MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8663681.stm ]BNP out on the Campaign trail[/url]
Now to be truthful if someone spat at me I would do my nut and probably do the same, although spitting at the BNP, should this be allowed 😈
Clip of the day
Holy Fwck! Gotta love the BNP 😕
Lordy!
police said an 18-year-old man attended Barking police station and alleged common assault against another man.
Assuming that the guy didn't show up to the cop shop to grass on himself (although anything's possible with 18 year old dickheads), I would have thought he alleged common assault [i]by [/i]another man.
It seems that sentence is a mix between "made an allegation of assault against another man" and "accused another man of alleged assault". Actually, on reflection, is my pedantry misplaced? I'm confused now.
police said an 18-year-old man attended Barking police station and alleged common assault against another man.
looked like 6 of one & half a dozen of another to me
Bigbloke - You are trolling right?
Love the comedy kick by the BNP guy. (Note to self never kick in suit trousers)
Bet he'll get a few votes outta that clip!
Fatman in a suit akshun!
ha ha class, yeah if someone spat at me id go ape, but not in front of a Tv crew. they all look like a set of idiots....
Bigbloke - You are trolling right?
I was wondering about that....
Bigbloke - You are trolling right?
I assume he is referring to the BNP guy not the Asian chaps, not that they cover themselves in glory spitting in the guys face.
Anyway lets not ruin a good thread with another racist argument. 😀
When asked about the fight Mr Griffin told BBC London the fight was the result of a "campaign of hatred and dehumanisation against any group of people, in this case us".
😯 😯
Got feel for them eh poor BNP being affected by hatred and bigotry
It's a funny fight and I bet he does win some votes for doing it but really, it just goes to show (if it wasn't already clear) what a bunch of dickheads the BNP are. He knew he was being filmed, he's a politician on a campaign trail, he should have immediately reported it to the police.
looked like 6 of one & half a dozen of another to me
Agreed - no excuse for any single person's actions in that clip. But no-one could possibly say the BNP guy was any more wrong than the guy spitting in his face in the first place - it was pretty revolting provocation.
Briliant well done that'll get the BNP a few more votes.
Uplink, I don't think it does, the young lad went straight up to him and the BNP guy just held him off a little before being spat at, which is totally disgusting, and I think would trigger a fight reaction in anyone?
no excuse for any single person's actions in that clip
You mean apart from the common law rule of self defence...?
You mean apart from the common law rule of self defence...?
after the bnp fella defended himself, he went in for another portion
they're all pricks in that particular clip
Thats beautiful.
I've never seen or read anything which indicates that any bnp candidate is anywhere near the top of the tree, evolutionarily speaking, and this reinforces that, at least from a pr point of view.
Shame the big lad was such a wuss, it had looked so promising 🙂
Have to agree with oldgit on this one - very disappointing performance from the big lad, but then again, members of the BNP are, unfortunately, quite tasty when it comes to a pagger. Next time, use a big stick (preferably with all dog sh*t on the end).
That was quite a large arse at the end though 😯
You mean apart from the common law rule of self defence
Self defence from being spat at?
notice the token wee hard man escaping from the fracas near the car and scarpering behind the two legged hippo with a white t-shirt on towards the end of the clip.
nobody comes out of that very well, but i'd be surprised if a kick like that didn't land an assault charge, especially as its caught on camera - that sort of thing can cause serious injury if it connects.
Self defence from being spat at?
yup - it's reasonable to defend yourself in that case
how far you can take it [as always] open to interpretation
If he believed the bloke still posed a threat then kicking him is perfectly lawful - there was a melee, potential further threat from others in the group and confusion all round - he did not walk away and then go back for another kick (which would have been illegal), he did not look up and assess the situation before kicking, it was an instinctive act - the aggressors here were clearly the Asian lads, who approached straight to within his personal space and then assaulted him - the balance of proof in this case is that the prosecution would have to show that he was not acting in self defence,
[i]"If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action."[/i]
all quite depressing stuff really. The guy who spat didn't do himself any favours, and BNP guy betrayed himself for exactly what the BNP are.
Sadly all this clip achieves is reinforcing hatred.
That [i]was[/i] a massive arse at the end though.
I thought politicians were just supposed to kiss babies.
Self defence from being spat at?
yup - it's reasonable to defend yourself in that case
how far you can take it [as always] open to interpretation
That is an absurd thing to say in my opinion. It was not self defence, it was retaliation.
Self defence is protecting yourself from harm and he was not protecting himself from harm in any way, shape or form. He just got angry and retaliated.
