Throwing darts at BNP members sanctioned by Crown Prosecution Service

[MarkMuses]

The British National Party — Blog — College Green Dart Assault on BNP Leader: Despite Video Evidence, CPS Refuses to Prosecute

Are the BBC covering this? I don't see anything on their site at time of writing. News blackout (again)?

I take it then that the Government funded UAF (Unite As Fascists) have now been given full freedom to commit serious criminal assault against their only real opponents in this election.

Only a few years ago I would not even believe the CPS could make such a decision.

If the UAF can do this, a vote for the BNP has now become literally a vote to save our freedoms and democracy itself. Over dramatic? Watch the video. CPS say no prosecution.

[DTE]

Oh look, ridiculous hyperbole by a BNP supporter. Why I haven't seen that in...well at least a week.

How does some knobhead throwing a dart constitute "sanctioning by the CPS"? Thats like saying my neighbourhood watch sanctioned burglaries because they didn't catch the guy who broke in next door!

If the UAF can do this, a vote for the BNP has now become literally a vote to save our freedoms and democracy itself.

Hmmn. Well no.

Over dramatic?

Yes.

Watch the video. CPS say no prosecution.

The CPS don't prosecute people all the time. I love the fact you determine this one act to be proof that freedom and democracy have collapsed and the BNP are the only answer.

The EDL and UAF are both protesting near me in the next couple of weeks. I might go along to see just how violent these 2 groups are. I'm guessing its just mud slinging from both sides.

[MarkMuses]

It happened right outside Parliament.
It happened in broad daylight with multiple witnesses available
It happened in front of more cameras than you can shake a stick at.
It happened in front of a permanent Police presence. With no intervention by the police.
The guy is clearly visible caught on video throwing the dart

And the CPS do not have enough evidence to prosecute?

I think you are testing credulity to breaking point.

All this on the back of the claw hammer attack which went the same way too.

My guess is that this election will be the dirtiest in memory with the BNP being crucified daily in the media as the pace picks up. And offered scant if any right to reply as per usual. It will be interesting to see just how blatant it can get and how far some people are prepared to go in looking the other way.

It is a national disgrace and yes, I will most definitely be voting BNP. It is the one vote that gets them worked up because of course the others are just a collective oligarchy kept in check by PC speech-code and all the lovely thought crime legislation that now underpins it for good measure, lest anyone complain.

Three more former ministers on the news last night for taking kick-backs in Troughminster I noticed, but hey let's assume endemic financial corruption ends and propriety begins when it comes to Government dealings with its only real political opposition shall we?

[Jim Franklin]

DTE, I am no fan of the BNP, I never actually understood why people joined them, but hey ho. However a person filmed throwing a dart deliberately at a person, regardless of who they are, is legally "assault with a deadly weapon" and thus prosecutable. Are you telling me the Police cannot identify this individual for prosecution? There is no certainty of a conviction, but to just rule out a prosecution under these circumstances is simply sending out the wrong message. Do we allow people to assault others because they are a member of a political party we happen to think is reprehensible...well in that case why don't we all go kick the crap out of the Lib Dems, Labour or Conservatives...Oh I know why...it's illegal.

I would agree that the EDL and the UAF are as bad as each other, I always find it a joke that the UAF claim to be against violence yet always seem to be in the middle of violent protests (I accept not all may be their fault). It is also telling that many members of the UAF are also paid up members of socialist networks and organisations...could this be a re-emergence of the Communists??

[Barry]

The guy is clearly visible caught on video throwing the dart

Not on that video, he is not.
I have wound it forward and backwards, at no time do I see a dart thrown.
Are you watching a different video?

[MarkMuses]

Not on that video, he is not.
I have wound it forward and backwards, at no time do I see a dart thrown.
Are you watching a different video?

18 seconds in.

The guy with the beard and t-shirt crouches and then jumps up to see over as he throws the dart at the 18 second point.

[Barry]

18 seconds in.

The guy with the beard and t-shirt crouches and then jumps up to see over as he throws the dart at the 18 second point.

I see that. But there is no evidence of what he threw, although someone of similar appearance is holding something resembling a dart later in the video.
He is not

clearly visible caught on video throwing the dart

Court cases have to be based on evidence, and if this was the only evidence, it would only get kicked out.

However a person filmed throwing a dart deliberately at a person, regardless of who they are, is legally "assault with a deadly weapon" and thus prosecutable.

There is no such thing as assault with a deadly weapon in the UK. That is an Americanism.
Was anyone hit by a dart, - any injuries sustained in this incident consistent with being hit by a dart?

I'm not saying a dart was not thrown, it probably was, but the evidence is not as clear as you have made out.

[MarkMuses]

I see that. But there is no evidence of what he threw, although someone of similar appearance is holding something resembling a dart later in the video.
He is not Court cases have to be based on evidence, and if this was the only evidence, it would only get kicked out.
There is no such thing as assault with a deadly weapon in the UK. That is an Americanism.
Was anyone hit by a dart, - any injuries sustained in this incident consistent with being hit by a dart?

I'm not saying a dart was not thrown, it probably was, but the evidence is not as clear as you have made out.

The images are clearly of the same distinctive man wearing the same clothes in all scenes. He jumps up and clearly executes what any unbiased witness would describe as a dart throw. He is clearly handling darts in close detail afterwards. However, he is not in the Dog and Duck but on College Green right in front of Westminster attending a UAF ambush.

I think this thread is just going to get funnier as BNP haters prostitute their morals in order to excuse what is staring them in the face. Demonstrable Government backed thuggery against their only meaningful opposition.

[Kiwi 1691]

Whats the issue, the BNP are wannabe Waffen SS stormtroopers, they should be treated as such.

[Don]

...There is no such thing as assault with a deadly weapon in the UK. That is an Americanism.
Was anyone hit by a dart, - any injuries sustained in this incident consistent with being hit by a dart?

I'm not saying a dart was not thrown, it probably was, but the evidence is not as clear as you have made out.

