Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Emma West’s trial scheduled for the sixth time
8 views
Skip to first unread message
RH
Apr 10, 2013, 8:10:52 AM4/10/13
to
Emma West’s trial scheduled for the sixth time
Posted on April 10, 2013 by Robert Henderson
Emma West was due to stand trial at Croydon Crown Court for two
racially aggravated public order offences arising from her complaint
about mass immigration and its effects made on a Croydon tram in
November 2011 . The trial has been delayed yet again and she will now
(allegedly) stand trial on 10 May.[1]
The authorities are extracting the bodily fluids if they expect the
general public to believe there is a legitimate reason for the delay.
The 10 May will be the sixth (yes, that is the sixth) trial date Ms
West has been given since she was arrested . By 10 May she will have
been waiting to be tried for just short of eighteen months. The delay
is patently unreasonable.
The latest excuse given for the inordinate delay are “legal
reasons”. The only likely reasons are political ones, namely, her
trial will challenge to politically correct status quo. This is
because unlike virtually everyone else who has been charged with these
type of offences she has made it clear she will be pleading NOT
GUILTY. The authorities simply do not know what to do with her.
There is an added complication. When the previous re-scheduling
happened the charges of assault against two police offices during the
investigation of her case were also delayed -they were originally due
to be held on 3 March and were re-scheduled for 15 April.[2]
It will be interesting to see if these cases (to be heard in a
magistrates’ court) go ahead on the 15 April or are put back yet
again. The authorities may have decided they want these cases to be
heard before the racially aggravated public order offences. That could
be to her disadvantage not just because it would taint her with a
criminal conviction before her Crown Court trial, but even more
dangerously because a criminal conviction for violence could provide
the local social services with grounds for removing or threatening to
remove her young son. That might well be used as a lever to persuade
her to plead guilty. It is all too easy to imagine the cant the
social services could come out with: “If you show remorse, Emma, it
may be possible to let you keep your child because it shows
willingness to change. But if you stubbornly stick to your not guilty
plea we may have to take your son away from you because you are an
unfit mother.”
The other possibility is that if the assault charges are heard on 15
April and she is found guilty, she might be sent to prison. This would
be very unusual for common assault cases, but the fact that the
[1] http://tinyurl.com/emmawest6
[2] http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/New-date-trial-alleged-Croydon-tram-racist-Emma/story-18324751-detail/story.html#axzz2NP1BGaXM
Read more at http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/emma-wests-trial-rescheduled-for-the-sixth-time/
plainolamerican
Apr 10, 2013, 10:00:37 AM4/10/13
to
>
> Read more athttp://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/emma-wests-trial-resch...
so much for free speech.
hate speech laws are unconstitutional in America.
Farmer Giles
Apr 10, 2013, 10:30:33 AM4/10/13
to
>> Emma West�s trial scheduled for the sixth time
>> reasons�. The only likely reasons are political ones, namely, her
about Jews running Wall St and the Federal Reserve.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/10/19/teacher-fired-for-anti-semitic-comments-at-occupy-wall-street/
>> Posted on April 10, 2013 by Robert Henderson
>>
>> Emma West was due to stand trial at Croydon Crown Court for two
>> racially aggravated public order offences arising from her complaint
>> about mass immigration and its effects made on a Croydon tram in
>> November 2011 . The trial has been delayed yet again and she will now
>> (allegedly) stand trial on 10 May.[1]
>>
>> The authorities are extracting the bodily fluids if they expect the
>> general public to believe there is a legitimate reason for the delay.
>> The 10 May will be the sixth (yes, that is the sixth) trial date Ms
>> West has been given since she was arrested . By 10 May she will have
>> been waiting to be tried for just short of eighteen months. The delay
>> is patently unreasonable.
>>
>> The latest excuse given for the inordinate delay are �legal
>>
>> Emma West was due to stand trial at Croydon Crown Court for two
>> racially aggravated public order offences arising from her complaint
>> about mass immigration and its effects made on a Croydon tram in
>> November 2011 . The trial has been delayed yet again and she will now
>> (allegedly) stand trial on 10 May.[1]
>>
>> The authorities are extracting the bodily fluids if they expect the
>> general public to believe there is a legitimate reason for the delay.
>> The 10 May will be the sixth (yes, that is the sixth) trial date Ms
>> West has been given since she was arrested . By 10 May she will have
>> been waiting to be tried for just short of eighteen months. The delay
>> is patently unreasonable.
>>
>> reasons�. The only likely reasons are political ones, namely, her
>> trial will challenge to politically correct status quo. This is
>> because unlike virtually everyone else who has been charged with these
>> type of offences she has made it clear she will be pleading NOT
>> GUILTY. The authorities simply do not know what to do with her.
>>
>> There is an added complication. When the previous re-scheduling
>> happened the charges of assault against two police offices during the
>> investigation of her case were also delayed -they were originally due
>> to be held on 3 March and were re-scheduled for 15 April.[2]
>>
>> It will be interesting to see if these cases (to be heard in a
>> magistrates� court) go ahead on the 15 April or are put back yet
>> because unlike virtually everyone else who has been charged with these
>> type of offences she has made it clear she will be pleading NOT
>> GUILTY. The authorities simply do not know what to do with her.
>>
>> There is an added complication. When the previous re-scheduling
>> happened the charges of assault against two police offices during the
>> investigation of her case were also delayed -they were originally due
>> to be held on 3 March and were re-scheduled for 15 April.[2]
>>
>> It will be interesting to see if these cases (to be heard in a
>> again. The authorities may have decided they want these cases to be
>> heard before the racially aggravated public order offences. That could
>> be to her disadvantage not just because it would taint her with a
>> criminal conviction before her Crown Court trial, but even more
>> dangerously because a criminal conviction for violence could provide
>> the local social services with grounds for removing or threatening to
>> remove her young son. That might well be used as a lever to persuade
>> her to plead guilty. It is all too easy to imagine the cant the
>> social services could come out with: �If you show remorse, Emma, it
>> heard before the racially aggravated public order offences. That could
>> be to her disadvantage not just because it would taint her with a
>> criminal conviction before her Crown Court trial, but even more
>> dangerously because a criminal conviction for violence could provide
>> the local social services with grounds for removing or threatening to
>> remove her young son. That might well be used as a lever to persuade
>> her to plead guilty. It is all too easy to imagine the cant the
>> may be possible to let you keep your child because it shows
>> willingness to change. But if you stubbornly stick to your not guilty
>> plea we may have to take your son away from you because you are an
>> unfit mother.�
>> willingness to change. But if you stubbornly stick to your not guilty
>> plea we may have to take your son away from you because you are an
>>
>> The other possibility is that if the assault charges are heard on 15
>> April and she is found guilty, she might be sent to prison. This would
>> be very unusual for common assault cases, but the fact that the
>>
>> [1]http://tinyurl.com/emmawest6
>>
>> [2]http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/New-date-trial-alleged-Croydon-tr...
>>
>> Read more athttp://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/emma-wests-trial-resch...
>
> so much for free speech.
> hate speech laws are unconstitutional in America.
>
That would be why that schoolteacher lost her job for making statements
>> The other possibility is that if the assault charges are heard on 15
>> April and she is found guilty, she might be sent to prison. This would
>> be very unusual for common assault cases, but the fact that the
>>
>> [1]http://tinyurl.com/emmawest6
>>
>> [2]http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/New-date-trial-alleged-Croydon-tr...
>>
>> Read more athttp://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/emma-wests-trial-resch...
>
> so much for free speech.
> hate speech laws are unconstitutional in America.
>
about Jews running Wall St and the Federal Reserve.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/10/19/teacher-fired-for-anti-semitic-comments-at-occupy-wall-street/
plainolamerican
Apr 10, 2013, 11:41:16 AM4/10/13
to
On Apr 10, 9:30 am, Farmer Giles <gi...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 10/04/2013 15:00, plainolamerican wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 7:10 am, RH <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Emma West s trial scheduled for the sixth time
> On 10/04/2013 15:00, plainolamerican wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 7:10 am, RH <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Posted on April 10, 2013 by Robert Henderson
>
> >> Emma West was due to stand trial at Croydon Crown Court for two
> >> racially aggravated public order offences arising from her complaint
> >> about mass immigration and its effects made on a Croydon tram in
> >> November 2011 . The trial has been delayed yet again and she will now
> >> (allegedly) stand trial on 10 May.[1]
>
> >> The authorities are extracting the bodily fluids if they expect the
> >> general public to believe there is a legitimate reason for the delay.
> >> The 10 May will be the sixth (yes, that is the sixth) trial date Ms
> >> West has been given since she was arrested . By 10 May she will have
> >> been waiting to be tried for just short of eighteen months. The delay
> >> is patently unreasonable.