Spitting at someone is assault though, maybe he thought he was defending himself from being assaulted again?
I am the only person who finds this thread title fuhnny?
Spitting at someone is assault though
Agreed
Chasing him down the street and kicking him afterwards was not self defence though.
Chasing him down the street and kicking him afterwards was not self defence though.
as I said earlier in the thread......
[i]after the bnp fella defended himself, he went in for another portion[/i]
&
[i]how far you can take it [as always] open to interpretation[/i]
Self defence is protecting yourself from harm and he was not protecting himself from harm in any way, shape or form. He just got angry and retaliated.
Given the entire circumstances - ie. three lads have just walked up, invaded your personal space and one has then assaulted you, plus someone (not clear who) in the video has said "I'll F***in do for you I'll tell you" (threat to kill?) then the conclusion that the entire situation means you're under an immediate threat is perfectly reasonable - as uplink said "defending himself from being assaulted again"
Chasing him down the street and kicking him afterwards was not self defence though.
To be fair, he didn't chase him down the street - there was a melee, short lived, and an immediate reaction, as long as he felt he was still under threat, self defence is valid - if the lad was running away and they had chased after him it would have been different, but it was a melee with punches being thrown by all sides.
Just timed it and from the spit to the kick was four seconds! thats not "going back for more"
Zulu; you don't half talk some shit, don't you, eh? 🙄
You mean apart from the common law rule of self defence...?
You're only allowed to use 'reasonable force'. This is open to interpretation, but I suspect the Nazi went just a little beyond that. The spitting is inexcusable; the lad should have used a brick...
Those lads are young, cocky and arrogant. But they've got every right to confront Nazi thugs. That could very well be the street they live in. And the sound has been heavily edited, no doubt due to the swearing, but the Nazi says something to the effect of 'get on your bike and f-off', which to me is pretty provocative and insulting. And at the beginning, he moved his hand toward the smaller lad; that's actually Common Assault. So, it could be argued that the initial act of assault happened at that point.
he aggressors here were clearly the Asian lads
Clearly. The fact that scum like the BNP have attacked Asian and Black people in the past; that their parents probably suffered racist abuse, discrimination and even attacks, for decades, and that racism has divided communities, has no bearing at all here. Those lads are clearly out of order, and have no right to try to interrupt the peaceful democratic right of the BNP (or indeed any party) have in canvassing for an election.
Pfft.
No surprise to see you siding with the Nazis, Zulu.
but I suspect the Nazi went just a little beyond that
On what basis exactly - other than the fact he's a Nazi and clearly therefore in the wrong
but the Nazi says something to the effect of 'get on your bike and f-off' which to me is pretty provocative and insulting
Just after someone's said "I'll ****ing do for you" - threats to kill aren't provocative then?
The fact that scum like the BNP have attacked Asian and Black people in the past;
O, sorry, so you're saying that the asian lads were acting in self defence are you?
No surprise to see you siding with the Nazis, Zulu.
🙄 - I call Godwins law!
Believe me Fred, I hate [u]All[/u] socialists with a passion you cannot imagine, not just the nationalist ones
3 asian lads were responding to abuse shouted at them by the bnp
no doubt the nasty nazi wannabes were spoiling for a fight as tehy nknew they were being filmed and wanted to provoke the lads
i dont think id want to fight a bnp candidate
probably honed their headkicking skills as football hooligans before they were banned from attending matches
Funny how the BNP didn't come down my street. we're all British, all hard working, all (except me) of asian origin...
I do wonder what they shouted at him first (before the filming(is that selective editing from the BBC?)) but if he wants to be a politician he needs to learn to take some abuse. The guy shouldn't have spat at him, and should be charged appropriately, but I'm pretty sure the BNP guy said "there's more of us than there are of you so **** off? Sounds like a threat to me!
I did wonder if the thread title was going to be along the lines of "eat your heart out prescott, and bake it in a pie?" Not sure why?
Enough of your waffling. You're not fooling anyone Ratty. We know you're a closet nazi. You just don't have the balls to come out and say it.
Just as well for secret ballots, eh?
You've clearly not looked at their policies, eh Freddie
You expect someone politically to the right of Atilla the hun to vote for what basically amounts to The Labour party manifesto on steroids... nationalisation of the means of production FFS!
I think you'll find that the BNP's core voting demographic are far, far more aligned with Labour heartlands than my own!
Ignorant white power socialists!
