The BNP Megathread Part 4- All BNP discussion in here please

[VARB 10]

Thanks for that...I believe he should of got off to be quite honest...not that I don't believe he hurled racist abuse at someone and in normal circumstances should have been convicted...but I think the police compromised their case by giving the woman the award - with the proviso that the award was known to the magistrates prior to reaching their verdict as this could have influenced their assesment of the credibility of the witness.

 

I dont know the bloke so wont try and judge his character or if he's the type to carry out such a stupid act but I cant see how he could have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt without a victim and just one witness with such a bad memory , I'm sorry but if he wasn't a BNP member everybody would be up in arms .

[Longcol 625]

I dont know the bloke so wont try and judge his character or if he's the type to carry out such a stupid act but I cant see how he could have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt without a victim and just one witness with such a bad memory , I'm sorry but if he wasn't a BNP member everybody would be up in arms .

 

Not all crimes neccessarily need a victim eg behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. As for the witness I think honest....and it is the manner in which the words were delivered rather than the exact words that would have counted.

[happyhippy 11]

Not all crimes neccessarily need a victim eg behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. As for the witness I think honest....and it is the manner in which the words were delivered rather than the exact words that would have counted.

 

A breach of the peace is not an offence.

[Plain Talker 11]

Case 1:

 

Muslim Asian thug attacks 54 year old Edinburgh resident. The thug landed a kung-fu kick on a 54-year old cancer sufferer's face. Carol Marr received the blow as she tried protesting to kickboxer Talha Tariq and his brothers after he hit her with a snowball.

 

She was also called a "white bitch" by the 19-year-old student during the racially motivated fracas in Edinburgh. Tariq claimed self defence.

 

Edinburgh Sheriff Roderick McLeod yesterday (5th) told him: "I cannot condone such a nasty attack on a middle aged woman, not in good health."

 

He ordered Tariq to pay £600 in fines and compensation.

 

Case 2:

 

BNP member and Worcester Organiser Kevin Hughes accused of racially motivated assault on a bogus Iraqi asylum seeker. No evidence, no injuries, no doctor’s reports, no eye-witnesses, no previous record.

 

Verdict – guilty. Punishment - 18 months imprisonment (reduced to 12 on appeal) for the racially motivated element and 12 months for the alleged assault.

 

and what "previous" do these two (and the others cited) have? these are just snapshots of a single case, a single conviction. we do not know from that, whether thy are of previous good character or no, do we?

 

that is also taken into account when sentencing

[Bartfarst 10]

and what "previous" do these two (and the others cited) have? these are just snapshots of a single case, a single conviction. we do not know from that, whether thy are of previous good character or no, do we?

 

that is also taken into account when sentencing

PT - you may see it differently, but your response here might suggest that you stoop to defending the individual who attacked the lady in Edinburgh.

[Plain Talker 11]

Where did I say I supported ANY of the perpetrators, Bartfarst? and, how dare you suggest, or imply in any way that I did. I absolutely resent that slight on my character.

 

I simply asked what previous form these criminals had, and pointed out that BOTH cites in that post, and the others in the thread were, indeed a snapshot, and we did not know what previous ANY of them had, and that "previous" does have an affect on what sort of sentencing criminals get. generally speaking, if they are recidivist, then they get a stronger sentence.

 

I suggest that you try reading what I actually wrote.

[VARB 10]

and what "previous" do these two (and the others cited) have? these are just snapshots of a single case, a single conviction. we do not know from that, whether thy are of previous good character or no, do we?

 

that is also taken into account when sentencing

 

It does state in the report Kevin Hughes had no previous to be taken into account and the lack of any reference to previous convictions and the sentence would make me think Talha Tariq had non either .

[lastlaugh 10]

A breach of the peace is not an offence.

 

It's not even English.

[Joe Chapman 10]

Case 1:

 

Muslim Asian thug attacks 54 year old Edinburgh resident. The thug landed a kung-fu kick on a 54-year old cancer sufferer's face. Carol Marr received the blow as she tried protesting to kickboxer Talha Tariq and his brothers after he hit her with a snowball.

 

She was also called a "white bitch" by the 19-year-old student during the racially motivated fracas in Edinburgh. Tariq claimed self defence.

 

Edinburgh Sheriff Roderick McLeod yesterday (5th) told him: "I cannot condone such a nasty attack on a middle aged woman, not in good health."

 

He ordered Tariq to pay £600 in fines and compensation.

One point I'd like to make about this case or at least this particular report of the case:

 

The above quote implies that the reason why Tariq attacked Carol Marr was because Carol Marr hit Tariq with a snowball. This seems to be a fact of the case.

 

However, the report later states that this was a racially motivated attack. On what grounds? Yes, it is clear that Tariq used a racist remark during the attack but not that Tariq attacked Carol Marr because she was white. Nor does it suggest that Carol Marr attacked Tariq with the snowball because he isn't white. So I don't understand how this can be jusified as being a racially motivated attack.

 

The question of comparing crimes by muslims with crimes by BNP members is a simple one really.

 

Islam is a religion not a political movement or party and is not racially prejudiced, it is not a religion for any particular race, it does not advocate, condone or teach hostility toward people on the basis of their race. Islam is not exclusive. There are groups, political parties & movements within Islam that are for racial separation but they do not represent Islam.

 

The BNP is not a religion it is a political party, it was set up as a white separatist party and still serves that function. The BNP is racially prejudiced, prejudice against non-whites is the main reason for it's existence. The BNP is exclusive. Many people (not all) are attracted to The BNP because it is advocates racial separation. The BNP could be considered as a Christian organisation by some people, but we don't go around saying that all Christians are racists because some Christians are members of a racist party. That would be wrong.

[cgksheff 44]

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1481022006

[VARB 10]

One point I'd like to make about this case or at least this particular report of the case:

 

The above quote implies that the reason why Tariq attacked Carol Marr was because Carol Marr hit Tariq with a snowball. This seems to be a fact of the case.

 

However, the report later states that this was a racially motivated attack. On what grounds? Yes, it is clear that Tariq used a racist remark during the attack but not that Tariq attacked Carol Marr because she was white. Nor does it suggest that Carol Marr attacked Tariq with the snowball because he isn't white. So I don't understand how this can be jusified as being a racially motivated attack.

 

 

 

QUOTE]

 

 

Cant you read or are you a compulsive idiot ?

[Longcol 625]

One simple observation:

 

The BNP have often stated that only white people are prosecuted for racial offences. This case would tend to disprove this.