>
> >> The latest excuse given for the inordinate delay are legal
>
> >> Emma West was due to stand trial at Croydon Crown Court for two
> >> racially aggravated public order offences arising from her complaint
> >> about mass immigration and its effects made on a Croydon tram in
> >> November 2011 . The trial has been delayed yet again and she will now
> >> (allegedly) stand trial on 10 May.[1]
>
> >> The authorities are extracting the bodily fluids if they expect the
> >> general public to believe there is a legitimate reason for the delay.
> >> The 10 May will be the sixth (yes, that is the sixth) trial date Ms
> >> West has been given since she was arrested . By 10 May she will have
> >> been waiting to be tried for just short of eighteen months. The delay
> >> is patently unreasonable.
>
> >> reasons . The only likely reasons are political ones, namely, her
> >> trial will challenge to politically correct status quo. This is
> >> because unlike virtually everyone else who has been charged with these
> >> type of offences she has made it clear she will be pleading NOT
> >> GUILTY. The authorities simply do not know what to do with her.
>
> >> There is an added complication. When the previous re-scheduling
> >> happened the charges of assault against two police offices during the
> >> investigation of her case were also delayed -they were originally due
> >> to be held on 3 March and were re-scheduled for 15 April.[2]
>
> >> It will be interesting to see if these cases (to be heard in a
> >> magistrates court) go ahead on the 15 April or are put back yet
> >> because unlike virtually everyone else who has been charged with these
> >> type of offences she has made it clear she will be pleading NOT
> >> GUILTY. The authorities simply do not know what to do with her.
>
> >> There is an added complication. When the previous re-scheduling
> >> happened the charges of assault against two police offices during the
> >> investigation of her case were also delayed -they were originally due
> >> to be held on 3 March and were re-scheduled for 15 April.[2]
>
> >> It will be interesting to see if these cases (to be heard in a
> >> again. The authorities may have decided they want these cases to be
> >> heard before the racially aggravated public order offences. That could
> >> be to her disadvantage not just because it would taint her with a
> >> criminal conviction before her Crown Court trial, but even more
> >> dangerously because a criminal conviction for violence could provide
> >> the local social services with grounds for removing or threatening to
> >> remove her young son. That might well be used as a lever to persuade
> >> her to plead guilty. It is all too easy to imagine the cant the
> >> social services could come out with: If you show remorse, Emma, it
> >> heard before the racially aggravated public order offences. That could
> >> be to her disadvantage not just because it would taint her with a
> >> criminal conviction before her Crown Court trial, but even more
> >> dangerously because a criminal conviction for violence could provide
> >> the local social services with grounds for removing or threatening to
> >> remove her young son. That might well be used as a lever to persuade
> >> her to plead guilty. It is all too easy to imagine the cant the
> >> may be possible to let you keep your child because it shows
> >> willingness to change. But if you stubbornly stick to your not guilty
> >> plea we may have to take your son away from you because you are an
> >> unfit mother.
>
> >> willingness to change. But if you stubbornly stick to your not guilty
> >> plea we may have to take your son away from you because you are an
> >> unfit mother.
>
> >> The other possibility is that if the assault charges are heard on 15
> >> April and she is found guilty, she might be sent to prison. This would
> >> be very unusual for common assault cases, but the fact that the
>
> >> [1]http://tinyurl.com/emmawest6
>
> >> [2]http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/New-date-trial-alleged-Croydon-tr...
>
> >> Read more athttp://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/emma-wests-trial-resch...
>
> > so much for free speech.
> > hate speech laws are unconstitutional in America.
>
> That would be why that schoolteacher lost her job for making statements
> about Jews running Wall St and the Federal Reserve.
>
> http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/10/19/teacher-fired-for-anti-semiti...
> >> April and she is found guilty, she might be sent to prison. This would
> >> be very unusual for common assault cases, but the fact that the
>
> >> [1]http://tinyurl.com/emmawest6
>
> >> [2]http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/New-date-trial-alleged-Croydon-tr...
>
> >> Read more athttp://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/emma-wests-trial-resch...
>
> > so much for free speech.
> > hate speech laws are unconstitutional in America.
>
> That would be why that schoolteacher lost her job for making statements
> about Jews running Wall St and the Federal Reserve.
>
she was fired by John Deasy ... a zionist tool to ignore.
http://www.jewishla.org/koreh-la/blog-entry/discussion-with-dr.-john-deasy-a-remarkable-morning-for-koreh-l.a/
Farmer Giles
Apr 10, 2013, 12:42:08 PM4/10/13
to
speech in America?
Mentalguy2k8
Apr 10, 2013, 12:49:55 PM4/10/13
to
"RH" <anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f4447c5-50a1-4617...@a6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>The latest excuse given for the inordinate delay are �legal
>reasons�. The only likely reasons are political ones, namely, her
>trial will challenge to politically correct status quo. This is
>because unlike virtually everyone else who has been charged with these
>type of offences she has made it clear she will be pleading NOT
>GUILTY. The authorities simply do not know what to do with her.
Sounds like they're using Milliband's excuse for not holding an EU
>because unlike virtually everyone else who has been charged with these
>type of offences she has made it clear she will be pleading NOT
>GUILTY. The authorities simply do not know what to do with her.
referendum - we might not get the right result.
Either that or they're trying to find jury members who even BBC Question
Time rejected for being too left-wing.
plainolamerican
Apr 10, 2013, 3:54:19 PM4/10/13
to
>
> How could he do that if it is unconstitutional to restrict freedom of
> speech in America?
How could he do that if it is unconstitutional to restrict freedom of
speech in America?
---
> How could he do that if it is unconstitutional to restrict freedom of
> speech in America?
How could he do that if it is unconstitutional to restrict freedom of
speech in America?
He did not have to even have a reason to fire her.
btw - the government does restrict free speech to a degree ... but
hate speech is unconstitutional.
Farmer Giles
Apr 10, 2013, 4:16:31 PM4/10/13
to
as we have in the UK?
plainolamerican
Apr 10, 2013, 4:36:35 PM4/10/13
to
Many state and federal laws presume workers who are not covered by a
collective bargaining agreement or an individual employment agreement
have "at-will employment". This is a policy that employees' may be
dismissed without notice and for no stated reason.
A number of states have modified the general rule that employment is
at will by holding that employees may, under that state's common law,
have implied contract rights to fair treatment by their employers. US
private-sector employees thus do not have the indefinite contracts
(similar to US academic tenure) traditionally common in many European
countries, Canada and New Zealand.
plainolamerican
Apr 10, 2013, 4:38:44 PM4/10/13
to
On Apr 10, 7:10 am, RH <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [2]http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/New-date-trial-alleged-Croydon-tr...
>
> Read more athttp://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/emma-wests-trial-resch...
Emma West’s trial
>
> Read more athttp://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/emma-wests-trial-resch...
---
is a sham.
free speech allows her to complain publicly about immigrants.
Farmer Giles
Apr 10, 2013, 5:45:32 PM4/10/13
to
seems that your employer can dismiss you if he doesn't like something
that you've said - even outside of your employment - without having to
explain the reasons why.
Having said that, many employees here are having their employment
protection rights removed by stealth - and in the workplace making the
'wrong' kind of comments would more often than not result in instant
dismissal.
Bill
Apr 10, 2013, 6:20:15 PM4/10/13
to
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:16:31 +0100, Farmer Giles <gi...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>Are there no employment laws in America - unfair dismissal, etc - such
>as we have in the UK?
You're so sweet.
Of course there aren't...
wrote:
>Are there no employment laws in America - unfair dismissal, etc - such
>as we have in the UK?
Of course there aren't...
Farmer Giles
Apr 11, 2013, 3:12:52 AM4/11/13
to
freedoms granted to them under the Constitution?
Andy Wainwright
Apr 11, 2013, 4:57:05 AM4/11/13
to
On 10/04/2013 13:10, RH wrote:
>
> Emma West�s trial scheduled for the sixth time
> reasons�. The only likely reasons are political ones, namely, her
Place Ms West in a no-security, psychiatric rehabilitation facility for
a month for rest an rehabilitation.
Offer medication such as prozac, valium- not compulsary.
No criminal record, no loss of custody of children, simply give her some
time to reflect and get her shit together.
Much cheaper, much more effective.
Doesn't make a martyr out of her actions, yet doesn't punish. Instead
just gives medical treatment to someone obviously suffering great
stress, hence her flipping out in public.
Job done.