Of course, you know nothing about my personal life or who I choose to associate with - however as always you've elected to try and play the "racialist" card - Welcome back to the old Fred, good to see you back on form mate, we missed you! Are you going to start random photo posting in threads and calling everyone names before going a bit mental and losing it before getting banned again?
LOL at the arguing on this thread!!! Bunch of old women.
3 points
1. BNP are a bunch of c*nts so spitting on them is fair game.
2. Spit on someone and expect a good slap in return!
3. That was a massive arse.
anyone else hit the pause button when that huge arse appeared near the end?
oh...
just me then 😯
however as always you've elected to try and play the "racialist" card
Don't really have to with you. You reveal your true colours in the shite you regularly spout.
someone politically to the right of Atilla the hun
Don't flatter yourself. You're not that interesting. You're just another tedious boring right-winger who hasn't got the balls to come out and say what they really think.
now you two remind me of my two children squabbling at bath time
It's ok JY; my ADHD's kicked in and I'm bored now. He can have the rubber ducky.
Cmon Fred, go for it - start with the photos, we've all been waiting for the great big Talkemada meltdown and we know it was only a matter of time before you went wibble again 🙂
his absence was both noted by many and missed by many your absence would not be noticed. Go on dont post for three mths see what happens
So I guess I'm off your Christmas card list they Junky? 🙁
Diddums, what a shame - come tomorrow morning its Bucks Fizz for breakfast, then we can get to work allowing the coronation of Boris to PM in 2012 after the olympics, then who'll be laughing 😈
Not you ratty. Callmedave wont get in, and you can stick your bucks fizz up your ar*e.
from the london assembly bnp candidate
"Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal. "
and you side with these guys z11?, nice, very nice
kimbers - check out the same candidates views on 'care' for people with disabilities. The c**t needs setting fire to.
Kimbers - nope, I simply pointed out what the law on self defence was - thats not siding with them, its stating what the law is...
I suppose on your basis jimmy Carr must be a BNP supporter too? or are you relying on reductio ad absurdium?
See, this is the problem - you can't have an intelligent discussion about the law without some Left wing radical calling you a bigot - you sort of wonder why the Labour core vote is deserting them for the BNP...
I simply pointed out what the law on self defence was
No, you didn't. You came up with something about your opinion on what the Law means. I suggest you go away and read up on the subject...
I simply pointed out what the law on self defence was
He's not wrong you know he was just discussing it with MF then everyone called him a racist. Shame really as I like watching non boxing/karate people throwing haybalers, now the threads gone all serious. 👿
No Freddie - I stated what the law [b]is[/b]... and pointed pout a perfectly reasonable defence to the allegations made here of assault.
Its all out there if you know where to look.
My point remains - you can't have an intelligent discussion about the law without some Left wing radical calling you a bigot!
See Fred - this is the type of shitehole you dug for yourself last time before getting banned - you jump in with stupid and childish accusations that make you look a cock on perfectly reasonable discussions.
Think about it for a minute Fred - you're repeating your old ways, learn from what happened last time!
no z11 you said that 3 asian lads just invaded the personal space of the bnp guy
when the bnp guy started it by saying "how many of you guys are robbers?"
then the lads came over
you were defending the bnp guys because eitther you sympathise with them
or just want to pick a fight with all the nasty socialists on here
Its all out there if you know where to look.
Don't need to; I have a legal team to consult, matey! 😀
Come on Ratty; you can do better than that.
Both sides were provoking each other. The Nazi had already technically assaulted the young lad, and acted with a little more than 'reasonable force' in 'defending' himself. He could just as easily have stepped back. That would have been the more legally appropriate action. By throwing a punch, he was then acting in [i]retaliation[/i], which is against the Law.
Trust me on this; I have a lot more [b]real[/b] experience of this sort of thing than you. Not just stuff I've read on tinternet.
Feel free to carry on spouting shite though, you're quite amusing.
I probably won't pay much attention though, be warned.
Kimbers - you must have cloth ears
Listen again
"How many is there of us?"
and again
"How many is there of us?"
The lads came over and, yes, they did immediately invade his personal space, and any reasonable person subjected to that would have been intimidated and believe they were under threat.
None of us know what was said before - I'm presuming that the cameraman only turned on the camera when it looked like there was going to be a confrontation...
you were defending the bnp guys because eitther you sympathise with them
or just want to pick a fight with all the nasty socialists on here
No, I'm disagreeing with someone who said that they had assaulted anyone - and backing up my position with reasoned argument - rather than making wild allegations based upon the bandwagon of "oh well, they're Nazi's so they must be in the wrong" (or for that matter" they're asian, so they must be in the wrong"
So, come on, reasoned, adult discussion - who was in the wrong here? who broke the law?
