[Closed] Have we done 'new BNP leader slashes children's bike tyres' yet?

[img] ?w=590&h=399[/img]

Here we go..

I don't understand how a BNP activist can ever be allowed to be a teacher, even if they don't slash children's bike tyres.

The BNP's attitude to "non-indigenous people", as they like to call black people, must mean that no black parent could ever have faith in their child being taught by a BNP activist. Surely ?

Good lord. Could they really not find anyone with less dirt on them for party leader?

Today in the news...

Man gets angry and over-reacts to a situation

(Ohh and he's in the BNP so it's okay to laugh and point).

Man gets angry.....................

The court was told Mr Walker was verbally abused by three boys aged 12, 11, and 10, and chased them in his car, before slitting the tyres on their bikes with a Stanley knife.

Recorder Ben Nolan described his actions as extremely dangerous, and said the teacher could have killed the boys had they fallen.

and over-reacts to a situation

And he's in the BNP..... 😆

It gets worse, but only slightly:
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/07/adam-walker-new-bnp-leader-convictions/

Here we go..

Gaww, yeah, it seems you can hardly chase some kids around in a landrover then slash the tyres of the bikes they abandoned in terror [i]at all[/i] these days without the pitchfork wielding PC mob bloody interfering. I remember when the whole country looked like a Constable painting, everyone did national service and werthers originals something something.

So, the scurrilous news is that he slashed children's bike tyres?

Why? Were the newspapers worried that the Jury might have been out regards whether [u]the leader of the BNP[/u] was a good guy or a bad guy until they found out about his tyre slashing past? 😆

I don't understand how a BNP activist can ever be allowed to be a teacher

Because we live in a country where the law gives us certain freedoms, one of which is that employees are protected from dismissal on grounds of political opinion or affiliation

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/nov/06/bnp-bus-driver-wins-legal-case

Well it's nice to see motoring offences being dealt with robustly for a change.

Because we live in a country where the law gives us certain freedoms

What about the freedom of black parents not to have their children taught by racists ? And white parents too btw.

It's not quite the same as being a bus driver is it ?

What about the freedom of black parents not to have their children taught by racists ? And white parents too btw.

Or the freedom not to have your children taught by gays, blacks, transvestites, Jews, Muslims, Women, Men, or anyone else [b]you[/b] don't happen to like the opinions of?

The EHCR seem to have considered this, and that one of the fundamental principles of equality is that anti-egalitarian opinions (such as racism, fascism or sexism) are as worthy of protection from discrimination as any other opinion.

Now, that doesn't mean that we should protect wrongful actions that may be motivated by these despicable views, such as race crimes, discrimination or abuse. It simply means that in a democratic society we should respect the right of people to have such thoughts and beliefs, even ones we find distasteful, as long as they are not actually doing anything discriminatory or illegal.

In the case of the bus driver, it seems clear that he never actually did anything wrong, there had been no complaints or concerns raised by his passengers or supervisor, his sacking was entirely based on his membership of the BNP.

I can see no problem with banning bigots from teaching, whether they be racist, homophobic, religious, or any other sort of bigot.

And I have no problem with "gays, blacks, transvestites, Jews, Muslims, Women, Men" teaching, why would anyone ? So I don't know why you mentioned them.

Anti-BNP bigots?

He'll be the only party leader in the country with any convictions.

Ba-doom-tish.

Recorder Ben Nolan described his actions as extremely dangerous, and said the teacher could have killed the boys had they fallen.

He was referring to when Walker, quote "[i]chased them in his car[/i]".

Do children always die when their bikes get punctures?

I suspect its probably the trying to run them over in a Land Rover that's the issue rather than trashing their bikes.

BNP are a bit of a non story now though aren't they? The scariest bit is that their previous supporters still exist but now feel comfortably represented by UKIP.

Okay, so do children always die when they fall off their bikes?

employees are protected from dismissal on grounds of political opinion or affiliation

johndoh - Member
Okay, so do children always die when they fall off their bikes?

It's a fairly common outcome when being chased by 3 tonnes of Landrover over a village green.

Well, as common as it is to be chased by a 4x4 across the village green anyway.

Okay, so do children always die when they fall off their bikes?

Obviously not. Although if they are being chased by someone in a car there is a chance they might be.

Which presumably is why the Recorder said the teacher "could have" killed the boys had they fallen.

You are more likely to die if you are being followed by a heavy vehicle? Surely the vehicle would at least need to hit you to cause an effect?

Junkyard - Police officers are not employees

Yeah OK johndoh, it's perfectly safe for someone in a car to chase kids riding bikes.

Well it clearly didn't kill them...

johndoh - Member
Okay, so do children always die when they fall off their bikes?