>
> Emma West�s trial scheduled for the sixth time
> Posted on April 10, 2013 by Robert Henderson
>
>
> Emma West was due to stand trial at Croydon Crown Court for two
> racially aggravated public order offences arising from her complaint
> about mass immigration and its effects made on a Croydon tram in
> November 2011 . The trial has been delayed yet again and she will now
> (allegedly) stand trial on 10 May.[1]
>
> The authorities are extracting the bodily fluids if they expect the
> general public to believe there is a legitimate reason for the delay.
> The 10 May will be the sixth (yes, that is the sixth) trial date Ms
> West has been given since she was arrested . By 10 May she will have
> been waiting to be tried for just short of eighteen months. The delay
> is patently unreasonable.
>
> The latest excuse given for the inordinate delay are �legal
>
>
> Emma West was due to stand trial at Croydon Crown Court for two
> racially aggravated public order offences arising from her complaint
> about mass immigration and its effects made on a Croydon tram in
> November 2011 . The trial has been delayed yet again and she will now
> (allegedly) stand trial on 10 May.[1]
>
> The authorities are extracting the bodily fluids if they expect the
> general public to believe there is a legitimate reason for the delay.
> The 10 May will be the sixth (yes, that is the sixth) trial date Ms
> West has been given since she was arrested . By 10 May she will have
> been waiting to be tried for just short of eighteen months. The delay
> is patently unreasonable.
>
> reasons�. The only likely reasons are political ones, namely, her
> trial will challenge to politically correct status quo. This is
> because unlike virtually everyone else who has been charged with these
> type of offences she has made it clear she will be pleading NOT
> GUILTY. The authorities simply do not know what to do with her.
>
> There is an added complication. When the previous re-scheduling
> happened the charges of assault against two police offices during the
> investigation of her case were also delayed -they were originally due
> to be held on 3 March and were re-scheduled for 15 April.[2]
>
> It will be interesting to see if these cases (to be heard in a
> magistrates� court) go ahead on the 15 April or are put back yet
> because unlike virtually everyone else who has been charged with these
> type of offences she has made it clear she will be pleading NOT
> GUILTY. The authorities simply do not know what to do with her.
>
> There is an added complication. When the previous re-scheduling
> happened the charges of assault against two police offices during the
> investigation of her case were also delayed -they were originally due
> to be held on 3 March and were re-scheduled for 15 April.[2]
>
> It will be interesting to see if these cases (to be heard in a
> again. The authorities may have decided they want these cases to be
> heard before the racially aggravated public order offences. That could
> be to her disadvantage not just because it would taint her with a
> criminal conviction before her Crown Court trial, but even more
> dangerously because a criminal conviction for violence could provide
> the local social services with grounds for removing or threatening to
> remove her young son. That might well be used as a lever to persuade
> her to plead guilty. It is all too easy to imagine the cant the
> social services could come out with: �If you show remorse, Emma, it
> heard before the racially aggravated public order offences. That could
> be to her disadvantage not just because it would taint her with a
> criminal conviction before her Crown Court trial, but even more
> dangerously because a criminal conviction for violence could provide
> the local social services with grounds for removing or threatening to
> remove her young son. That might well be used as a lever to persuade
> her to plead guilty. It is all too easy to imagine the cant the
> may be possible to let you keep your child because it shows
> willingness to change. But if you stubbornly stick to your not guilty
> plea we may have to take your son away from you because you are an
> unfit mother.�
> willingness to change. But if you stubbornly stick to your not guilty
> plea we may have to take your son away from you because you are an
>
> The other possibility is that if the assault charges are heard on 15
> April and she is found guilty, she might be sent to prison. This would
> be very unusual for common assault cases, but the fact that the
>
> [1] http://tinyurl.com/emmawest6
>
> [2] http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/New-date-trial-alleged-Croydon-tram-racist-Emma/story-18324751-detail/story.html#axzz2NP1BGaXM
>
>
> Read more at http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/emma-wests-trial-rescheduled-for-the-sixth-time/
>
Alternative action.
> The other possibility is that if the assault charges are heard on 15
> April and she is found guilty, she might be sent to prison. This would
> be very unusual for common assault cases, but the fact that the
>
> [1] http://tinyurl.com/emmawest6
>
> [2] http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/New-date-trial-alleged-Croydon-tram-racist-Emma/story-18324751-detail/story.html#axzz2NP1BGaXM
>
>
> Read more at http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/emma-wests-trial-rescheduled-for-the-sixth-time/
>
Place Ms West in a no-security, psychiatric rehabilitation facility for
a month for rest an rehabilitation.
Offer medication such as prozac, valium- not compulsary.
No criminal record, no loss of custody of children, simply give her some
time to reflect and get her shit together.
Much cheaper, much more effective.
Doesn't make a martyr out of her actions, yet doesn't punish. Instead
just gives medical treatment to someone obviously suffering great
stress, hence her flipping out in public.
Job done.
Bill
Apr 11, 2013, 5:01:40 AM4/11/13
to
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:12:52 +0100, Farmer Giles <gi...@nospam.com>
If they have a union they often negotiate an agreement where they have
some job security.
wrote:
>On 10/04/2013 23:20, Bill wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:16:31 +0100, Farmer Giles <gi...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Are there no employment laws in America - unfair dismissal, etc - such
>>> as we have in the UK?
>>
>> You're so sweet.
>>
>> Of course there aren't...
>
>So it's ok for public employees to be summarily dismissed for exercising
>freedoms granted to them under the Constitution?
>
It depends on their local agreements.
>On 10/04/2013 23:20, Bill wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:16:31 +0100, Farmer Giles <gi...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Are there no employment laws in America - unfair dismissal, etc - such
>>> as we have in the UK?
>>
>> You're so sweet.
>>
>> Of course there aren't...
>
>So it's ok for public employees to be summarily dismissed for exercising
>freedoms granted to them under the Constitution?
>
If they have a union they often negotiate an agreement where they have
some job security.
Rob
Apr 11, 2013, 5:52:28 AM4/11/13
to
Andy Wainwright wrote:
||
|| Alternative action.
||
|| Place Ms West in a no-security, psychiatric rehabilitation facility
|| for a month for rest an rehabilitation.
||
|| Offer medication such as prozac, valium- not compulsary.
||
|| No criminal record, no loss of custody of children, simply give her
|| some time to reflect and get her shit together.
||
|| Much cheaper, much more effective.
||
|| Doesn't make a martyr out of her actions, yet doesn't punish. Instead
|| just gives medical treatment to someone obviously suffering great
|| stress, hence her flipping out in public.
Stick someone in a mental facility, pump them full of drugs until their
||
|| Alternative action.
||
|| Place Ms West in a no-security, psychiatric rehabilitation facility
|| for a month for rest an rehabilitation.
||
|| Offer medication such as prozac, valium- not compulsary.
||
|| No criminal record, no loss of custody of children, simply give her
|| some time to reflect and get her shit together.
||
|| Much cheaper, much more effective.
||
|| Doesn't make a martyr out of her actions, yet doesn't punish. Instead
|| just gives medical treatment to someone obviously suffering great
|| stress, hence her flipping out in public.
political views are 'on message'? Sounds vaguely familiar.
--
Rob
Omega
Apr 11, 2013, 7:22:28 AM4/11/13
to
"Andy Wainwright" wrote in message news:kk5to4$gvs$1...@dont-email.me...
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn would have been proud of you!
omega
.......................................
plainolamerican
Apr 11, 2013, 9:39:38 AM4/11/13
to
free speech is a wonderful thing!
but it
seems that your employer can dismiss you if he doesn't like something
that you've said
or how I look, talk, walk or any other reason.
Socialists think the government should provide employment, housing,
food and protection.
I live in a right-to-work state. I can quit just as fast as they can
dismiss me.
plainolamerican
Apr 11, 2013, 9:44:47 AM4/11/13
to
yes ... while Americans are afforded free speech they must represent
their employer properly or find another job.
plainolamerican
Apr 11, 2013, 9:47:19 AM4/11/13
to
On Apr 11, 3:57 am, Andy Wainwright
> > reasons”. The only likely reasons are political ones, namely, her
for what? complaining about immigrants?
all charges should be dropped.
<andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10/04/2013 13:10, RH wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Emma West’s trial scheduled for the sixth time
> On 10/04/2013 13:10, RH wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Posted on April 10, 2013 by Robert Henderson
>
> > Emma West was due to stand trial at Croydon Crown Court for two
> > racially aggravated public order offences arising from her complaint
> > about mass immigration and its effects made on a Croydon tram in
> > November 2011 . The trial has been delayed yet again and she will now
> > (allegedly) stand trial on 10 May.[1]
>
> > The authorities are extracting the bodily fluids if they expect the
> > general public to believe there is a legitimate reason for the delay.
