[Closed] Neo Nazi nutters

But they're not just being jailed for their views--they distributed a large amount of hard copy and online material inciting racial hatred. It's nasty, dangerous and inflammatory stuff.

STW will be closing in 10 minutes, please complete your rants and log off as soon as possible.

being a racist clown - stupid but legal. Inciting racial hatred - illegal. To get jail terms of that length it must have been right at the extreme of the scale. Skipping bail as well. got what they deserved.

Hmmmmm. The court hands down 4 years for these two {} yet only a conditional discharge for the muslims in Luton who openly incited violence, murder and racial hatred. Not really balanced, that.

But Hamsa got slapped with a hefty term.

This seems like thought policing and I wonder where there difference is between being racist and inciting racial hatred.

Surely the difference lies in the audience and I can't see how that disstinction is drawn.

@ joolsburger

But it's not thought policing in this case: as TJ suggests, the case was brought because of the racist material they were producing and distributing. It's driven by their [u]actions[/u] in the first instance.

Stevie - Member
Hmmmmm. The court hands down 4 years for these two Joey Deacons yet only a conditional discharge for the muslims in Luton who openly incited violence, murder and racial hatred. Not really balanced, that.

Just so you're not doing that clever "stealth"-racism, ken?

True but I still dont see it. Plenty of people distribute material that demonstrates hatred of one thing or another. Anti vivisectoinists, Pro life campaigners, hardine muslims ect etc.

To me a crime is when someone takes action that results in loss to someone else. I don't see that here. Idiots giving other idiots made up information and leaflets is not the same as conspiracy or is it now?

I dont like people having their right to be offended enshrined in law, this seems similar to the blasphemy law IMHO.

They delivered a leaflet called "Tales of the Holohoax' to a synagogue in Blackpool. They published material that 'included images of murdered Jews alongside cartoons and articles ridiculing ethnic groups.'

The charges on which they were convicted have nothing to do with 'conspiracy' but are about inciting racial hatred.

Got proof of that?

Just so you're not doing that clever "stealth"-racism, ken?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6969165/Muslim-protesters-handed-conditional-discharge.html

Who is Ken?

If we had laws about incitement to ginger hatred, then curly carrot top one might not have taken this sorry path in life.

Among these were the jeers: "British Army: murderers"; "British soldiers burn in hell"; "Baby killers"; and "British soldiers you will pay",

Protesters also denounced the troops as terrorists.

Where's the bit about race in that?
Where's the incitement in that?

Not really incitement of racial hatred is it?
They were convicted of "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" which sounds about right.

OK so the material was hugely offensive but why is that a crime? Was someone physically hurt was there a tangible loss?

Once the state starts telling people what they can and can't say I get a bit worried.

Where's the bit about race in that?

Among these were the jeers: [b]"British[/b] Army: murderers"; [b]"British[/b] soldiers burn in hell"; "Baby killers"; and [b]"British[/b] soldiers you will pay"

There.

Stevie - Member
Hmmmmm. The court hands down 4 years for these two Joey Deacons[...]

Stevie - less of the "Joey Deacon" stuff please. It's not big or clever, it is insulting, and it marks you as having a mentality fit only for running and screaming in a playground.

There

I see, I wasn't aware that "British Soldiers/Army" was a race.
Does that mean people criticising the army are racialists?

Why is it a crime - 'cos that is what the law is. Its not about the views - that is no issue. Its encouraging pepole to commit crime that is the crime here.

To say " I hate singlespeeders* they are all twots" - no crime
To say - "all singlespeeders should be killed" - crime.

* insert minority of choice

Still just words though. Seems dodgy to me.

Stevie - less of the "Joey Deacon" stuff please. It's not big or clever, it is insulting, and it marks you as having a mentality fit only for running and screaming in a playground

Good God but how precious is it possible to be 🙄 ?

I see, I wasn't aware that "British Soldiers/Army" was a race.

Did you see that I highlighted the word [b]British[/b] and not the word army? Saying '****' in a derogatory fashion is considered racist, is it not? Then why not singling out 'British' for hatred?

Go on then Stevie, do your clever 'bolding up of single words ignoring context' to answer the second part, i.e.

Where's the incitement in that?

Edit: just seen your reply - my comment on lack of context is that it's 'British soldiers/army' that are the focus here

So you think its acceptable for me to say "joolsburger should be killed Here is his address" ? The problem is that people really do follow up on this sort of stuff and its clear that after clowns like this post their stuff and BNP have marches and rallies racial attacks increase.

the Joey Deacon comment is highly offensive. If you cannot see that then I pity yu.

The difference between banter between friends and publishing your remarks on a public forum means that decency should stop you from being so offensive.