Barry, unless I misinterpret UK and US law, actual physical contact causing harm (battery) is not required for an assault to take place. It is the threat that comprises assault.

I do agree that the video provided is pretty damn sketchy and of not much use. The tall, skinny guy in the dark t shirt could be throwing a spitball for all the video shows.

[DougieG]

Barry, unless I misinterpret UK and US law, actual physical contact causing harm (battery) is not required for an assault to take place. It is the threat that comprises assault.

That's perfectly true. The idea that assault includes physical contact is a widespread misconception.

[Jim Franklin]

Here we go.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability.

Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to an adult might not.

Virtually all jurisdictions agree that the victim must be aware of the danger. This element is not required, however, for the attempted battery type of assault. A defendant who throws a rock at a sleeping victim can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the victim would not be aware of the possible harm.

That clarifies that aspect of Assault...

Now we get to Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Assault with a Deadly Weapon is the term used to describe the act of threatening to harm one or more people by using a weapon (usually a firearm). Here, assault must be differentiated from battery as they are often confused. Assault is threatening to use force. Battery is the action of using force, such as striking a person.

Now I spoke to a friend who is a solicitor (criminal law) and he said that under the circumstances outlined he would expect that a defendant would actually be charged with..

Assault with Intent

Specific Intent:
The mental purpose, aim, or design to accomplish a specific harm or result by acting in a manner prohibited by law.

This is covered by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (As Amended) Section 47 where it is an offence to

intentionally make a threat that causes a person to fear for their person or to deliberately act in a manner to cause a person to be in fear for their person and to act toward a person with such intent, with or without a weapon, that they believe that they should fear for their person

Further,

A person may be indicted for the offence of Assault with a Deadly Weapon where an weapon was intentionally used and that weapon so used had the sole purpose of inflicting bodily harm whether it was manufactured for that purpose or not and where the person using that weapon could be reasonably expected to know that such bodily harm would occur.

So based on the above the person throwing the dart could be charged with either..

• Assault (Whether occasioning Actual or Grievous Bodily Harm)
• Assault with Intent (Whether occasioning Actual or Grievous Bodily Harm)
• Assault with a Deadly Weapon (Whether occasioning Actual or Grievous Bodily Harm)

Although a review of other legislation makes it more likely that under the circumstances the person would most likely be charged with Assault with Intent. If the person was struck by the dart then the degree of injury would dictate whether the suffix would be tagged on for Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm or Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm.

The CPS would seek the counsel of a suitable Criminal Law Barrister before laying the actual charge.

Incidently, the video was shown on Sky news without editing and due to the better quality you could see the Guy actually threw the dart toward the group but it was deflected away by hitting a post between the protesters and the group, however there was clearly intent there and a charge should have been laid.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

that an assault took place is hard to deny but that a dart was thrown by the man in question is likely is seemingly probable - that the video proves it is deeply questionable and that on the basis of this evidence the pragmatic judgment was that it was unlikely that a conviction based on beyond reasonable doubt could be upheld. That is a matter of opinion you may or may not agree with but it was the legal opinion of the CPS.

The astonishing hypocrisy of the BNP in seeking to have the law upheld in their favour is beyond doubt risible revolting as the anti democratic behaviour of the intimidating rable and bullying scum of the UAF may be the BNP is on very clearly weak ground when demanding protection.

May I ask what protection was given or demanded by the BNP for some 3-5,000 victims of their associates the American white supremacists who have supported and funded the BNP and its forebears - The BNP has refused to renounce and repudiate the hanging, dragging & murder of 3-5,000 mostly young men on the grounds only that they were black, murders carried out by the BNP's associates which the BNP have failed to renounce, denounce and repudiate.

Similarly it is somewhat hypocritic of the BNP its agents and/or supporters to cry foul whilst they themselves have never denounced, renounced or repudiated their organisation and its members past and present who have funded and practiced acts of aggression and assault against individuals based on their superstitions or beliefs as with the vile behaviour of the BNP and its forebears and founding fathers in the treatment of Jews.

It does look all too much that The BNP & UAF, Searchlight and associates well deserve each other, utilising not disimilar vile practices for their own undemocratic ends.

Legally the BNP exist and as with medicine it is better to bring poison to the surface permit it to develop and burst the boil to release the poison than to force it inwards to develop as a threatening septicemia that may poison the entire body politic.

I welcome the liberty that poison shall be exposed be it the poisonous BNP or their close relatives the AUF, Searchlight, ANL, ARA and the rest of the alphabet soup of scum that seek to pervert democracy and justice.

Sadly the Labour Party and their fellow travellers of the fabian society, rowntree trust and their ilk being similar in contempt for democracy and other peoples' rights see fit to help fund such scum! They do say likes attract and that one is judged by ones' associates!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Binnman]

Some points to consider before jumping to judgement.

1) Has the alleged "dart" been recovered and retained as evidence?

2) Has the alleged thrower been identified? Let's face it, he could just as easily be a BNP "agent provocateur" - they've been used before by the various fringe groups.


Unless the CPS have both of the above, there can be no prosecution..............................simple, no weapon, no accused equals no case.

[DougieG]

Here we go.



That clarifies that aspect of Assault...

Now we get to Assault with a Deadly Weapon



Now I spoke to a friend who is a solicitor (criminal law) and he said that under the circumstances outlined he would expect that a defendant would actually be charged with..

Assault with Intent


This is covered by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (As Amended) Section 47 where it is an offence to



Further,



So based on the above the person throwing the dart could be charged with either..

• Assault (Whether occasioning Actual or Grievous Bodily Harm)
• Assault with Intent (Whether occasioning Actual or Grievous Bodily Harm)
• Assault with a Deadly Weapon (Whether occasioning Actual or Grievous Bodily Harm)

Although a review of other legislation makes it more likely that under the circumstances the person would most likely be charged with Assault with Intent. If the person was struck by the dart then the degree of injury would dictate whether the suffix would be tagged on for Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm or Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm.

