[Closed] Have we done Britain First yet?

Wow this seems rather extreme... 'foreign scroungers' purely unbiased opinions within this video.

Britain First are the scrotes who keep using the Lee Rigby tragedy to further their ****ed up agenda, something his family are not happy about.

The BNP keep doing this as well. The lowest of the low. They mentioned him in their party political broadcast yesterday.

TBH I feel sorry for folk like that who hold on to some sort of idyllic notion of Britain that never existed and sure as hell wont happen in a multicultural UK

According to their FB page Sikhs, Hindus and those that fought alongside the allies in WW2 (such as the Poles) are fine.

I guess they bypass the fact there was an Indian SS regiment (seriously - Google it) and that modern-day Islamic nations ****stan and Bangladesh were part of the Indian army.

Pimpmaster Jazz, that sort of logic is not welcome in the extreme end of politics. Th whole idea of branding a group of people by a notional label like religion or country is a mad one.

I assume they also like a good curry and pizza on their crusade.

What are they going to do come the [s]revolution[/s] referendum if Scoltand goes indie!
It's fairly easy to see through their arguments is it not?

As an aside my mother will tell stories of similar horsehit being talked about Catholics and how they were seen as a big threat about 50-60 years ago and look what happend there. One of them can even be PM now - if they can be arsed.

surroundedbyhills - Member

One of them can even be PM now

To be fair, that didn't go very well, maybe they had a point.

"going into another religion's place of worship and doing it could possibly be perceived as incitement"

Incitement to what?

Incitement to what?

public disorder? religious/racial hatred? I'm sure most would agree it's provocative action, but I've no idea what the legal requirement is for "incitement" and how much "disorder" has to happen before it's an offence, hence my question/musing.

Incitement to what?

Would you like to argue they were there to spread peace and tolerance 😉

Its clearly legal and clearly done to be provocative. I bet they were filming hoping someone kicked off
I suspect they would be unimpressed if some beardy gents turned up to one of their events and handed out leaflets about the infidel...if only I could grow a beard.

It is one of those everyone has the right to act like a dick but it rarely helps

I assume they also like a good curry and pizza on their crusade.

😆

A few of the 'street protection squad' in the vid look like they might be partial...

I think the answer is to unite the Christians, Muslims, far right, lefties, gays, the disabled and Lancastrians against our one true common enemy, the ones that everyone hates.

Gypsies.

squirrelking - Member
And "muslamic"? Seriously?

convert - Member
If you google "muslamic" this is the top link:-
EDL Vid
Kind of says all you need to know about the debating skills (or simple ability to write a coherent sentence) of those that use the phrase

Muslim + Islam = Muslamic. They should have trade marked it ...

Who could have invented that? You (all) certainly did not but someone else has. I don't think the term was invented by the bloke in the EDL vid but rather some American girls to be honest. I remember hearing both saying the term on tv which was very funny to be frank. So I use the term as if my hero Peter Griffin would.

Most of you who criticise others for having a "lower" intellectual capacity by comparison to your own are a bit like the character of Brian Griffin. Yes, watch Family Guy as it is very funny.

🙄

Not sure whether their FB page is laughable or terrifying. Probably both.

My favourite bit so far is this image that surely sums up for all of us what it means to be British whiel demonstrating their great grasp of history.

[img] [/img]

Wait, Eddie is in Britain First? That's a bit of a change of direction after treading on Thatcher's corpse.

UVF connection?

Oh ya the "Ray Gun" thing, well it's his way of expressing the process of being brainwashed I guess. i.e. EDL vid.

That Eddie thing is just ****ing weird, not to mention an interesting use of the word 'crusader'.

I wonder if Iron Maiden's lawyers have seen it...

That Eddie thing is just stoopid as I doubt Iron Maiden would like to be associated with some tools.

public disorder? religious/racial hatred?

If being invited to consider alternative religious beliefs is something the police should investigate, there's some Big Hitters that should probably delete their posts from the weekly religion threads. If you can't cope with that and react with disorder, then that's on you, not them.

Of course they were being provocative arseholes. that's not a reason to go around locking people up. Getting wound up by arseholes without having them thrown in jail is part of the price of living in a tolerant society.

Wonder if STW towers know that one of the guys from Kirkby Lonsdale brewery (who make the Singletrack ale) is posting stuff from Britain First on Facebook. I know one of the others has previously voted BNP too.

It's a free country of course, but given STW's stance on the Daily Mail...

[i]incite verb (incited, inciting) (especially incite someone to something) to stir up or provoke to action, etc. incitement or incitation noun. inciter noun. incitingly adverb.[/i]
Chambers definition, so "incite" and "provoke" are in the same general area, what the [i]legal[/i] difference is between the two I have no idea, which is why I have liberally used "may" and "possibly" and other wishy washy words in my posts leaving me lots of wiggle room 🙂

I'm cool with having a tolerant society and while "you do not have the right to not be offended" I'm sure many would agree there are certain things you can say in certain situations which are so inflammatory as to be out of order. Someone may try defending inciting religious/racial hatred using the freedom of speech/tolerant society or [i]sticks and stones[/i] arguments, but it is still illegal.
Bit of a grey area?

I'm sure many would agree there are certain things you can say in certain situations which are so inflammatory as to be out of order.

Should the criminal law be used against arseholes because they are "out of order"?

Should the criminal law be used against arseholes because they are "out of order"?

Depends, really - if you walk into a mosque and start insulting the prophet, knowing it's likely to lead to a fight... Shouldn't the police stop you?

They could suggest an alternative approach. Perhaps explain it to them more light-heartedly through a series of cartoons?

if you walk into a mosque and start insulting the prophet, knowing it's likely to lead to a fight... Shouldn't the police stop you?