> > The 10 May will be the sixth (yes, that is the sixth) trial date Ms
> > West has been given since she was arrested . By 10 May she will have
> > been waiting to be tried for just short of eighteen months. The delay
> > is patently unreasonable.
>
> > The latest excuse given for the inordinate delay are “legal
>
> > Emma West was due to stand trial at Croydon Crown Court for two
> > racially aggravated public order offences arising from her complaint
> > about mass immigration and its effects made on a Croydon tram in
> > November 2011 . The trial has been delayed yet again and she will now
> > (allegedly) stand trial on 10 May.[1]
>
> > The authorities are extracting the bodily fluids if they expect the
> > general public to believe there is a legitimate reason for the delay.
> > The 10 May will be the sixth (yes, that is the sixth) trial date Ms
> > West has been given since she was arrested . By 10 May she will have
> > been waiting to be tried for just short of eighteen months. The delay
> > is patently unreasonable.
>
> > reasons”. The only likely reasons are political ones, namely, her
> > trial will challenge to politically correct status quo. This is
> > because unlike virtually everyone else who has been charged with these
> > type of offences she has made it clear she will be pleading NOT
> > GUILTY. The authorities simply do not know what to do with her.
>
> > There is an added complication. When the previous re-scheduling
> > happened the charges of assault against two police offices during the
> > investigation of her case were also delayed -they were originally due
> > to be held on 3 March and were re-scheduled for 15 April.[2]
>
> > It will be interesting to see if these cases (to be heard in a
> > magistrates’ court) go ahead on the 15 April or are put back yet
> > because unlike virtually everyone else who has been charged with these
> > type of offences she has made it clear she will be pleading NOT
> > GUILTY. The authorities simply do not know what to do with her.
>
> > There is an added complication. When the previous re-scheduling
> > happened the charges of assault against two police offices during the
> > investigation of her case were also delayed -they were originally due
> > to be held on 3 March and were re-scheduled for 15 April.[2]
>
> > It will be interesting to see if these cases (to be heard in a
> > again. The authorities may have decided they want these cases to be
> > heard before the racially aggravated public order offences. That could
> > be to her disadvantage not just because it would taint her with a
> > criminal conviction before her Crown Court trial, but even more
> > dangerously because a criminal conviction for violence could provide
> > the local social services with grounds for removing or threatening to
> > remove her young son. That might well be used as a lever to persuade
> > her to plead guilty. It is all too easy to imagine the cant the
> > social services could come out with: “If you show remorse, Emma, it
> > heard before the racially aggravated public order offences. That could
> > be to her disadvantage not just because it would taint her with a
> > criminal conviction before her Crown Court trial, but even more
> > dangerously because a criminal conviction for violence could provide
> > the local social services with grounds for removing or threatening to
> > remove her young son. That might well be used as a lever to persuade
> > her to plead guilty. It is all too easy to imagine the cant the
> > may be possible to let you keep your child because it shows
> > willingness to change. But if you stubbornly stick to your not guilty
> > plea we may have to take your son away from you because you are an
> > unfit mother.”
> > willingness to change. But if you stubbornly stick to your not guilty
> > plea we may have to take your son away from you because you are an
>
> > The other possibility is that if the assault charges are heard on 15
> > April and she is found guilty, she might be sent to prison. This would
> > be very unusual for common assault cases, but the fact that the
>
> > [1]http://tinyurl.com/emmawest6
>
> > The other possibility is that if the assault charges are heard on 15
> > April and she is found guilty, she might be sent to prison. This would
> > be very unusual for common assault cases, but the fact that the
>
> > [1]http://tinyurl.com/emmawest6
>
> > [2]http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/New-date-trial-alleged-Croydon-tr...
>
> > Read more athttp://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/emma-wests-trial-resch...
>
>
> > Read more athttp://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/emma-wests-trial-resch...
>
> Alternative action.
>
> Place Ms West in a no-security, psychiatric rehabilitation facility for
> a month for rest an rehabilitation.
>
> Offer medication such as prozac, valium- not compulsary.
>
> No criminal record, no loss of custody of children, simply give her some
> time to reflect and get her shit together.
>
> Much cheaper, much more effective.
>
> Doesn't make a martyr out of her actions, yet doesn't punish. Instead
> just gives medical treatment to someone obviously suffering great
> stress, hence her flipping out in public.
>
> Job done.
Place Ms West in a no-security, psychiatric rehabilitation facility
---
>
> Place Ms West in a no-security, psychiatric rehabilitation facility for
> a month for rest an rehabilitation.
>
> Offer medication such as prozac, valium- not compulsary.
>
> No criminal record, no loss of custody of children, simply give her some
> time to reflect and get her shit together.
>
> Much cheaper, much more effective.
>
> Doesn't make a martyr out of her actions, yet doesn't punish. Instead
> just gives medical treatment to someone obviously suffering great
> stress, hence her flipping out in public.
>
> Job done.
Place Ms West in a no-security, psychiatric rehabilitation facility
for what? complaining about immigrants?
all charges should be dropped.
Farmer Giles
Apr 11, 2013, 10:51:18 AM4/11/13
to
them, I was generally referring to situations 'outside of their
employment'. Or do you think that employers have a right to say what
their employees should do or not do even when they are away from work?
Farmer Giles
Apr 11, 2013, 11:08:44 AM4/11/13
to
not free at all.
>
> but it
> seems that your employer can dismiss you if he doesn't like something
> that you've said
> ---
> or how I look, talk, walk or any other reason.
> Socialists think the government should provide employment, housing,
> food and protection.
'bossman' shouldn't be allowed to clap them in chains and beat them
anymore. BTW, how are things down on the plantation these days?
> I live in a right-to-work state. I can quit just as fast as they can
> dismiss me.
>
dismissed quite so easily (well, not until their allotted time is up
anyway).
plainolamerican
Apr 11, 2013, 2:59:13 PM4/11/13
to
if they badmouth their employer ... yes.
if they have sex with 16 women tied in a knot ... no.
logic rules!
plainolamerican
Apr 11, 2013, 2:59:45 PM4/11/13
to
socialists should be in chains and beaten.
BTW, how are things down on the plantation these days?
The Progressive Movement believes that only the government can create
a well ordered society and with the careful guidance of self described
intellectuals, have a planned economy that provides equally for all.
The current plantation "master" is Barak Obama and the plantation
overseers are Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Debbie
Wasserman Schultz.
Read more: http://www.912communique.com/forum/topics/welfare-the-modern-slavery-welcome-to-the-plantation#ixzz2QAhCWoT0
Follow us: @912Communique on Twitter | TheConstitutionalConservatives
on Facebook
Farmer Giles
Apr 11, 2013, 3:39:57 PM4/11/13
to
> if they have sex with 16 women tied in a knot ... no.
>
> logic rules!
>
>
not interfering with their employer's business - should be no business
of that employer. Anything otherwise is not freedom, but serfdom.
aaa
Apr 12, 2013, 8:35:08 PM4/12/13
to
Cynic
Apr 16, 2013, 8:53:17 AM4/16/13
to
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 05:10:52 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>The authorities are extracting the bodily fluids if they expect the
>general public to believe there is a legitimate reason for the delay.
>The 10 May will be the sixth (yes, that is the sixth) trial date Ms
>West has been given since she was arrested . By 10 May she will have
>been waiting to be tried for just short of eighteen months. The delay
>is patently unreasonable.
>
>The latest excuse given for the inordinate delay are =93legal
>reasons=94. The only likely reasons are political ones, namely, her
rather than the defence.
Do you know as a fact that that is the case?
--
Cynic
wrote:
>The authorities are extracting the bodily fluids if they expect the
>general public to believe there is a legitimate reason for the delay.
>The 10 May will be the sixth (yes, that is the sixth) trial date Ms
>West has been given since she was arrested . By 10 May she will have
>been waiting to be tried for just short of eighteen months. The delay
>is patently unreasonable.
>
>reasons=94. The only likely reasons are political ones, namely, her
>trial will challenge to politically correct status quo. This is
>because unlike virtually everyone else who has been charged with these
>type of offences she has made it clear she will be pleading NOT
>GUILTY. The authorities simply do not know what to do with her.
You are assuming that all the delays were requested by the prosecution
>because unlike virtually everyone else who has been charged with these
>type of offences she has made it clear she will be pleading NOT
>GUILTY. The authorities simply do not know what to do with her.
rather than the defence.
Do you know as a fact that that is the case?
--
Cynic
Cynic
Apr 16, 2013, 9:07:26 AM4/16/13
to
>>>>> That would be why that schoolteacher lost her job for making statements
>>>>> about Jews running Wall St and the Federal Reserve.