Read the quote. The recorder was worried that if they fell off then he might have killed them. Not that the fall would kill them. I suppose you had to get a range of accounts including width and condition of road and speed/distance from the boys to judge the likelihood of whether he would have been able to stop or swerve in time if any of them had fallen off.

I don't know why i am, bothering replying to this. Are you ninfan's even more contentious and contrary second login?

Junkyard - Police officers are not employees

What are they then?

The Recorder that wasn't there making assumptions about what might have possibly happened...

Backpedalling already?
Were you there at the hearing to check whether these were assumptions or judgements?

Do you understand the difference?

I wasn't. Were you? Did you see the incident just like the Recorder didn't? Nope, thought not.

Junky - Crown servants, since they hold the office of Constable

See, we all learn something every day 😛

What sort of " dangerous driving" gets one a twelve month ban even when you plead guilty?

[edit]: and what sort of threatening behaviour gets you a six month suspended sentence on a guilty plea? And what makes you think that the magistrate that sentenced him was there at the scene to make his judgement, and how do you think they arrived at that judgement(ie of how serious an offence and so what sentences/bans to hand down) if they were not? Again, you do understand the difference between assumption and judgement don't you? [/edit]

Perhaps someone will find us a report of what the court heard in that case. Is it conceivable that this information was used in his hearing at the teachers council? Remember this is a professional body with amongst other things, a duty to protect the public (and in this case children) from its own members.
This (sharing of full details of court hearing and conviction) would certainly be the case for fitness to practice hearings at the medical and nursing equivalents. And fwiw as a childrens nurse I would expect to be struck off forever for that sort of criminal conviction' not just for two years. Fwiw the article seems to suggest both a 2 year and lifetime ban in the actual text.

In fact his political persuasions are irrelevant in his criminal conviction and his being struck off. I suppose the story is that someone with such a recent conviction should be the leader of a well known political party with (formerly) mep's and councillors. Or that the media think this information is newsworthy and in the voters and public's interest to know.
I can't understand which of those things it is you seem to object to jonhdoh

I can't understand which of those things it is you seem to object to jonhdoh

He misread the article and thought the Recorder had said that "children always die when their bikes get punctures".

[quote=julianwilson ]What sort of " dangerous driving" gets one a twelve month ban even when you plead guilty?

Most sorts I'd imagine, given that's the minimum ban, and the majority of driving offence cases I've looked at, a sentence somewhere close to the minimum for the sentencing range is imposed. Or maybe that's only when you kill a cyclist?

He misread the article

[i] it is still nonsense that the Recorder actually said that he could have killed the boys[/i]

so you don't think he increased the risk of them being killed by his actions in a motor vehicle?

Increased the risk yes, no doubt. Any action increases potential risk but any resultant outcome is merely speculation. He could have swerved, hit a tree, then found hidden treasured buried under it. But he didn't.

I simply do not understand what the Recorder thought they were adding by saying he could have killed them - quite simply he didn't kill them, he followed them in his car and drove dangerously. We all accept that. I am not defending his actions, I have issue with the sensationalist comment by the Recorder.

what a strange argument?

EDIT

*actually, I won't bother.

adds johndoh to the list.

Doesn't anyone else find it a little strange that the BNP leader lived in Japan for years? So the guy who wants Great Britain to be the sole preserve of indigenous people doesn't extend that to the Japanese in their own country.

Increased the risk yes, no doubt.

Which is basically all it said... The children were more at risk from being killed as they were being pursued by someone in a car than they would have been were they not bring pursued...

+1 for 'weird argument'

[i]Doesn't anyone else find it a little strange that the BNP leader lived in Japan for years? [/i]

Applying logic to members of the BNP's life choices and actions is never going to lead to a satisfactory conclusion.

[b]John Doh[/b] - I can see where you are coming from now.

Just raises a few more questions though.

Should a teacher be more able to reasonably deal with gobby kids than other landrover drivers?

How rude does a child need to be before it is acceptable for a teacher to chase them in a landrover?

In pursuit of full disclosure, it would be interesting to know from which ethnic group the children belonged, and if this affected the targeting of child by landrover driving teacher.

ALSO - I imagine there are some aspects of Japanese culture that would seem very attractive to someone like this.

Not only did these children get chased by a very angry man in a landrover but the fact he had a Stanley knife and slashed their tyres was probably a mitigating factor. Should really feed the trolls though!

we all learn something every day

You are often a source of useful information so cheer for that.

I guess nobody knows where his head was that day, sometimes we all snap and some of us snap more spectacularly than others. And perhaps the kids used his position as a teacher to think they could get away with behaving badly towards him.

I bet that, if nothing else good comes of it, the gobby little shits might just think a little harder next time before winding someone up...