Why?

Why?

Because you're only doing it to be deliberately provocative / offensive...

Should the criminal law be used against arseholes because they are "out of order"?

Once again for the benefit of the tape.
I. Don't. Know.
Maybe, this is a discussion right?

Why?

Because provoking people with the intention of starting a fight is something I generally feel ought to be stopped, if only due to the cost to the NHS?

It's a fine line, though - where does causing offense stop and incitement start?

You're suggesting that these Britain First people should be prosecuted because their actions are (while otherwise legal) so provocative that it's an incitement to people to assault them? Who are you protecting in that situation?

If you're stupid enough to punch people who are goading you into punching them, then you get the punishment that's coming. And if you're stupid enough to go around goading people into punching you, then you get punched. It sounds like a self-solving problem.

You're suggesting that these Britain First people should be prosecuted because their actions are (while otherwise legal) so provocative that it's an incitement to people to assault them?

Pretty much, yes. Or are you suggesting they really walked into a mosque, full of Christian love, with the intention of peacefully converting the worshippers to their faith? If they were Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons I'd believe it, and support their right to stand at the door trying - but that isn't the case here.

Who are you protecting in that situation?

Society, basically. Violence costs money, policing and healthcare.

Surely the way to avoid violence in that situation is to not punch people who are trying to wind you up by saying things that you disagree with, not to go around arresting people who say things you disagree with?

I'm not sure I agree with your characterisation of the Muslims in that scenario as intemperate knuckleheads who will immediately respond with violence to people who talk rubbish to them.

are you suggesting they really walked into a mosque, full of Christian love, with the intention of peacefully converting the worshippers to their faith?

Of course they were being provocative arseholes. that's not a reason to go around locking people up. Getting wound up by arseholes without having them thrown in jail is part of the price of living in a tolerant society.

I'm not sure I agree with your characterisation of the Muslims in that scenario as intemperate knuckleheads who will immediately respond with violence to people who talk rubbish to them.

I'm not quite sure where you got that idea from, I certainly haven't characterised anyone as an "intemperate knucklehead". Most people, though, will have limits - and that goes for Muslims, Christians, Atheists, whatever. And goading someone over that limit to start a fight is not something I can agree with.

Surely the way to avoid violence in that situation is to not punch people who are trying to wind you up by saying things that you disagree with, not to go around arresting people who say things you disagree with?

I'm not talking about peaceful debate here, I'm talking about some idiot getting in your face and insulting you, and stopping you from doing your peaceful, lawful activity. No, fighting is not the right response - but are you really suggesting the police shouldn't move that idiot on?

Public Order Act 1986

[i](1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.[/i]

It is recognised in law that everyone has the right to live free from harassment and distress. And quite right too.

Although, ernie, isnt there a move to bring that act back a bit because the bit about "insulting words" strays too much into censorship/curtailment of freedom of speech. Many comedians for example campaign for that bit to be taken out.

Interesting to see whether they have broken any laws, trying to convert people to your little gang is obviously legit, going into another religion's place of worship and doing it could [b]possibly be perceived[/b] as incitement...no?

was what I originally said konabunny, note "possibly", "perceived" and the question mark. If these were earnest evangelists out trying to convert people to their religion I wouldn't GAS, 1 group of fantasists trying to convert other fantasists to their flavour of fantasy really doesn't bother me.
Britain First chaps walking into a mosque and handing out army issue bibles and suggesting christianity is the one true way is IMO BS, I am pretty sure they are there for a bit of aggro* rather than swelling the CoE flock. That could be me being overly cynical, reading too much into it and doing BF a disservice but I'm fairly confident I'm not the only one who holds this opinion.

Surely the way to avoid violence in that situation is to not punch people who are trying to wind you up by saying things that you disagree with

yes, not punching people is always a good answer, but unfortunately a lot of religious types can get a bit tetchy when you dis their deep seated beliefs and equally unfortunately religious beliefs appear to get some special dispensations in law in certain situations (something I normally disagree with btw)

*quite possibly some sort of low level aggro that they can use for their own political ends rather than an actual punch up

Is not liking a religion the same as racism now? I'm an atheist and the rise of Islam worries me massively as would the rise of any religion, just so happens Islam is the only one that seems to be growing.

If I say this out loud I seem to be perceived as racist but Islam isn't a race and I'm not racist I just want to live in a very secular country.

maybe we should start an Atheism First group and go around to various places of worship preaching the positives of forgetting all that higher being malarkey and just being excellent to one another, see how we get on 🙂

Is not liking a religion the same as racism now? I'm an atheist and the rise of Islam worries me massively as would the rise of any religion, just so happens Islam is the only one that seems to be growing.

If I say this out loud I seem to be perceived as racist but Islam isn't a race and I'm not racist I just want to live in a very secular country.

Legally in the UK it's treated the same. And nobody's stopping you from criticising religion in public, far from it. Unless you're advocating violence or practising discrimination, in which case you would indeed be breaking the law.

If I met someone who absolutely 100% believed in fairies I'd be polite but in truth I'd think less of them. If their fairly belief had no practical negatives that's one thing but if it impacted in anyway on my life I'd fight against it. To me religion is [b]exactly[/b] the same. Believers scare me, deep seated beliefs even more so as someone who really thinks there's a better life after this one is deluded enough to behave irrationally and to my mind can't be trusted, especially in matters of which law rules. So I suppose that makes me intolerant but I think I'm justified in my concerns.

Disorderly behaviour is illegal, you don't have to advocate violence or practice discrimination. Just cause harassment, alarm or distress.