>>>
>>>>> http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/10/19/teacher-fired-for-anti-semiti...
>>>
>>>> she was fired by John Deasy ... a zionist tool to ignore.
>>>
>>>> http://www.jewishla.org/koreh-la/blog-entry/discussion-with-dr.-john-...
>>>
>>> How could he do that if it is unconstitutional to restrict freedom of
>>> speech in America?
>>
>> How could he do that if it is unconstitutional to restrict freedom of
>> speech in America?
>> ---
>> He did not have to even have a reason to fire her.
>
>Are there no employment laws in America - unfair dismissal, etc - such
>as we have in the UK?
Without commenting on that specific case, there is a valid argument
>>>>> about Jews running Wall St and the Federal Reserve.
>>>
>>>>> http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/10/19/teacher-fired-for-anti-semiti...
>>>
>>>> she was fired by John Deasy ... a zionist tool to ignore.
>>>
>>>> http://www.jewishla.org/koreh-la/blog-entry/discussion-with-dr.-john-...
>>>
>>> How could he do that if it is unconstitutional to restrict freedom of
>>> speech in America?
>>
>> How could he do that if it is unconstitutional to restrict freedom of
>> speech in America?
>> ---
>> He did not have to even have a reason to fire her.
>
>Are there no employment laws in America - unfair dismissal, etc - such
>as we have in the UK?
regarding the suppression of free speech by schoolteachers. Teachers
can have a significant influence over impressionable children, and so
there is a case to be made that they should never express views that
are too far from the average views of society. Even if the teacher
never expresses such views in the classroom, the pupils may well find
out what they are if the teacher widely publicises them, and it could
well influence the pupils.
I am quite certain that some of the people who defend a
schoolteacher's right to free speech would change their tune if the
teacher in question was a fundamentalist Muslim who was exercising his
right to free speech by publically condemning Western values and
calling for Sharia law to be adopted in the UK in between teaching
primary school children. Or a teacher who is a member of a Nazi
group, or a teacher who expresses his view that the age of consent
should be lowered to 9.
--
Cynic
Cynic
Apr 16, 2013, 9:15:30 AM4/16/13
to
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:51:18 +0100, Farmer Giles <gi...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>Representing their employer 'properly' is fine when he/she is paying
>them, I was generally referring to situations 'outside of their
>employment'. Or do you think that employers have a right to say what
>their employees should do or not do even when they are away from work?
Employers do indeed have the right to exercise control on things that
the employee does in their own time if those activities are likely to
either affect the employee's ability to carry out their job, or
adversely affect the employer's business.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>Representing their employer 'properly' is fine when he/she is paying
>them, I was generally referring to situations 'outside of their
>employment'. Or do you think that employers have a right to say what
>their employees should do or not do even when they are away from work?
the employee does in their own time if those activities are likely to
either affect the employee's ability to carry out their job, or
adversely affect the employer's business.
--
Cynic
Cynic
Apr 16, 2013, 9:20:49 AM4/16/13
to
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:39:57 +0100, Farmer Giles <gi...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>> do you think that employers have a right to say what
>> their employees should do or not do even when they are away from
>> work?
employer's business even if what they say is not connected with their
employer's business at all. If you were to see the shop assistant at
your local kebab shop making public speeches that you strongly
disagreed with, it would very likely result in you deciding not to buy
from that shop.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>> do you think that employers have a right to say what
>> their employees should do or not do even when they are away from
>> work?
>> if they badmouth their employer ... yes.
>But we weren't talking about that sort of situation.
>But we weren't talking about that sort of situation.
>Illogic more like. What people say in their own time - providing they're
>not interfering with their employer's business - should be no business
>of that employer. Anything otherwise is not freedom, but serfdom.
Many things that an employee says could adversely affect their
>not interfering with their employer's business - should be no business
>of that employer. Anything otherwise is not freedom, but serfdom.
employer's business even if what they say is not connected with their
employer's business at all. If you were to see the shop assistant at
your local kebab shop making public speeches that you strongly
disagreed with, it would very likely result in you deciding not to buy
from that shop.
--
Cynic
Andy Wainwright
Apr 21, 2013, 4:10:03 PM4/21/13
to
to express such views in a newspaper, to friends in a pub etc etc.
For example, you could in most countries protest about going to war, but
if you were to burst in to a soldiers' funeral and shout "murderer" you
would- and should- get nicked.
The police have to pick if the mess when people take offence to those
being very rude. I don't believe it should necessarily be a criminal
offence to be very rude in public, but it certainly is a mental health
issue. Good mental health involves being able to act appropriately in
social situations, and this lady wasn't capable of doing that.
As for medication, no-one should be forceably medicated unless there's
either an extreme risk to the patient or those around them.
Andy Wainwright
Apr 21, 2013, 4:21:04 PM4/21/13
to
travel unmolested, in this case there were British citzens of immigrant
backgrounds accused of being foreigners who shouldn't be here. Not
criminal indeed, but rude. Bad manners are symptomatic of mental
illness, and it can be treated even without drugs, as I said sometimes
with just a bit of rest.
Cynic
Apr 22, 2013, 7:52:44 AM4/22/13
to
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:10:03 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>For example, you could in most countries protest about going to war, but
>if you were to burst in to a soldiers' funeral and shout "murderer" you
>would- and should- get nicked.
But under what law?
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>For example, you could in most countries protest about going to war, but
>if you were to burst in to a soldiers' funeral and shout "murderer" you
>would- and should- get nicked.
How about if you merely stood outside the chapel peacefully displaying
signs that said, "Murderer," and handing out anti-war leaflets?
And would you feel just as strongly about a person shouting,
"paedophile" at Myra Hindley's funeral?
--
Cynic
Bill
Apr 22, 2013, 8:28:17 AM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:52:44 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:10:03 +0100, Andy Wainwright
><andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>For example, you could in most countries protest about going to war, but
>>if you were to burst in to a soldiers' funeral and shout "murderer" you
>>would- and should- get nicked.
>
>But under what law?
'Behavior likely to occasion a breach of the peace.'
>On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:10:03 +0100, Andy Wainwright
><andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>For example, you could in most countries protest about going to war, but
>>if you were to burst in to a soldiers' funeral and shout "murderer" you
>>would- and should- get nicked.
>
>But under what law?
>How about if you merely stood outside the chapel peacefully displaying
>signs that said, "Murderer," and handing out anti-war leaflets?
>
>And would you feel just as strongly about a person shouting,
>"paedophile" at Myra Hindley's funeral?
'Behavior likely to occasion a breach of the peace.'
>And would you feel just as strongly about a person shouting,
>"paedophile" at Myra Hindley's funeral?
You even get to go to court and find out what the magistrate thinks...
Norman Wells
Apr 22, 2013, 9:33:23 AM4/22/13
to
Cynic wrote:
> And would you feel just as strongly about a person shouting,
> "paedophile" at Myra Hindley's funeral?
Not if there's any evidence that she was.
> And would you feel just as strongly about a person shouting,
> "paedophile" at Myra Hindley's funeral?
Is there?
The Todal
Apr 22, 2013, 9:43:50 AM4/22/13
to
though. She'd have been at risk of a jugging. If she met any of the
blaggers or toolmen, in particular. If she misspoke herself and got a
bit lairy, they'd snooker her hampsteads or give her a serving with
claret. I feel confident that Farmer Giles would back me on this.
Norman Wells
Apr 22, 2013, 9:57:38 AM4/22/13
to
Three quarters of them at the last count were illiterate.
The Todal
Apr 22, 2013, 10:44:33 AM4/22/13
to
they (the three quarters) are unable to commit them to paper.
plainolamerican
Apr 22, 2013, 11:35:03 AM4/22/13
to
On Apr 21, 3:21 pm, Andy Wainwright
---
opinion noted.
again, free speech allows her to complain about immigration and
immigrants.
opinion noted.
again, free speech allows her to complain about immigration and
immigrants.
Cynic
Apr 22, 2013, 11:54:28 AM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:28:17 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
could be stopped by saying that it is behaviour that is likely to
breach the peace.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>>For example, you could in most countries protest about going to war, but
>>>if you were to burst in to a soldiers' funeral and shout "murderer" you
>>>would- and should- get nicked.
>>But under what law?
>'Behavior likely to occasion a breach of the peace.'
>>How about if you merely stood outside the chapel peacefully displaying
>>signs that said, "Murderer," and handing out anti-war leaflets?
>'Behavior likely to occasion a breach of the peace.'
>>And would you feel just as strongly about a person shouting,
>>"paedophile" at Myra Hindley's funeral?