"who was in the wrong here? who broke the law?"
These are not the same thing - legally, it's a toss up. In my opinion, the BNP candidate was in the wrong, because he's a f***ing nazi. That's as 'reasoned' as I'm prepared to be.
who was in the wrong here? who broke the law?
Both parties. The spitter (Assault and probably Public Order Section 5), and the Nazi (PO S5; Assault, Causing Affray).
Simples!
Whether or not the CPS deemed this worth pursing in the Public Interest is another matter. As an allegation of assault has been made, I suspect we've not heard the last of this.
And the other Nazis got stuck in too. Definitely Assault, Causing Affray, etc. With a bit of luck, charges may be pressed, and it's likely the thugs will have previous, so could end up inside.
All very silly and regrettable. Those hotheaded young lads weren't perhaps the best candidates to tackle the Nazis in reasoned debate, imo...
1. BNP are a bunch of c*nts so spitting on them is fair game.
That is just silly, really. No-one deserves to be spat on because of their views, no matter how repulsive someone else believes their opinions to be. It is why we are proud to live in a democracy, where everyone is entitled to a view and express it (within legal bounds).
2. Spit on someone and expect a good slap in return!
Agreed, whether they be black, green, BNP or lesbian.
3 asian lads were responding to abuse shouted at them by the bnp
Thats ****ing stupid. There's no way you can tell from the video who started the gobbing off. Good little ruck though.
They quite clearly approached looking for violence and then spat in a blokes face (not saying he doesn't deserve it though). But overall they went in looking for a fight and came out 2nd best.
his absence was both noted by many and missed by [s]many[/s] few
The Nazi had already technically assaulted the young lad,
Nope, he didn't - an assault is any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful violence (S39 CJA 1988)
and acted with a little more than 'reasonable force' in 'defending' himself.
Opinon, I argued otherwise, since it was a melee with several different people throwing punches
He could just as easily have stepped back. That would have been the more legally appropriate action.
No, there is no duty in law to retreat in an altercation
By throwing a punch, he was then acting in retaliation, which is against the Law.
He reacted instinctively and immediately without having the opportunity to do otherwise - it was all over in seconds. Had there been a delay in the response, the reaction might have appeared more revenge than self-defence. (R V Bird 1985) The defence that "I had been assaulted and thought I may be assaulted further" is perfectly reasonable, and in this case, surrounded by a bunch of agressive people who were fronting up to you and making threats would be more than adequate
Both parties. The spitter (Assault and probably Public Order Section 5), and the Nazi (PO S5; Assault, Causing Affray).
Simples!
Utter ballcocks, nothing simples about it - the Nazi has a statutory defence laid down within law that he acted in self defence, that trumps any accusation of assault, as for affray - that relies on the threat of [u]unlawful [/u] violence, since they only acted in self defence, no such claim can be made. Once self defence is raised as a defence, it is for the prosecution to prove otherwise, in this case it would not stand a chance.
The most serious offence in the whole video is whoever (and we dont know who) said "I'll ****ing do for you"!
Talcum...breeeeve mate. 'E aynt worf it. 🙂
Nope, he didn't - an assault is any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful violence (S39 CJA 1988)
...which includes touching somebody without their permission. Anywhere on their body. Regardless of the level of force used.
No, there is no duty in law to retreat in an altercation
There is however a duty to uphold the Law, and act in a legally responsible manner. His best option would have been to walk away and report it to police. Which he didn't. He took matters into his own hands, and retaliated.
Reasonable Force: He was spat at, and responded by punching. Little bit ott there, perhaps...
He reacted instinctively and immediately without having the opportunity to do otherwise
The video might be used to suggest he was also guilty of provocation, and as he'd already 'assaulted' the lad, his defence would be pretty flimsy. Could be argued that he provoked his 'attacker', which is 'causing affray'.
If, on the other hand, he'd merely been walking down the street, and the lad had spat at him for no apparent reason, he might have a better argument. As it is, I don't think anyone came out of that at all innocent.
As for the rest of it; seriously, you're out of your depth and don't know what you're talking about. You think you do, but you don't. I'd leave it, if I were you. You're not a lawyer, obviously...
Why are you defending the Nazi?
I call Godwins law!
You can't call Godwin's when someone describes fascists as Nazis. It's not hyperbole.
There is however a duty to uphold the Law
No, there's no duty to uphold the law.
