ELECTION: Romford/Barking - I predict a riot....

chucky

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

I sentance you to Death By Spitting ......

...now, where is Roy Hattersley.....

inspector have a look at this - Lemonjelly it will make you chuckle
http://www.holmesdale.net/page.php?id=106&attachment=1680295&ext=.pdf

inspector_monkfish

chucky wrote: »

inspector have a look at this - Lemonjelly it will make you chuckle
http://www.holmesdale.net/page.php?id=106&attachment=1680295&ext=.pdf

its Gay !!!!!!.

what were you thinking man?

u are sick!

lemonjelly

Doing the rounds on message boards - saw it a week ago.
Chuckle. It made me incontinent...

chucky

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

its Gay !!!!!!.

what were you thinking man?

u are sick!

hahaha - you know there will be a couple of posters that will click through now you've said that!

did you see it Boa Morte - £70k a week
and
Gabbidon - £50k a week

quality!!

chucky

lemonjelly wrote: »

Doing the rounds on message boards - saw it a week ago.
Chuckle. It made me incontinent...

i'm sorry to hear that Lemonjelly - jeggings may be the answer for you

ninky_2

lemonjelly wrote: »

They may be aquitted, but will still be charged with alternate charges such as manslaughter, or guilty on grounds of diminished responsibility, therefore still guilty...

Whilst I understand your point, & my dislike for the BNP is high, the lads spitting were wrong & should be charged accordingly. ninky, do you think they were in the right or wrong?

if you believe in freedom of speech, you gotta hear things you don't wanna hear...

as far as i could see only one person spat so it's not a 'they' is it?

i think that they were provoked and as such were in a 'loss of control' situation. i think 'loss of control' is a reasonable excuse / justification for the spitting in this case yes. so i don't think it's a 'right or wrong' situation. but a justified one yes.

if a group of male louts were hanging around outside a womens refuge over a period of months, even years, and said insulting things and carried banners and put up posters suggesting batterered women were asking for it or deserved it. if one of the men then started shouting out across to a group of the women as they were going about their business and was aggressive when they came over. and if one of the women then spat on him and he then punched her in the face and kicked her as she fell to the ground.....

i would applaud that woman and the others with her and charge the man.

i don't think this case is significantly different.

lemonjelly

ninky I think the they/he arguement is a red herring.

I abhor the BNP. But they have the legal right to canvas & freedom of speech.

The asian lad who spat on him started the violence. No question of that. Accordingly he should be charged & prosecuted.

The hypothetical situation you outline is not comparable in any way. For a start your situation is a chain of events, happening over a period of time. This is an apples & pears situation.

Whilst you sympathise with the lads who may have been abused by the BNP guy (I don't have sound here, so cannot tell) you cannot condone him starting of the violence by spitting.

lostinrates

I've skimmed the thread and mised the news story so I'm waffling...as usual..

but it seems to be that to not see the spit as wrong...is like saying its ok if we agree with the argument and the sentiment of the spitter, but not if they have different views/sympathies from us.....scary territory!

liam8282

Wasn't there a marmite campaign, love it or hate it?

Can just see it now, everyone going to tesco and spitting at marmite because they don't like it.

Exocet

I haven't seen the video or read the story, but as an eogtistic troublemaker feel obligated to comment. I believe in some societies spitting is considered a mark of respect, and perhaps the young man was simply welcoming the politician to his neighborhood.

I don't know if it was John Prescott who reacted first, but it just sounds like a simple mix up.