>'Behavior likely to occasion a breach of the peace.'
>You even get to go to court and find out what the magistrate thinks...
You make the point. Almost anything non-standard that a person does
>>>For example, you could in most countries protest about going to war, but
>>>if you were to burst in to a soldiers' funeral and shout "murderer" you
>>>would- and should- get nicked.
>>But under what law?
>'Behavior likely to occasion a breach of the peace.'
>>How about if you merely stood outside the chapel peacefully displaying
>>signs that said, "Murderer," and handing out anti-war leaflets?
>'Behavior likely to occasion a breach of the peace.'
>>And would you feel just as strongly about a person shouting,
>>"paedophile" at Myra Hindley's funeral?
>'Behavior likely to occasion a breach of the peace.'
>You even get to go to court and find out what the magistrate thinks...
could be stopped by saying that it is behaviour that is likely to
breach the peace.
--
Cynic
Cynic
Apr 22, 2013, 11:55:44 AM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:33:23 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
No, I do not believe so. At least no more evidence than there is that
a soldier was a murderer.
--
Cynic
a soldier was a murderer.
--
Cynic
Bill
Apr 22, 2013, 12:00:33 PM4/22/13
to
However it is highly unusual for the police to use it in a manner that
would upset a reasonable man.
Mainly because magistrates are often, indeed usually, reasonable men.
Norman Wells
Apr 22, 2013, 12:21:51 PM4/22/13
to
Norman Wells
Apr 22, 2013, 12:35:05 PM4/22/13
to
It's very difficult to think logically if you don't have much command of
language, which is what you think in.
Cynic
Apr 22, 2013, 12:47:58 PM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:00:33 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>You make the point. Almost anything non-standard that a person does
>>could be stopped by saying that it is behaviour that is likely to
>>breach the peace.
>I know, depressing isn't it...
>However it is highly unusual for the police to use it in a manner that
>would upset a reasonable man.
For some values of "reasonable" perhaps. Usually it means that
anything you, personally agree with is reasonable, and anything you
don't agree with is not. Was it reasonable to demonstrate and display
civil disobedience over the poll tax? Were the suffragettes behaving
"reasonably"?
>Mainly because magistrates are often, indeed usually, reasonable men.
Bollocks. Once the police have used it to stop you doing what you
were doing, it has achieved its purpose and there is no need to charge
you with an offence or bring you before a magistrate. The police know
full well that there are very few people who would jump through all
the hoops necessary to bring the police before a court, and if they
did, they would not have to show merely that the act in question was
*not* likely to lead to a BotP, but that the police officer did not
have an honestly held but possibly mistaken *belief* that it might.
Which is a hurdle that is so high that it is unlikely that anyone
would succeed.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>You make the point. Almost anything non-standard that a person does
>>could be stopped by saying that it is behaviour that is likely to
>>breach the peace.
>I know, depressing isn't it...
>However it is highly unusual for the police to use it in a manner that
>would upset a reasonable man.
anything you, personally agree with is reasonable, and anything you
don't agree with is not. Was it reasonable to demonstrate and display
civil disobedience over the poll tax? Were the suffragettes behaving
"reasonably"?
>Mainly because magistrates are often, indeed usually, reasonable men.
were doing, it has achieved its purpose and there is no need to charge
you with an offence or bring you before a magistrate. The police know
full well that there are very few people who would jump through all
the hoops necessary to bring the police before a court, and if they
did, they would not have to show merely that the act in question was
*not* likely to lead to a BotP, but that the police officer did not
have an honestly held but possibly mistaken *belief* that it might.
Which is a hurdle that is so high that it is unlikely that anyone
would succeed.
--
Cynic
Bill
Apr 22, 2013, 1:10:36 PM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:47:58 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:00:33 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>You make the point. Almost anything non-standard that a person does
>>>could be stopped by saying that it is behaviour that is likely to
>>>breach the peace.
>
>>I know, depressing isn't it...
>
>>However it is highly unusual for the police to use it in a manner that
>>would upset a reasonable man.
>
>For some values of "reasonable" perhaps. Usually it means that
>anything you, personally agree with is reasonable, and anything you
>don't agree with is not. Was it reasonable to demonstrate and display
>civil disobedience over the poll tax? Were the suffragettes behaving
>"reasonably"?
A number of magistrates resigned over the Poll Tax.
>On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:00:33 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>You make the point. Almost anything non-standard that a person does
>>>could be stopped by saying that it is behaviour that is likely to
>>>breach the peace.
>
>>I know, depressing isn't it...
>
>>However it is highly unusual for the police to use it in a manner that
>>would upset a reasonable man.
>
>For some values of "reasonable" perhaps. Usually it means that
>anything you, personally agree with is reasonable, and anything you
>don't agree with is not. Was it reasonable to demonstrate and display
>civil disobedience over the poll tax? Were the suffragettes behaving
>"reasonably"?
And I think the Suffragettes behaved in a perfectly reasonable manner.
If one thing is worth fighting for it's the right to vote.
totallyconfused
Apr 22, 2013, 2:20:56 PM4/22/13
to
On Apr 22, 5:47 pm, cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:00:33 +0100, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com>
Is that my official challenge? WTF do you think I am doing at present?
They knew from minute one they F'd it up (another police force has now
given a written statement) and have been trying to play 'hide and
seek' since....I have everything ready...taken me almost 4 years, but
boy, will I have fun!
TC
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:00:33 +0100, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com>
They knew from minute one they F'd it up (another police force has now
given a written statement) and have been trying to play 'hide and
seek' since....I have everything ready...taken me almost 4 years, but
boy, will I have fun!
TC
Cynic
Apr 22, 2013, 2:46:55 PM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:10:36 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>If one thing is worth fighting for it's the right to vote.
But not our right to freedom of expression, huh?
--
Cynic
wrote:
>If one thing is worth fighting for it's the right to vote.
--
Cynic
Cynic
Apr 22, 2013, 2:48:03 PM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:21:51 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
Which is much the same wrt the word "paedophile".
--
Cynic
--
Cynic
Norman Wells
Apr 22, 2013, 2:53:26 PM4/22/13
to
Hindley did.
Cynic
Apr 22, 2013, 2:56:25 PM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:20:56 -0700 (PDT), totallyconfused
<lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Bollocks. =A0Once the police have used it to stop you doing what you
proves my point. Thankyou.
--
Cynic
<lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Bollocks. =A0Once the police have used it to stop you doing what you
>> were doing, it has achieved its purpose and there is no need to charge
>> you with an offence or bring you before a magistrate. =A0The police know
>> full well that there are very few people who would jump through all
>> the hoops necessary to bring the police before a court, and if they
>> did, they would not have to show merely that the act in question was
>> *not* likely to lead to a BotP, but that the police officer did not
>> have an honestly held but possibly mistaken *belief* that it might.
>> Which is a hurdle that is so high that it is unlikely that anyone
>> would succeed.
>> the hoops necessary to bring the police before a court, and if they
>> did, they would not have to show merely that the act in question was
>> *not* likely to lead to a BotP, but that the police officer did not
>> have an honestly held but possibly mistaken *belief* that it might.
>> Which is a hurdle that is so high that it is unlikely that anyone
>> would succeed.
>Is that my official challenge? WTF do you think I am doing at present?
>They knew from minute one they F'd it up (another police force has now
>given a written statement) and have been trying to play 'hide and
>seek' since....I have everything ready...taken me almost 4 years, but
>boy, will I have fun!
The fact that it has taken you 4 years to get as far as you have
>They knew from minute one they F'd it up (another police force has now
>given a written statement) and have been trying to play 'hide and
>seek' since....I have everything ready...taken me almost 4 years, but
>boy, will I have fun!
proves my point. Thankyou.
--
Cynic
totallyconfused
Apr 22, 2013, 3:01:41 PM4/22/13
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
BUT I Have never given up.....the 'system' relies on you 'giving up'
or 'giving in'; they didn't plan on me!
TC
Cynic
Apr 22, 2013, 3:20:43 PM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:53:26 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
The word "murderer" has a legal definition, but can also be used
figuratively. An abortionist is, for example, referred to as a
"murderer" by many people who know full well that the abortionists are
not breaking the law.
Similarly the way the word "paedophile" is used by the general public
and tabloid press is not necessarily the way the word is defined in a
psychology text book. The word "paedophile" does not, of course have
any *legal* definition, because it does not appear in any UK law.
--
Cynic
figuratively. An abortionist is, for example, referred to as a
"murderer" by many people who know full well that the abortionists are
not breaking the law.
Similarly the way the word "paedophile" is used by the general public
and tabloid press is not necessarily the way the word is defined in a
psychology text book. The word "paedophile" does not, of course have
any *legal* definition, because it does not appear in any UK law.