The CPS would seek the counsel of a suitable Criminal Law Barrister before laying the actual charge.

Incidently, the video was shown on Sky news without editing and due to the better quality you could see the Guy actually threw the dart toward the group but it was deflected away by hitting a post between the protesters and the group, however there was clearly intent there and a charge should have been laid.

I'll back you up and confirm that's all completely correct.

[Jim Franklin]

Hi,

that an assault took place is hard to deny but that a dart was thrown by the man in question is likely is seemingly probable - that the video proves it is deeply questionable and that on the basis of this evidence the pragmatic judgment was that it was unlikely that a conviction based on beyond reasonable doubt could be upheld. That is a matter of opinion you may or may not agree with but it was the legal opinion of the CPS.

The astonishing hypocrisy of the BNP in seeking to have the law upheld in their favour is beyond doubt risible revolting as the anti democratic behaviour of the intimidating rable and bullying scum of the UAF may be the BNP is on very clearly weak ground when demanding protection.

May I ask what protection was given or demanded by the BNP for some 3-5,000 victims of their associates the American white supremacists who have supported and funded the BNP and its forebears - The BNP has refused to renounce and repudiate the hanging, dragging & murder of 3-5,000 mostly young men on the grounds only that they were black, murders carried out by the BNP's associates which the BNP have failed to renounce, denounce and repudiate.

Similarly it is somewhat hypocritic of the BNP its agents and/or supporters to cry foul whilst they themselves have never denounced, renounced or repudiated their organisation and its members past and present who have funded and practiced acts of aggression and assault against individuals based on their superstitions or beliefs as with the vile behaviour of the BNP and its forebears and founding fathers in the treatment of Jews.

It does look all too much that The BNP & UAF, Searchlight and associates well deserve each other, utilising not disimilar vile practices for their own undemocratic ends.

Legally the BNP exist and as with medicine it is better to bring poison to the surface permit it to develop and burst the boil to release the poison than to force it inwards to develop as a threatening septicemia that may poison the entire body politic.

I welcome the liberty that poison shall be exposed be it the poisonous BNP or their close relatives the AUF, Searchlight, ANL, ARA and the rest of the alphabet soup of scum that seek to pervert democracy and justice.

Sadly the Labour Party and their fellow travellers of the fabian society, rowntree trust and their ilk being similar in contempt for democracy and other peoples' rights see fit to help fund such scum! They do say likes attract and that one is judged by ones' associates!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

So Greg your advocating that the law should only apply to those whose politics we find acceptable....isn't that just a piss weak way of discrimination that is no better to the that of the KKK or similar idiotic white supremacist groups? If society is to be better than these idiots we MUST apply the law equally or we risk lowering ourselves to their myopic level.

I would equally like to say that I have heard Nick Griffin condemn the actions of the KKK with regards to the murder of Blacks in the US. He said this openly and publicly when asked if he was prepared to do so, he did not hesitate, he stated that murdering a person for any reason was wrong.

The man may not be on my Christmas card list, he is a rather odious and myopic individual and he is certainly a racist, but that does not make him a murderer or someone who condones such acts. That would be like saying all Irish people supported the IRA because they were Irish or called Mick, Paddy, Murphy or wore a flipping donkey Jacket. It's all equally daft.

[newspresenter]

When the country is in flames because the only thing left for decent people to do is to fight fire with fire, the far left will point their finger of blame at those decent people.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

When the country is in flames because the only thing left for decent people to do is to fight fire with fire, the far left will point their finger of blame at those decent people.

Hi,

I agree entirely and they will ask why The BNP was not destroyed with reason and their vile concepts, allegiances and standards shown for what they are by example, intellectual refutation and clear presentation of facts.

Improvement in the education system would also give greater confidence to their targeted supporters such that they could not be led by fear.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[DC]

Whats the issue, the BNP are wannabe Waffen SS stormtroopers, they should be treated as such.

Kiwi what a statement! And here I was thinking you were pro-Democracy and anti-Discrimination.

[Kiwi 1691]

Kiwi what a statement! And here I was thinking you were pro-Democracy and anti-Discrimination.

Well they are.

[DC]

Well they are.

Well even if they are, at that's debatable, that doesn't justify assaulting them in the street.

[Kiwi 1691]

Well even if they are, at that's debatable, that doesn't justify assaulting them in the street.

I didn't justify assaulting them on the street. I said the BNP are wannabe Waffen SS stormtroopers, they should be treated as such. I never said they should be assaulted on the street in that post.

[DC]

I didn't justify assaulting them on the street. I said the BNP are wannabe Waffen SS stormtroopers, they should be treated as such. I never said they should be assaulted on the street in that post.

You said "what's the issue?" The issue is that they were assaulted in the street and no action was taken.

[Binnman]

You said "what's the issue?" The issue is that they were assaulted in the street and no action was taken.

From my reading, action was taken

The matter went as far as being investigated and reported to the CPS. The CPS after examining the facts and circumstances, decided there was little prospect of obtaining a conviction, or that there was insufficient evidence with which to proceed.

In either event, there is no more action that could be taken

The CPS and the PF in Scotland, "bin" hundreds (if not thousands) of cases every week, it's not new, it's not political, it's just the way the system works.

[MarkMuses]

Hmm. On the news tonight apparently a Police Officer got done for wacking a demonstrator without cause. The footage made the one here look pristine, The officer's face was not even shown, yet he was prosecuted by the CPS.

Lets face FACTS. Had a BNP member thrown a dart, the establishment would have moved heaven and earth to secure a prosecution whatever the evidence. The papers daily BNP abuse should surely convince anyone of what the establishment is doing here. Debate? All lost in the noise. For GOD's sake don't let the BNP be debated fairly.

This country stinks. Only the BNP has the deodorant. Did you like that?

Well we can waffle on all we like but the clip and circumstances speaks for itself. The system is bent. Democracy is faltering. Only one vote makes any difference.

