• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "I think most here would be guilty"

Collapse

  • mcquiggd
    replied
    Originally posted by stackpole
    I notice that the BBC haven't got a Have Your Say running on this. They know what they'll get - a shedload of support for the BNP geezers!
    Yes, it is interesting how they tend to avoid certain subjects that they know will reveal what people really think....

    Leave a comment:


  • Lucifer Box
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW
    Politicians should not be changing laws to get what they want in court.
    Well said. Nicely summarises the entire problem in one sentence.

    Especially given the abolition of the double jeopardy safeguards and the current love of retrospective legislation.

    Leave a comment:


  • stackpole
    replied
    This worries me more than the BNP:
    Originally posted by Lord Falconer
    There should be "consequences" from saying Islam is "wicked and evil".
    That would be a sinister statement from any government politician, but Falconer is Lord Chancellor FFS! What next, "consequences" for saying socialism is "deceitful and incompetent"?

    I notice that the BBC haven't got a Have Your Say running on this. They know what they'll get - a shedload of support for the BNP geezers!

    Leave a comment:


  • mcquiggd
    replied
    Personally I think El Gordo should change his name, as I find it offensive and indicative of a colour-based predudice...

    'gordon man-of-all-creeds-and-colours-including the-english-as-long-as-they-elect-me' might be a suitable replacement...

    'gordon brown' just shows downright bias, and he should be put on trial...

    And beheaded.

    Leave a comment:


  • hyperD
    replied
    You think that's bad? You wait for the next fertiliser/sugar/koran explosion to go off: the public demands action, the government fast-track ID cards and the biometric centralised DNA database.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Politicians should not be changing laws to get what they want in court.

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    Plus the BBC's interviewee comparing what Griffin said to what Abu Hamza said. Has anyone read the sort of stuff Hamza said? In addition Hamza had been warned several times over a number of years before any action was taken, not proceeded against immediately as Griffin was. The retrial of Griffin was a politically motivated vendetta.

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Originally posted by vista
    I'm surprised he didn't smear the jury as a bunch of racists and call for a third trial.
    The BBC did the job for him "after the all-white jury found him not guilty." i.e. they were all white = all racist

    Leave a comment:


  • Lucifer Box
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll
    Heir apparent
    I will laugh my cock off if he doesn't get elected as the next leader. Just seeing the extra sour face on the sour faced Jocko would be blissful.

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Originally posted by Lucifer Box
    Oh yes, WTF has it got to do with the Chancellor anyway?
    Heir apparent

    Leave a comment:


  • Lucifer Box
    replied
    Oh yes, WTF has it got to do with the Chancellor anyway?

    Leave a comment:


  • vista
    replied
    Offensive

    Brown continuing to breath is offensive to many can we have some legislation to cover this as well?

    I'm surprised he didn't smear the jury as a bunch of racists and call for a third trial.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lucifer Box
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll
    Looks like they will try to resurrect the religious hatred bill .... btw anyone know what sentence the muslim got for calling for us to be beheaded?
    Wasn't he out on license anyway and just got sent straight back inside? Crack dealing or something wasn't it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    started a topic I think most here would be guilty

    I think most here would be guilty

    Chancellor Gordon Brown said race laws may have to be changed after British National Party leader Nick Griffin was cleared by a jury of stirring up racial hatred.

    The far-right politician sprayed champagne and declared a victory against the Government and the political establishment after the all-white jury found him not guilty.

    But Mr Brown said most people would find some of Mr Griffin's words offensive and pledged a legislative rethink if it was required to stamp out racial hatred.

    "Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country and I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out, from whatever quarter it comes," he told the BBC.
    Looks like they will try to resurrect the religious hatred bill .... btw anyone know what sentence the muslim got for calling for us to be beheaded?
Working...
X