--
Cynic
Norman Wells
Apr 22, 2013, 4:15:48 PM4/22/13
to
Cynic wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:53:26 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> And would you feel just as strongly about a person shouting,
>>>>>>> "paedophile" at Myra Hindley's funeral?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not if there's any evidence that she was.
>>>>>> Is there?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I do not believe so. At least no more evidence than there is
>>>>> that a soldier was a murderer.
>>>>
>>>> That's not a matter of evidence but of definition.
>>>
>>> Which is much the same wrt the word "paedophile".
>>
>> Indeed. Now define it, and see if you can make it fit what we know
>> Hindley did.
>
> The word "murderer" has a legal definition, but can also be used
> figuratively. An abortionist is, for example, referred to as a
> "murderer" by many people who know full well that the abortionists are
> not breaking the law.
>
> Similarly the way the word "paedophile" is used by the general public
> and tabloid press is not necessarily the way the word is defined in a
> psychology text book.
They also use the term 'paedophile' to include paediatricians.
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:53:26 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> And would you feel just as strongly about a person shouting,
>>>>>>> "paedophile" at Myra Hindley's funeral?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not if there's any evidence that she was.
>>>>>> Is there?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I do not believe so. At least no more evidence than there is
>>>>> that a soldier was a murderer.
>>>>
>>>> That's not a matter of evidence but of definition.
>>>
>>> Which is much the same wrt the word "paedophile".
>>
>> Indeed. Now define it, and see if you can make it fit what we know
>> Hindley did.
>
> The word "murderer" has a legal definition, but can also be used
> figuratively. An abortionist is, for example, referred to as a
> "murderer" by many people who know full well that the abortionists are
> not breaking the law.
>
> Similarly the way the word "paedophile" is used by the general public
> and tabloid press is not necessarily the way the word is defined in a
> psychology text book.
What they say isn't therefore terribly reliable.
> The word "paedophile" does not, of course have
> any *legal* definition, because it does not appear in any UK law.
we know Hindley did.
Just as I thought.
Bill
Apr 22, 2013, 4:51:57 PM4/22/13
to
You can always elect someone who'll get you that later but without a
vote you're just a slave.
abelard
Apr 22, 2013, 5:15:15 PM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:35:05 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>I doubt if they have anything interesting or profound to say at all.
>It's very difficult to think logically if you don't have much command of
>language, which is what you think in.
that is deeply untrue...
dogs and cats and mice think....
language is about communicating...not about thinking...
in fact, language constricts and entraps your ability to
think independently...
in the main, language is stimulus/response
wrote:
>I doubt if they have anything interesting or profound to say at all.
>It's very difficult to think logically if you don't have much command of
>language, which is what you think in.
dogs and cats and mice think....
language is about communicating...not about thinking...
in fact, language constricts and entraps your ability to
think independently...
in the main, language is stimulus/response
Farmer Giles
Apr 22, 2013, 5:25:04 PM4/22/13
to
it's certainly nothing to do with prison slang whatever it is. I think
you probably spent too much time watching Porridge - when you weren't
watching Kavanagh QC that is.
Cynic
Apr 22, 2013, 7:33:32 PM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:51:57 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
say over how the country is run?
Apart from many other failings, if a lot of people want to stop what
the government is doing, waiting 5 years to vote for a different party
who may or may not do things differently may well be too late. Plus
the fact that for voting to be effective at all, the general
population need to hear many different views rather than relying only
on what the government tells us is right and wrong. The poll tax was
not prevented by casting votes. Large changes have only ever been
initiated by protest.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>>If one thing is worth fighting for it's the right to vote.
>>But not our right to freedom of expression, huh?
>Is it worth dying for?
>You can always elect someone who'll get you that later but without a
>vote you're just a slave.
You think the system we have in the UK really gives us any effective
>>>If one thing is worth fighting for it's the right to vote.
>>But not our right to freedom of expression, huh?
>Is it worth dying for?
>You can always elect someone who'll get you that later but without a
>vote you're just a slave.
say over how the country is run?
Apart from many other failings, if a lot of people want to stop what
the government is doing, waiting 5 years to vote for a different party
who may or may not do things differently may well be too late. Plus
the fact that for voting to be effective at all, the general
population need to hear many different views rather than relying only
on what the government tells us is right and wrong. The poll tax was
not prevented by casting votes. Large changes have only ever been
initiated by protest.
--
Cynic
Bill
Apr 22, 2013, 7:37:54 PM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:33:32 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:51:57 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>If one thing is worth fighting for it's the right to vote.
>
>>>But not our right to freedom of expression, huh?
>
>>Is it worth dying for?
>
>>You can always elect someone who'll get you that later but without a
>>vote you're just a slave.
>
>You think the system we have in the UK really gives us any effective
>say over how the country is run?
Of course it does.
>On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:51:57 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>If one thing is worth fighting for it's the right to vote.
>
>>>But not our right to freedom of expression, huh?
>
>>Is it worth dying for?
>
>>You can always elect someone who'll get you that later but without a
>>vote you're just a slave.
>
>You think the system we have in the UK really gives us any effective
>say over how the country is run?
>Apart from many other failings, if a lot of people want to stop what
>the government is doing, waiting 5 years to vote for a different party
>who may or may not do things differently may well be too late. Plus
>the fact that for voting to be effective at all, the general
>population need to hear many different views rather than relying only
>on what the government tells us is right and wrong. The poll tax was
>not prevented by casting votes. Large changes have only ever been
>initiated by protest.
things in the UK?
Cynic
Apr 22, 2013, 7:39:38 PM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:15:48 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>> The word "paedophile" does not, of course have
>> any *legal* definition, because it does not appear in any UK law.
>So, you can't or won't define paedophile, and you can't make it fit what
>we know Hindley did.
I did not say that I *did* think that Myra Hindley was a paedophile,
so I'm not sure what point you think you are making. In fact I stated
in a followup post that I did not believe it likely that she was a
paedophile.
>Just as I thought.
Your thoughts are defective. I am also quite familiar with the
official definition of "paedophilia" in the DSM, which would exclude
quite a few child sex offenders from that label - were it to be used
correctly.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>> The word "paedophile" does not, of course have
>> any *legal* definition, because it does not appear in any UK law.
>So, you can't or won't define paedophile, and you can't make it fit what
>we know Hindley did.
so I'm not sure what point you think you are making. In fact I stated
in a followup post that I did not believe it likely that she was a
paedophile.
>Just as I thought.
Your thoughts are defective. I am also quite familiar with the
official definition of "paedophilia" in the DSM, which would exclude
quite a few child sex offenders from that label - were it to be used
correctly.
--
Cynic
Roger Dewhurst
Apr 22, 2013, 10:25:10 PM4/22/13
to
1. The case is delayed until West agrees to plead guilty, under
duress.
2. The case is delayed because West will not plead guilty.
Eventually repeated delays force abandonment of the case.
3. The case goes to trial and the court is confronted with arguments
which it does not want to hear.
Take your pick.
Norman Wells
Apr 23, 2013, 4:26:53 AM4/23/13
to
"And would you feel just as strongly about a person shouting
"paedophile" at Myra Hindley's funeral?"
That makes no sense unless you thought she was and that the comment was
justified.
The Todal
Apr 23, 2013, 4:30:23 AM4/23/13
to
Bill
Apr 23, 2013, 6:43:09 AM4/23/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:25:10 -0700 (PDT), Roger Dewhurst
<dewhurs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Possible outcomes:
>
>1. The case is delayed until West agrees to plead guilty, under
>duress.
>
>2. The case is delayed because West will not plead guilty.
>Eventually repeated delays force abandonment of the case.
>
>3. The case goes to trial and the court is confronted with arguments
>which it does not want to hear.
>
>Take your pick.
Take more water with it...
<dewhurs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Possible outcomes:
>
>1. The case is delayed until West agrees to plead guilty, under
>duress.
>
>2. The case is delayed because West will not plead guilty.
>Eventually repeated delays force abandonment of the case.
>
>3. The case goes to trial and the court is confronted with arguments
>which it does not want to hear.
>
>Take your pick.
saracene
Apr 23, 2013, 7:05:21 AM4/23/13
to
touch wood. Nigel, certainly. Is there something about Nugent and/or
Farmer Giles? & what about you? Next question,for those of us who
have been inside, what was it for?
The Todal
Apr 23, 2013, 7:44:38 AM4/23/13
to
"Try again. I have worked inside prisons (and that's all I'm saying on
that) - so I know you're spouting ignorant, uniformed tripe. But, you
can console yourself with the fact that you belong to the vast majority
who pontificate on these matters".