Having said that, Cameron's joke writers did a splendid job on the Budget 2010 reply. I laughed out loud at the quip, something like "the Prime Minister has won no medals for courage, but his ministers have been mentioned in Dispatches". An allussion to C4 Dispatches programme this week exposing three former ministers riding the gravy train. Well, he does the jokes. Shame he betrays the nation....

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

You said "what's the issue?" The issue is that they were assaulted in the street and no action was taken.

Hi,

how do you justify such a stance in Britain when clearly you endorse assaults on the peoples of Palestine by Zionist terrorists using modern technological weapons against women and children and a people held in a a walled and wired ghetto.

I find such double standards all too redolent of the vile practices of Zionists - I believe your views are so sordid as to be invalid on any subject in a civilised society.

G.L-W.

[Neo2012]

Hmm. On the news tonight apparently a Police Officer got done for wacking a demonstrator without cause. The footage made the one here look pristine, The officer's face was not even shown, yet he was prosecuted by the CPS.

Lets face FACTS. Had a BNP member thrown a dart, the establishment would have moved heaven and earth to secure a prosecution whatever the evidence. The papers daily BNP abuse should surely convince anyone of what the establishment is doing here. Debate? All lost in the noise. For GOD's sake don't let the BNP be debated fairly.

This country stinks. Only the BNP has the deodorant. Did you like that?

Well we can waffle on all we like but the clip and circumstances speaks for itself. The system is bent. Democracy is faltering. Only one vote makes any difference.

Having said that, Cameron's joke writers did a splendid job on the Budget 2010 reply. I laughed out loud at the quip, something like "the Prime Minister has won no medals for courage, but his ministers have been mentioned in Dispatches". An allussion to C4 Dispatches programme this week exposing three former ministers riding the gravy train. Well, he does the jokes. Shame he betrays the nation....

Well I think you have been a very unfair. As I said, if you had wanted to continue this conversation, we could have done this in this thread.

I see many people have answered your accusations. However I would like to make 1 point. You seem to think there is this conspiracy ONLY against the BNP. And there is to some extent. The BNP's get far more prominence in the British Media than it deserves, because the vast majority believe they are fascist and racist. Sometimes this works in their favour and sometimes it doesn't. However, your claimed a if this had been attacked throwing by the BNP's it would have received massive coverage may not necessarily be true. Look at what happened when the biggest haul of chemical weapons in British history was found. BNP's terrorists

[Neo2012]

So Greg your advocating that the law should only apply to those whose politics we find acceptable....isn't that just a piss weak way of discrimination that is no better to the that of the KKK or similar idiotic white supremacist groups? If society is to be better than these idiots we MUST apply the law equally or we risk lowering ourselves to their myopic level.

I would equally like to say that I have heard Nick Griffin condemn the actions of the KKK with regards to the murder of Blacks in the US. He said this openly and publicly when asked if he was prepared to do so, he did not hesitate, he stated that murdering a person for any reason was wrong.

The man may not be on my Christmas card list, he is a rather odious and myopic individual and he is certainly a racist, but that does not make him a murderer or someone who condones such acts. That would be like saying all Irish people supported the IRA because they were Irish or called Mick, Paddy, Murphy or wore a flipping donkey Jacket. It's all equally daft.

Jim, I may be misunderstanding you here, are you saying society should not discriminate against people with political views like the KKK?

The BNP used to brag on their website about how much funding they get from organisations like the KKK, until they were informed this was in breach of electoral law. Since then they have continued to go across to America to get funding for the BNP from such organisations. The leader of the bnp also clearly states that "his ideas are the same as their ideas, and he doesn't intend to sell out those ideas, merely trying to sell them".

[DC]

Jim, I may be misunderstanding you here, are you saying society should not discriminate against people with political views like the KKK?

No, society should not. People are pefectly entitled to be racist homophobes, and to preach such views, provided it doesn't encourage violence, or move into the region of outright insulting. Unfortuantely Britain seems to have gone overboard with this. Being concerned about the immigration of Afghans and other groups is now widely considered racist, as is suggesting that British culture have precedence over all other cultures in Britain.

[MarkMuses]

However, your claimed a if this had been attacked throwing by the BNP's it would have received massive coverage may not necessarily be true. Look at what happened when the biggest haul of chemical weapons in British history was found. BNP's terrorists

It got plenty of coverage as I recall. Didn't go on because lying only has so much mileage. For instance, had they all been current members of the BNP (which of course your link desperately tries to imply) and had the BNP defended them instead of disowning them for the crank terrorists they were (which again your link ignores) then it would be big news, but there you go, Searchlies, UAF, Hate not Hope, same old crap.

As I've pointed out before Sinn Fein has its crank dissidents, and despite them being a formerly major multi-million pound terrorist organisation murdering thousands they get the red carpet treatment by the Government and the media. Blatant hypocrisy, which of course you will laughably refute.

Bottom line is the BNP know very well they need to keep peaceful and boot out any Nutzis/Marxist traitors as they emerge. The public increasingly understands the dirty crap your friends pull. The press could ignore the BNP as minor party. Nobody makes them print daily BNP hate articles mis-quoting the BNP. So why do they print so much foul copy? Because they cannot engage the BNP on the issues themselves nor afford them right to reply. It's a disgrace to demoracy what the EHRC pulled recently. It's a disgrace to democracy that the LibLabCon endorse the UAF street thugs. None of this troubles you. There can be only one correct view a politically correct view. Such is the nature of the fascism you support.

I have no problem with people wanting a multi-cultural lifestyle. What is wrong is to impose it on a whole country and abuse power to silence opposition. That stinks Neo.