His best option would have been to walk away and report it to police
"the law regards with the deepest suspicion any remedies of self-help", true, but they are still available.
But in practice - regardless of what actually happened on the tape, which I can't watch from behind this firewall - I suspect that there will not be a prosecution. Zulu 11 is correct in identifying a lot of the arguments that can be made and the events sound so quick and depend on subjective perceptions and objective reactions that it wouldn't be easy.
IMHO, from what I can gather without seeing the video, I suspect that it's not worth the CPS's time (not in the public interest) to prosecute two groups of men getting in a scuffle on the street, even if at least one group are world-class ****ers.
...which includes touching somebody without their permission. Anywhere on their body. Regardless of the level of force used.
No, Wilson V Pringle declared that the touching must be proved to be a hostile touching, but the introduction of the CJA in '88 made it into a test of any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful violence - this can include words or actions leading up to anything physical - therefore the Asian lads could easily be guilty of the initial assault from the way they approached him.
His best option would have been to walk away and report it to police. Which he didn't. He took matters into his own hands
But he had no duty to do that - he was perfectly legally allowed to stand his ground (and arguably prevent the fear of violence from interrupting the democratic process)
Could be argued that he provoked his 'attacker', which is 'causing affray'.
No chance, read the definition of affray again - at no point did Nazi bloke offer any form of threat of [u]unlawful[/u] violence prior to being assaulted, as I also pointed out - the initial personal space approach by the lads could legally be seen to be the first assault.
Blah blah blah.
You're boring now. You carry on believing whatever you want, eh? And reading stuff off Wiki or wherever.
Like talking to a brick wall... 🙄
Well I still think that both parties were as bad as each other - muppets, the lot of them.
As usual, you try and get into a reasonable debate, and then when you get over your head start with the negative waves... always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves
Go on Fred, do the pictures, do the pictures - its Wibble Hatstand time again 😆
The thing is, we could carry on arguing all day about the 'legal' aspects of this. Bottom line is (and I'm aiming this one at you ratty, as you appear so keen to uphold the fine upstanding nazi's rights) - where do you stand on this morally, and let's not hide behind dusty old statutes.
I reckon that the police will decide that no charges will be brought against anyone as no one person (or group of people) was entirely innocent or entirely guilty.
where do you stand on this morally
Where is there a moral standpoint to be had here?
If you actually had any clue what you're talking about, then you'd see how flawed your opinions actually are, Ratty.
I've tried to do you a favour here; give you the opportunity to go and learn stuff, but you're too busy trying to score points. Therefore, I've lost interest.
Like I've said; I have [i]real experience[/i] of how the Law works in very similar circumstances. But hey, if your Google Law is superior to that, then who am I to argue, eh?
Zulu-Eleven - Member
So I guess I'm off your Christmas card list they Junky?
wow your cutting barbs are as insightful as your other comments I am crushed at the harsh way you call me Junky it really really hurts and offends.
I only said Fred was more popular than you. I note you did not wish to argue the point and instead resulted to a barb at me. Thanks for accepting my point
you try and get into a reasonable debate
I dont think anyone has ever accused you of that have they?
Barnsley - its pretty irrelevant really, as long as they're not breaking the law then I'm with Voltaire!
For reference however, I hate everything the BNP stands for, both economic policies (Left wing bollocks) and social policies (fearmongering, reactionary white power racist tossers)
I dont think anyone should be treated differently (in either a positive or negative fashion) based on the colour of their skin, their ethnicity, religion or background - I think that the only thing that matters is their actions.
(cue trying to avoid making a cliched "Some of my best friends are black" comment)
Of course there's a moral standpoint. These are nazi's. They will tell you that the holocaust never happened. They will tell you there is no such crime as rape. They will tell you that people with disabilities should be 'put down'. Except they wont do it in public, because that would lose them credibility and votes. They are scum, and anyone who supports or defends them needs to question their own moral standpoint.
I have real experience of how the Law works in very similar circumstances
C'mon then Freddie - empart it, rather than making stuff up about, and I quote
And at the beginning, he moved his hand toward the smaller lad; that's actually Common Assault.
Which makes you sound more like a bad Armstrong and Miller sketch!
whatever your point of view is about the bnp
the fact is that spitting in someones face whoever they are is an act of cowardice and deserves a ****ing beating
he should of just punched him in the face to get his point across
and anyone on here who would call the old bill to report being spat at is a coward too and a liar in my eyes
and i think the bnp are just racists before anyone accuses me of sticking up for them