Joey Deacon was actually quite intelligent - just unable to communicate

joolsburger - here's an example, maybe not directly relevant, but consider this. Charles Manson didn't kill anyone, but he convinced other people to do it. Should he be in jail?

Surely if we're saying that shouting those things at returning soldiers being just "offensive", how can posting anti-semitic materials through a synagogue door be more than that? It's not like they were inciting the jewish patrons of the synagogue to insult/assault/kill each other. As morally repugnant and factually bankrupt as the holocaust deniers are, again, it's a matter of causing offence, not inciting racism (well, unless they mix it up with the usual jewish conspiracy stuff in which case it gets a bit blurry).

Go on then Stevie, do your clever 'bolding up of single words ignoring context' to answer the second part, i.e.

"British soldiers you will pay"

They were convicted for goodness sake, where's your argument?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8452616.stm

the Joey Deacon comment is highly offensive. If you cannot see that then I pity yu.

The difference between banter between friends and publishing your remarks on a public forum means that decency should stop you from being so offensive.

Joey Deacon was actually quite intelligent - just unable to communicate

For crying out loud, I give up, I really do. Get over yourself.

Yes, as has already been pointed out, they've been convicted of

using threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour likely to cause harassment and distress.

Steve, how exactly would you word a placard to put across their point then?

[img] [/img]

Woody if you said that to most people they wouldn't come and kill me. If you said it to a hit man and gave him 10k then that's different.

Threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour likely to cause harassment and distress seems a very wide and highly subjective remit.

Sorry crispedwheel but making threats-ie-'You Will Pay'- is incitement is it not? They were condemned and actually attacked by other muslims who found their behaviour as disgusting as I did. Sorry if I seem OTT about this but I was there-the Royal Anglian is my old regiment. It was actually pretty heart warming when a muslim bloke walked over to the extremists and told them to eff off before apoligising to everyone who would listen for their behaviour. I shook his hand.

For crying out loud, I give up, I really do. Get over yourself.

You really just don't get it at all do you?

<mouse hovering over "REPORT-POST">

<mouse hovering over "REPORT-POST">

Is that a threat? Oh, spare me. And no, I don't get it. Do you have any mates? Ever laughed? Jesus Christ, I never realised it was possible to be so anally retentive.

making threats-ie-'You Will Pay'- is incitement is it not?

Not.

Saying to someone "you will pay for your crimes" while arguably threatening, isn't inciting anything.

Oh and I'd say your "Joey" comment is on around the same level of offensiveness as "****" - please refrain.

Can somebody please explain who Joey Deacon is ?

Joey deacon was a severely handicapped person who was the subject of a national campaign to build a home designed to address his needs.

His name was also the insult of choice in many schoool playgrounds in the early 80s. "You stupid Joey" etc etc.

The house campaign worked but he died shorly afterwards IIRC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Deacon

Not.

They were saying that the soldiers would pay with their [i]lives[/i]. Hence the 'Burn In Hell' postfix. And they were trying to incite other muslims to violence on the day-I was there and saw it. Happily most of the other muslims in the vicinity had the decency to tell them to get stuffed.

No, a promise - now fulfilled. Yes I've got mates. No, we don't do racist jokes or comparisons with the disabled.

How about I rephrase your first post:
"The court hands down 4 years for these two Stevies yet only a conditional discharge for the muslims in Luton who openly incited violence, murder and racial hatred."

Reasonable?

Joey Deacon was a national celebrity in the 80's, well known for his appearances on Blue Peter. Kids started calling those they considered to be idiots 'Joeys' much as they called them 'mongs' or 'spazzes'. It was a childish, throwaway insult, no-one hated Joey, it was just a kids thing.

Nice one aracer. You and I have disagreed a lot even on stuff like this but I am pleased to see that even folk of as diverse views as you and I can agree on a basic level of decency.

thanks

No, a promise - now fulfilled. Yes I've got mates. No, we don't do racist jokes or comparisons with the handicapped.

How about I rephrase your first post:
"The court hands down 4 years for these two Stevies yet only a conditional discharge for the muslims in Luton who openly incited violence, murder and racial hatred."

Reasonable?

Water off a ducks back to me. But there again I'm not a politically correct anal retentive. As for you 'running to tell mummy', oh dear.

Thanks all - good indication of the level of this discussion (I wasn't brought up in the UK I'm a filthy immigrant, of the palatable type e.g. white and middle class so nobody leaflets me)

I would say that trying to argue the case for the Islamist Extremists demonstrating at WB being on the same level as the Nazi's releasing hate material on the web, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

It might not hold water, in some people's opinion, but it's not offensive per se.

"Get over yourself" is apt, in this case, in my opinion.