[Neo2012]

No, society should not. People are pefectly entitled to be racist homophobes, and to preach such views, provided it doesn't encourage violence, or move into the region of outright insulting. Unfortuantely Britain seems to have gone overboard with this. Being concerned about the immigration of Afghans and other groups is now widely considered racist, as is suggesting that British culture have precedence over all other cultures in Britain.

paranoia and double standard.
Double standards. It is OK for racist to preach and hold silly views, but is not OK for anti racist to hold and preach silly views?
I say silly anti racist views, because what you are presenting is paranoia. I don't know of anybody who says, anyone who is opposed to immigration, is a racist. No one is saying KKK/BNP should be banned. No one even talking about racism/immigration. The Michael Howard ellection manifesto, was more anti immigration than the BNP's. Unite Against FASCISM did not demonstrate, the Conservative party. This is paranoia.
Of course discriminating, against discriminators, ie KKK/BNP, is perfectly normal for society. The legal system discriminate/penalises those who discriminate every day. Of course they can believe it, but it is the act of discrimination which is penalised. No one is saying they can't hold them views, we are saying;
1. If they preach descrimination, the opposition can preach anti descrimination.
2. If they want to promote discrimination, ie whites should have more rights than non whites, they cant object to being discriminated against.
3. It is perfectly valid for democrats to boycott anti democrats, fascism.

[DC]

paranoia and double standard.
Double standards. It is OK for racist to preach and hold silly views, but is not OK for anti racist to hold and preach silly views?
I say silly anti racist views, because what you are presenting is paranoia. I don't know of anybody who says, anyone who is opposed to immigration, is a racist. No one is saying KKK/BNP should be banned. No one even talking about racism/immigration. The Michael Howard ellection manifesto, was more anti immigration than the BNP's. Unite Against FASCISM did not demonstrate, the Conservative party. This is paranoia.
Of course discriminating, against discriminators, ie KKK/BNP, is perfectly normal for society. The legal system discriminate/penalises those who discriminate every day. Of course they can believe it, but it is the act of discrimination which is penalised. No one is saying they can't hold them views, we are saying;

Of course you can speak out against such views, however you should not be allowed to stop said views. You said that society should discriminate against those with views alternate to yours, you are just as much a 'fascist' as those you claim to fight.

1. If they preach descrimination, the opposition can/must be preach anti descrimination.

Of course.

2. If they want to promote discrimination, ie whites should have more rights than non whites, they cant object to being discriminated against.

No. That's like saying we should fight civilian killing terrorists by killing civilians.

3. It is perfectly valid for democrats to boycott anti democrats, fascism.

Yes, but not stop anti democrats from actually speaking.

[Neo2012]

It got plenty of coverage as I recall. Didn't go on because lying only has so much mileage. For instance, had they all been current members of the BNP (which of course your link desperately tries to imply) and had the BNP defended them instead of disowning them for the crank terrorists they were (which again your link ignores) then it would be big news, but there you go, Searchlies, UAF, Hate not Hope, same old crap.

As I've pointed out before Sinn Fein has its crank dissidents, and despite them being a formerly major multi-million pound terrorist organisation murdering thousands they get the red carpet treatment by the Government and the media. Blatant hypocrisy, which of course you will laughably refute.

Bottom line is the BNP know very well they need to keep peaceful and boot out any Nutzis/Marxist traitors as they emerge. The public increasingly understands the dirty crap your friends pull. The press could ignore the BNP as minor party. Nobody makes them print daily BNP hate articles mis-quoting the BNP. So why do they print so much foul copy? Because they cannot engage the BNP on the issues themselves nor afford them right to reply. It's a disgrace to demoracy what the EHRC pulled recently. It's a disgrace to democracy that the LibLabCon endorse the UAF street thugs. None of this troubles you. There can be only one correct view a politically correct view. Such is the nature of the fascism you support.

I have no problem with people wanting a multi-cultural lifestyle. What is wrong is to impose it on a whole country and abuse power to silence opposition. That stinks Neo.

What multi-cultural lifestyle is being imposed on you?

[DougieG]

It's a disgrace to demoracy what the EHRC pulled recently.

Of course! Those stupid old masters of law with their incredibly intelligent, well-trained minds! What fools to think that it isn't your democratic right to run a party that is specifically racist! They must have been told what to believe by the Bilderbergs and the Illuminati and the space lizards and the worst of all the LIBERAL ELITE!!!!111!

The fact is, the BNP either represents black/asian/oriental people who have lived here for 2+ generations or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it is still racist, not nationalist. If it does then those people should be allowed to join. So it follows that if it only seeks to represent white people, then it is racist. And don't pull the retarded "OMG BLACK POLICEMEN ROFL!!!111 LIBERAL ELITE LOL!!111!on3" because a) they aren't a political party and b) they represent a group that has long been subject to an enormous amount of discrimination, unlike white people. Plus, it is in the interests of the country and the effectiveness of the police force to have a number of successful black police officers.

[Neo2012]

Of course! Those stupid old masters of law with their incredibly intelligent, well-trained minds! What fools to think that it isn't your democratic right to run a party that is specifically racist! They must have been told what to believe by the Bilderbergs and the Illuminati and the space lizards and the worst of all the LIBERAL ELITE!!!!111!

The fact is, the BNP either represents black/asian/oriental people who have lived here for 2+ generations or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it is still racist, not nationalist. If it does then those people should be allowed to join. So it follows that if it only seeks to represent white people, then it is racist. And don't pull the retarded "OMG BLACK POLICEMEN ROFL!!!111 LIBERAL ELITE LOL!!111!on3" because a) they aren't a political party and b) they represent a group that has long been subject to an enormous amount of discrimination, unlike white people. Plus, it is in the interests of the country and the effectiveness of the police force to have a number of successful black police officers.

The distinction is so obvious, only the deliberately obtuse could be ignorant of it. One group is trying to promote equality, the fascists are trying to promote discrimination.

[MarkMuses]

Of course! Those stupid old masters of law with their incredibly intelligent, well-trained minds! What fools to think that it isn't your democratic right to run a party that is specifically racist! They must have been told what to believe by the Bilderbergs and the Illuminati and the space lizards and the worst of all the LIBERAL ELITE!!!!111!

