delay transmission. The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Colin Cramphorn, joined the call, and Channel 4 complied. Both the police and Channel 4 stressed that the issue was the timing, so close to local and European elections.

    It was specifically because of the elections. God forbid the British voter might be *informed*.

    107Interested – “Clearly being held in a cell is not being [jailed]. That is a sentence at the end of a trial.”

    So Martin Luther king was not jailed in Birmingham way back when in your opinion? He may have written A Letter From Birmingham Jail from a jail cell, but he had not, in fact, been jailed in your opinion? And Abu Qatada may have been held in many British jails, but he too has never been jailed by the British?

  100. Edward Lud – “How else could Griffin have been gaoled?”

    I have said right from the start that he was not convicted, but merely arrested and held in the cells for a short time. I think that it is reasonable to describe this as being jailed. Paul B is quibbling. I agree is a trivial point but he will not let it go.

    96Matthew L – “Contempt of court has wildly different rules, that is not a good example.”

    It is an extreme example, but I do not see how it is not a good one. Paul asserts that there is no jail without conviction. Beatty was never ever convicted. Of anything. But he did 14 years in a prison cell. So was he jailed or not? Whether it was for contempt or jay walking is irrelevant to the central issue.

  101. Incidentally the best line from that Guardian article is this one:

    One of the mothers featured in the film sent Hall a text message after the film was withdrawn, which read, It-s a real shame when votes come before young girls lives.

    Indeed it is. It still is. The refusal to take these claims seriously – and the tendency of the Left to throw accusations of racism left right and centre allowed these rapes to go on for another eight years. Eight long years. That is how compassionate the Left is.

    People should have been fired for delaying that film. It was a gross interference in the election process. Especially as it was all true.

  102. You continue to rely on low-grade blogs of zero credibility. Whipping around your fellow Trots network is not proof of anything.

    Don’t be ridiculous. Here‘s the Guardian report “Speaking to reporters tonight after being released by West Yorkshire police, which had arrested him at his Mid-Wales home at around 6.30am”. Here‘s the BBC report. Here‘s a report on what seems to be a BNP site. Are they all engaged in a Trotskyite conspiracy against you?

  103. I visited the Fremantle Prison, SMFS, and was locked in a cell for a few minutes as part of a tour group. Was I jailed?

  104. I am a bunch of volunteers along with starting up a fresh design in this group. Your blog presented us with information to help pictures upon. You have done a notable activity along with all of our overall local community shall be gracious to you.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.