Frank Sidney   11 #133 Posted January 11, 2011 I see where you're coming from - however, given that they've less reason than the BNP to pretend to be reasonable or legitimate, wouldn't you agree that they'll be easier for the police to keep tabs on and much more liable to charged with the inevitable offences that'll result?  Yes they'll be easy to identify and easier to charge. But look at the damage some students did. Imagine if that lot were the EDL. There's a lot of angry young men about... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Kaimani   10 #134 Posted January 11, 2011 Yes they'll be easy to identify and easier to charge. But look at the damage some students did. Imagine if that lot were the EDL. There's a lot of angry young men about...  i think more than politics(actual) religion or economics individually the mass of angry young men around, from all sides, is the main issue in the near to mid future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
JFKvsNixon   10 #135 Posted January 11, 2011 Yes they'll be easy to identify and easier to charge. But look at the damage some students did. Imagine if that lot were the EDL. There's a lot of angry young men about...  It may be easier to police, the student protest must have a nightmare for the police because with the student protests you had a mix of people looking to cause mayhem and other young vulnerable peaceful protesters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
RonJeremy   10 #136 Posted January 11, 2011 Spot on sibon. Let them be hoist by their own petard.  Didn't someone in the OP already metion this phrase? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
deltorso   10 #137 Posted January 11, 2011 the bnp are not vile! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
RonJeremy   10 #138 Posted January 11, 2011 Remember this-the BNP ejecting a Times journalist from one of their meetings? http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/feb/15/times-assault-dominic-kennedy  Oh and former BNP councillor Richard Barnbrook refusing entry to non whites to a public BNP meeting (after they'd lifted their ban on non whites joining the party)  http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23759615-non-whites-barred-from-bnp-meeting.do  I think a hustings and a party meeting are different things. The two are not comparable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Halibut   12 #139 Posted January 11, 2011 the bnp are not vile!  They're a sack of turds, led by a bigger sack of turds. How's that not vile?   Do you hate darkies? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
melthebell   862 #140 Posted January 11, 2011 I think a hustings and a party meeting are different things. The two are not comparable.  unless somebody gatecrashes either of them? then they can be thrown out of both  which is apparently what the bnper did? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
RonJeremy   10 #141 Posted January 11, 2011 Why is it democratic to be compelled to hear the views of gatecrashers at events you have paid for and funded? Next time you host a party or event and a politician turns up will you be granting them free speech in the interests of democracy or would you be evicting them as a gatecrashing bore?  I think we agree. It was my point that if they were not invited they shouldn't have been there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
RonJeremy   10 #142 Posted January 11, 2011 unless somebody gatecrashes either of them? then they can be thrown out of both which is apparently what the bnper did?  They are different things. Whether someone gatecrashed or not. Although most of the articles say they did have tickets. They then used their position to make a protest about smaller parties being allowed to speak. Quite effective really. He was a lot better behaved than the student protesters who attacked london and londoners. It is not democratic to exclude certain candidate with whom you disagree, it is perfectly legal (I think) to invite people you choose to an event, but not democratic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
melthebell   862 #143 Posted January 11, 2011 They are different things. Whether someone gatecrashed or not. Although most of the articles say they did have tickets. They then used their position to make a protest about smaller parties being allowed to speak. Quite effective really. He was a lot better behaved than the student protesters who attacked london and londoners. It is not democratic to exclude certain candidate with whom you disagree, it is perfectly legal (I think) to invite people you choose to an event, but not democratic.  1: whether he had a ticket or not he ABUSED his position and deserved to go and cant whinge like they did, trying to make out they were innocent.  2: the student protests has NOTHING at all to do with this, unless your shoe horning it in to make your fave party look better Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
INTERVIEWER Â Â 10 #144 Posted January 11, 2011 The BNP made a peaceful protest at the hustings in which there were no arrests. Morally, and democratically, they were in the right. Unfortunately the law, so often used to hammer the little people, was not on their side. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...