The fact is, the BNP either represents black/asian/oriental people who have lived here for 2+ generations or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it is still racist, not nationalist. If it does then those people should be allowed to join. So it follows that if it only seeks to represent white people, then it is racist. And don't pull the retarded "OMG BLACK POLICEMEN ROFL!!!111 LIBERAL ELITE LOL!!111!on3" because a) they aren't a political party and b) they represent a group that has long been subject to an enormous amount of discrimination, unlike white people. Plus, it is in the interests of the country and the effectiveness of the police force to have a number of successful black police officers.

I wrote "It's a disgrace to demoracy what the EHRC pulled recently". You wrote the usual bile. Problem is, in a democracy if is to be called a democracy, then guess what? You don't get to dictate what is politically correct. Democracy is very much about you accepting that other people disagree with your dogma just as you disagree with theirs.

That is democracy. What the EHRC did was a direct challenge against democracy and that Dougie, stinks, whichever way you look at it.

[DougieG]

I wrote "It's a disgrace to demoracy what the EHRC pulled recently". You wrote the usual bile. Problem is, in a democracy if is to be called a democracy, then guess what? You don't get to dictate what is politically correct. Democracy is very much about you accepting that other people disagree with your dogma just as you disagree with theirs.

That is democracy. What the EHRC did was a direct challenge against democracy and that Dougie, stinks, whichever way you look at it.

Hell no. Democracy is about more than allowing groups of small-minded fascists to have their way. Say the entire country voted to execute an entirely innocent man. It would be the duty of a LIBERAL democracy (that first part is always forgotten by racists and anti-democratists such as yourself) to not allow that to happen.

You might be aware that I despise conservatism. I hate it. I think that it is a dreadful, selfish, chauvinist philosophy that has no place in the modern world. So why, Mark, why oh why do I think that it is OK to impose sanctions upon the BNP and not upon conservatives? Might it be because your party is very unpleasant?

You didn't answer my question either. Which of these two things is true?

A) THE BNP IS A RACIST ORGANISATION AND THUS DOES NOT REPRESENT NON-WHITES, WHICH IS WHY THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO JOIN.

B) THE BNP IS NOT A RACIST ORGANISATION IN WHICH CASE IT REPRESENTS BRITISH PEOPLE OF ALL COLOURS AND SO MUST ALLOW THEM TO JOIN.

Which is it Mark? A is of course correct, but I want to know whether you know, deep down, that you support racists and fascists, or whether you really have been deceived.

Note that in a democracy you have to have some controls. Not full control, but some controls. Basically, A is not allowed because that allows the BNP to follow their leaders' heroes from Germany. We certainly don't want that happening again, and in a country where we don't have a democratic voting system, we must have other controls on filth like them.

[MarkMuses]

Hell no. Democracy is about more than allowing groups of small-minded fascists to have their way. Say the entire country voted to execute an entirely innocent man. It would be the duty of a LIBERAL democracy (that first part is always forgotten by racists and anti-democratists such as yourself) to not allow that to happen.

You might be aware that I despise conservatism. I hate it. I think that it is a dreadful, selfish, chauvinist philosophy that has no place in the modern world. So why, Mark, why oh why do I think that it is OK to impose sanctions upon the BNP and not upon conservatives? Might it be because your party is very unpleasant?

You didn't answer my question either. Which of these two things is true?

A) THE BNP IS A RACIST ORGANISATION AND THUS DOES NOT REPRESENT NON-WHITES, WHICH IS WHY THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO JOIN.

B) THE BNP IS NOT A RACIST ORGANISATION IN WHICH CASE IT REPRESENTS BRITISH PEOPLE OF ALL COLOURS AND SO MUST ALLOW THEM TO JOIN.

Which is it Mark? A is of course correct, but I want to know whether you know, deep down, that you support racists and fascists, or whether you really have been deceived.

Note that in a democracy you have to have some controls. Not full control, but some controls. Basically, A is not allowed because that allows the BNP to follow their leaders' heroes from Germany. We certainly don't want that happening again, and in a country where we don't have a democratic voting system, we must have other controls on filth like them.

Your example first. If the country voted to execute an innocent man. Either they would be of the opinion that he was not innocent (in which case they would be mistaken and not culpable), or the rather bizarre alternative that they thought he was innocent and should still be executed. Well, in the latter that would be morally wrong but can you provide any example where a UN recognised democracy has ever been guilty of such a miscarriage of justice? If not then i think the point returns to what democracy is all about. I don't trust you, I don't trust me. I can only take a punt on trusting us!!! That's all we can do Dougie. Not perfect, but the best thing yet seen on this planet. We owe a hell of a lot to it.

To your question in big shouting capitals then...
A) Is false. For the following reasons. Racist to me does not mean anything other than racial group de-humanisation. I believe in racial reality. I do not condone racism as defined. I think the BNP did once condone racism (again as defined) and have grown up. It's been aroud a decade now and I think their manifesto puts a spanner in the works of the closet-fascist argument.

I think allowing non-whites to join was overdue, but if for just a second you can imagine the viewpoint of the BNP in the face of wall-to-wall hostitlity I think their former whites only policy becomes understandable. I guess you can't but that's my response to that. If they want to exercise the fundamental right to freedom of association as whites only they should do it within a social organisation, not a political party. Of course such a thing would be banned under the fascism you support.

B) As to this option, I disagree with your (assumed) use of the word racist as I hope I've explained above.

The fundamental problem here is that you think races are not biologically valid whereas I do. You also (I believe) think race reality can only be a supremacy argument. I reject that position.

As for me, I'm no fan of Nazism which is not the same as fascim but a sort of virulent form or fascist racial hatred. Fascism is interesting but ultimately useless just as Communism is.

I'd have to write an essay to explain my views on nationalism. liberalism, conservatism and socialism, because I don't fit neatly into any political stereotype unfortunately. They all have merit. They all have flaws.

I don't think I'm a Nazi monster. For many years I was very much PC. I remember being shocked when a decade ago it got around the office that a rather thuggish colleague of ours was a BNP member. I can clearly remember my surprise, concern, and how I felt, and I often use it to key myself back into that mindset to re-analyse things.

Sorry Dougie, no clear answer there. Just label me the usual I guess and I'll slag you off in return. Fair enough?

[DougieG]

Your example first. If the country voted to execute an innocent man. Either they would be of the opinion that he was not innocent (in which case they would be mistaken and not culpable), or the rather bizarre alternative that they thought he was innocent and should still be executed. Well, in the latter that would be morally wrong but can you provide any example where a UN recognised democracy has ever been guilty of such a miscarriage of justice? If not then i think the point returns to what democracy is all about. I don't trust you, I don't trust me. I can only take a punt on trusting us!!! That's all we can do Dougie. Not perfect, but the best thing yet seen on this planet. We owe a hell of a lot to it.

To your question in big shouting capitals then...
A) Is false. For the following reasons. Racist to me does not mean anything other than racial group de-humanisation. I believe in racial reality. I do not condone racism as defined. I think the BNP did once condone racism (again as defined) and have grown up. It's been aroud a decade now and I think their manifesto puts a spanner in the works of the closet-fascist argument.

I think allowing non-whites to join was overdue, but if for just a second you can imagine the viewpoint of the BNP in the face of wall-to-wall hostitlity I think their former whites only policy becomes understandable. I guess you can't but that's my response to that. If they want to exercise the fundamental right to freedom of association as whites only they should do it within a social organisation, not a political party. Of course such a thing would be banned under the fascism you support.

B) As to this option, I disagree with your (assumed) use of the word racist as I hope I've explained above.

The fundamental problem here is that you think races are not biologically valid whereas I do. You also (I believe) think race reality can only be a supremacy argument. I reject that position.

As for me, I'm no fan of Nazism which is not the same as fascim but a sort of virulent form or fascist racial hatred. Fascism is interesting but ultimately useless just as Communism is.

I'd have to write an essay to explain my views on nationalism. liberalism, conservatism and socialism, because I don't fit neatly into any political stereotype unfortunately. They all have merit. They all have flaws.

I don't think I'm a Nazi monster. For many years I was very much PC. I remember being shocked when a decade ago it got around the office that a rather thuggish colleague of ours was a BNP member. I can clearly remember my surprise, concern, and how I felt, and I often use it to key myself back into that mindset to re-analyse things.

Sorry Dougie, no clear answer there. Just label me the usual I guess and I'll slag you off in return. Fair enough?

You're making a fair effort at justifying it. But please point to where I have labelled YOU rather than the BNP... I made a conscious effort to make sure that was what I was doing. Whatever your misguided reasons for supporting the fascists, they remain the same. With respect, your views don't matter a damn, just as my personal views don't make a blind bit of difference to the Lib Dems' views despite me being a member. If we're discussing the nature of the BNP then dipping into you as a person and your own views doesn't really aid in identifying them.

You seem to think that you must either be a BNP-supporting full-on nationalist or a PC-supporting supposed fascist. Interesting. And wrong. Frankly, I believe in equality of opportunity for everyone regardless of their background. Fundamentally. Race really doesn't matter. If black people don't do so well, then that's fine. So long as they're not being prejudiced against. It's fine if white people can't have little racist groups, because it prevents extremism and ultimately preserves a democracy.

You really do think, don't you, that anything other than full-on nationalistic racist propaganda is fascist? The BNP are a group led by fascists. Point to another party where all of the leaders used to be members of fascist or racist groups. None, is the answer. It's no coincidence that they have banded together to form the BNP. Opposition, therefore, to such a party, is inherently anti-fascist. The logic by which you accuse us of fascism could be applied to any situation. You hate political correctness, so you are politically correct because you are standing up for the rights of white people above all others. You can reverse anything. You might as well say I am a conservative because I am a lefty. Fascism's sole goal is not to suppress opposition (which, note, doesn't happen in the UK. The Greens are totally different to any other party and they can stand. So can the UKIP), it is to unify a country in a euphoria of militaristic, totalitarian, usually racial and nationalistic propaganda. Suppressing opposition is a sidepoint. Stopping these fascists from getting into power is anti-fascist. It can be nothing else. You may as well say that suppressing the communist party would be communist because Stalinists used to suppress all opposition.

[octopus]

The British National Party — Blog — College Green Dart Assault on BNP Leader: Despite Video Evidence, CPS Refuses to Prosecute

Are the BBC covering this? I don't see anything on their site at time of writing. News blackout (again)?

I take it then that the Government funded UAF (Unite As Fascists) have now been given full freedom to commit serious criminal assault against their only real opponents in this election.

Only a few years ago I would not even believe the CPS could make such a decision.

If the UAF can do this, a vote for the BNP has now become literally a vote to save our freedoms and democracy itself. Over dramatic? Watch the video. CPS say no prosecution.

What would you expect from a goverment, and degenerate society like we have today. I have to say, I find myself soley on the side of the BNP on this incident. Again, the far-left are showing their true colours as thugs and bullies, and any decent person would want nothing to do with them.

In this video, and on other incidents involving the UAF and BNP, you see BNP members being the victims, rather than the threat to freedom and democracy. In a civilised society this is totaly unacceptable. If the UAF, or anybody else can"t express their point of view without using these kind of tactics, then they should be disbanded by law. I know a lot of the UAFs members are "wet behind the ears" students, but they should learn some decent manners; later on when they leave these so-called places of education, they will find they are in the minority anyway. The REAL world is very much to the right. A frighting thought that this students may one day be running our society; frankly I wouldn"t employ most of that shower in the video as cleaners.

[octopus]

The distinction is so obvious, only the deliberately obtuse could be ignorant of it. One group is trying to promote equality, the fascists are trying to promote discrimination.

It"s the UAF doing all the pushing through, on this occasion; they are doing their cause no good at all. I, and millions like me have them down as scruffy, violent mouthy yobs, once again. Another thing, Neo. Why do you call them fascists? They say they are not. True, they have an unsavoury image, by some people, but I had a look at their manifesto, which does not spell to fascism in my opnion, or most normal peoples views of fascism, if we are allowed to hold them still, that is!

[octopus]

Hell no. Democracy is about more than allowing groups of small-minded fascists to have their way. Say the entire country voted to execute an entirely innocent man. It would be the duty of a LIBERAL democracy (that first part is always forgotten by racists and anti-democratists such as yourself) to not allow that to happen.

You might be aware that I despise conservatism. I hate it. I think that it is a dreadful, selfish, chauvinist philosophy that has no place in the modern world. So why, Mark, why oh why do I think that it is OK to impose sanctions upon the BNP and not upon conservatives? Might it be because your party is very unpleasant?

You didn't answer my question either. Which of these two things is true?

A) THE BNP IS A RACIST ORGANISATION AND THUS DOES NOT REPRESENT NON-WHITES, WHICH IS WHY THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO JOIN.

B) THE BNP IS NOT A RACIST ORGANISATION IN WHICH CASE IT REPRESENTS BRITISH PEOPLE OF ALL COLOURS AND SO MUST ALLOW THEM TO JOIN.

Which is it Mark? A is of course correct, but I want to know whether you know, deep down, that you support racists and fascists, or whether you really have been deceived.

Note that in a democracy you have to have some controls. Not full control, but some controls. Basically, A is not allowed because that allows the BNP to follow their leaders' heroes from Germany. We certainly don't want that happening again, and in a country where we don't have a democratic voting system, we must have other controls on filth like them.

The thing is Dougie, would I, or Mark be allowed to join an extreme Islam group? Would you call them racist, if they refused? I don"t agree with colour bars such as this myself, that"s why I disagree with a multiculture society - because of these kind of problems. However, the BNP should be allowed to enforce their own rules, as should other organisations. If you don"t like it - keep away! It is a free country! Or supposed to be!

[Citizen Smith]

Come on Octupus, don't be thick. Griffin shares platforms with the KKK, and did you not hear his little speech on which words to use when you mean ethnic cleansing to not scare people off? He's a fascist, not all BNP members/ supporters are necessarily fascist racists...... but it helps.

[octopus]

Come on Octupus, don't be thick. Griffin shares platforms with the KKK, and did you not hear his little speech on which words to use when you mean ethnic cleansing to not scare people off? He's a fascist, not all BNP members/ supporters are necessarily fascist racists...... but it helps.

He may have shared a platform with KKK, but the BNP, unlike the Klan is not known as terrorist organisation, that uses violence. As far-right groups go, the BNP is not that extreme, if you look at their manifesto. In all parties and organisations you will have extremists. The most frighting is extreme Islam, which is why a LOT of people support Nick Griffin; even getting representation in Europe. Islam is far more alarming than the extreme right or extreme left; Nick Grffin"s voters know this, and that is why he enjoys the support he does; you don"t have to be fascist to be a BNP voter, just walk around with your eyes and ears open - OR JUST WATCH A VIDEO!

The only democratic party to address the problem of Islam is UKIP. If it is not addressed the problem will not go away, it will only get worse - MUCH WORSE!

In a democracy, a non-violent a politcal party, whether, right, left, or center, should be allowed to campagin without interference from anybody: Althoough I am not a supporter of the BNP, because of their negative image and things I have heard them say, I do agree with a lot of their manifesto, which most right thinking people would, as Britain is put first, as well as a tough approach on crime! If it comes to a straight choice between Nick Griffin or "hook hand", I know who I would vote for. With respect, you, and certain other members don"t realise the danger we are in; myself, and Grffiin"s voters do.

[DougieG]

The thing is Dougie, would I, or Mark be allowed to join an extreme Islam group? Would you call them racist, if they refused? I don"t agree with colour bars such as this myself, that"s why I disagree with a multiculture society - because of these kind of problems. However, the BNP should be allowed to enforce their own rules, as should other organisations. If you don"t like it - keep away! It is a free country! Or supposed to be!

No you wouldn't and yes I would call them racist. You've made a slip here in pointing out how directly comparable Islamist extremists and the BNP really are. Both are racist, divisive groups and both should be stamped out.

[DC]

No you wouldn't and yes I would call them racist. You've made a slip here in pointing out how directly comparable Islamist extremists and the BNP really are. Both are racist, divisive groups and both should be stamped out.

Through education and in the case of the BNP, perhaps addressing some of their concerns, not through violence and intimidation.

[JacquesMagique]

The thing is Dougie, would I, or Mark be allowed to join an extreme Islam group? Would you call them racist, if they refused?

Perhaps, are you a fundamentalist muslim?

[Citizen Smith]

Through education and in the case of the BNP, perhaps addressing some of their concerns, not through violence and intimidation.

What Address their concerns? Give in to the will of a tiny group of racists? No.

[DC]

What Address their concerns? Give in to the will of a tiny group of racists? No.

Some of their concerns. Do you deny that the level of Government bureaucracy and the level of immigration, particularly illegal, are concerns for many people in Britain?

[octopus]

No you wouldn't and yes I would call them racist. You've made a slip here in pointing out how directly comparable Islamist extremists and the BNP really are. Both are racist, divisive groups and both should be stamped out.

Firstly, Dougie, I am not a follower of the the BNP. All I said was that they are for Britain and have some good policies. As we live in a PC, gone mad, society, this is taken as racism; so no slip on my part.

Secondly, there is a hell of a lot of difference from people who crash planes into buildings and organisations like the BNP, who only campaign for the indegenious people. As a party they are non-violent - thus, entitled to be heard, like any other party. Launatics, who call for people they disagree with to be beheaded, have no place in a civilised society. I don"t think anyone would disagree with that, would you?

Finaly, you say "stamp them out". How would you do that? A liberal person like yourself. The same way your liberal pals tackle anti-social behavoir: A free trip to St Lucia, an ASBO, appeal to their better nature and hope they turn over a new leaf. Or would you adopt my approach? I think we know the answer?