I have visited Brixton and Holloway, but only briefly. Just visiting, as
they say in Monopoly. I obtain my uninformed tripe from books in which
prisoners have described their daily lives.
Cynic
Apr 23, 2013, 8:29:33 AM4/23/13
to
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:37:54 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>You think the system we have in the UK really gives us any effective
>>say over how the country is run?
>Of course it does.
You are in cloud-cuckoo land. Of all the major events the government
got the country into over the past 50 years, how many did the
electorate have any say in whatsoever? Did you vote for or against
the Falklands war? Did you vote for or against the Iraq invasion? In
what way was your vote able to influence what we are doing in
Afghanistan right now? If you feel strongly that Britain should be
building nuclear power stations, how would you cast your vote to try
to bring that about?
>>Apart from many other failings, if a lot of people want to stop what
>>the government is doing, waiting 5 years to vote for a different party
>>who may or may not do things differently may well be too late. Plus
>>the fact that for voting to be effective at all, the general
>>population need to hear many different views rather than relying only
>>on what the government tells us is right and wrong. The poll tax was
>>not prevented by casting votes. Large changes have only ever been
>>initiated by protest.
>Are you saying that violent revolution is the only way to change
>things in the UK?
It does not necessarily have to be violent, but protest and civil
disobediance are generally the only way to achieve any *significant*
changes to government policy, yes. Though now that people have other
ways to publicise and broadcast views that differ from the government,
that might change - IF - freedom of expression is not significantly
curtailed.
One problem is that no matter how beneficial the change will be, the
politically safest course of action is to promote the status quo, and
so you will not get any of the trusted political parties having large
changes in their manifesto, and the only parties who support big
change will be the fringe parties that have no hope of getting into
power because they are not sufficiently trusted to get many votes even
from the people who want that particular change.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>You think the system we have in the UK really gives us any effective
>>say over how the country is run?
>Of course it does.
got the country into over the past 50 years, how many did the
electorate have any say in whatsoever? Did you vote for or against
the Falklands war? Did you vote for or against the Iraq invasion? In
what way was your vote able to influence what we are doing in
Afghanistan right now? If you feel strongly that Britain should be
building nuclear power stations, how would you cast your vote to try
to bring that about?
>>Apart from many other failings, if a lot of people want to stop what
>>the government is doing, waiting 5 years to vote for a different party
>>who may or may not do things differently may well be too late. Plus
>>the fact that for voting to be effective at all, the general
>>population need to hear many different views rather than relying only
>>on what the government tells us is right and wrong. The poll tax was
>>not prevented by casting votes. Large changes have only ever been
>>initiated by protest.
>Are you saying that violent revolution is the only way to change
>things in the UK?
disobediance are generally the only way to achieve any *significant*
changes to government policy, yes. Though now that people have other
ways to publicise and broadcast views that differ from the government,
that might change - IF - freedom of expression is not significantly
curtailed.
One problem is that no matter how beneficial the change will be, the
politically safest course of action is to promote the status quo, and
so you will not get any of the trusted political parties having large
changes in their manifesto, and the only parties who support big
change will be the fringe parties that have no hope of getting into
power because they are not sufficiently trusted to get many votes even
from the people who want that particular change.
--
Cynic
Cynic
Apr 23, 2013, 8:38:45 AM4/23/13
to
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:26:53 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>> Your thoughts are defective. I am also quite familiar with the
>> official definition of "paedophilia" in the DSM, which would exclude
>> quite a few child sex offenders from that label - were it to be used
>> correctly.
>
>Then why did you imply that she was by saying:
>
>"And would you feel just as strongly about a person shouting
>"paedophile" at Myra Hindley's funeral?"
>
>That makes no sense unless you thought she was and that the comment was
>justified.
Gosh, you should think a bit more deeply Norm. My implication was in
fact the complete *opposite* of what you say.
The original statement was that we cannot tolerate people shouting
"murderer" at a soldier's funeral.
I asked whether it would be tolerable to shout "paedophile" at Myra
Hindley's funeral, because I saw it as an analogous situation - i.e.
in the first case were people using the word "murderer" against
someone who was (most likely) not a murderer, and in the second case
people using the word "paedophile" against a person who was (most
likely) not a paedophile.
The only difference being that in the first case the majority would
regard the soldier as being brave and blameless, whilst in the second
case it was a person who was pretty universally reviled.
It was to try to separate the principle of the act from the emotion
toward the target.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>> Your thoughts are defective. I am also quite familiar with the
>> official definition of "paedophilia" in the DSM, which would exclude
>> quite a few child sex offenders from that label - were it to be used
>> correctly.
>
>Then why did you imply that she was by saying:
>
>"And would you feel just as strongly about a person shouting
>"paedophile" at Myra Hindley's funeral?"
>
>That makes no sense unless you thought she was and that the comment was
>justified.
fact the complete *opposite* of what you say.
The original statement was that we cannot tolerate people shouting
"murderer" at a soldier's funeral.
I asked whether it would be tolerable to shout "paedophile" at Myra
Hindley's funeral, because I saw it as an analogous situation - i.e.
in the first case were people using the word "murderer" against
someone who was (most likely) not a murderer, and in the second case
people using the word "paedophile" against a person who was (most
likely) not a paedophile.
The only difference being that in the first case the majority would
regard the soldier as being brave and blameless, whilst in the second
case it was a person who was pretty universally reviled.
It was to try to separate the principle of the act from the emotion
toward the target.
--
Cynic
Bill
Apr 23, 2013, 8:51:58 AM4/23/13
to
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:29:33 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:37:54 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>You think the system we have in the UK really gives us any effective
>>>say over how the country is run?
>
>>Of course it does.
>
>You are in cloud-cuckoo land. Of all the major events the government
>got the country into over the past 50 years, how many did the
>electorate have any say in whatsoever? Did you vote for or against
>the Falklands war? Did you vote for or against the Iraq invasion?
Neither affected the vast bulk of the population in any meaningful
>On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:37:54 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>You think the system we have in the UK really gives us any effective
>>>say over how the country is run?
>
>>Of course it does.
>
>You are in cloud-cuckoo land. Of all the major events the government
>got the country into over the past 50 years, how many did the
>electorate have any say in whatsoever? Did you vote for or against
>the Falklands war? Did you vote for or against the Iraq invasion?
way.
In
>what way was your vote able to influence what we are doing in
>Afghanistan right now?
get us out.
I would be interested to see how far you get...
If you feel strongly that Britain should be
>building nuclear power stations, how would you cast your vote to try
>to bring that about?
>>>Apart from many other failings, if a lot of people want to stop what
>>>the government is doing, waiting 5 years to vote for a different party
>>>who may or may not do things differently may well be too late. Plus
>>>the fact that for voting to be effective at all, the general
>>>population need to hear many different views rather than relying only
>>>on what the government tells us is right and wrong. The poll tax was
>>>not prevented by casting votes. Large changes have only ever been
>>>initiated by protest.
>
>>Are you saying that violent revolution is the only way to change
>>things in the UK?
>
>It does not necessarily have to be violent, but protest and civil
>disobediance are generally the only way to achieve any *significant*
>changes to government policy, yes.
Any idiot can riot, it takes brains to get elected...
Though now that people have other
>ways to publicise and broadcast views that differ from the government,
>that might change - IF - freedom of expression is not significantly
>curtailed.
>One problem is that no matter how beneficial the change will be, the
>politically safest course of action is to promote the status quo, and
>so you will not get any of the trusted political parties having large
>changes in their manifesto, and the only parties who support big
>change will be the fringe parties that have no hope of getting into
>power because they are not sufficiently trusted to get many votes even
>from the people who want that particular change.
People trust the people who have proved trustworthy in the past.
Which is emninently reasonable.
Cynic
Apr 23, 2013, 10:23:27 AM4/23/13
to
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:51:58 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In
>>what way was your vote able to influence what we are doing in
>>Afghanistan right now?
>If you feel so strongly you could always form a party and campaign to
>get us out.
>I would be interested to see how far you get...
So the reason you think that the public is able to significantly
influence government policy is because anyone can quickly drum up an
independent political party and get voted into power?
Like I said, you are in cloud-cuckoo land.
--
Cynic
wrote:
> In
>>what way was your vote able to influence what we are doing in
>>Afghanistan right now?
>If you feel so strongly you could always form a party and campaign to
>get us out.
>I would be interested to see how far you get...
influence government policy is because anyone can quickly drum up an
independent political party and get voted into power?
Like I said, you are in cloud-cuckoo land.
--
Cynic
Bill
Apr 23, 2013, 1:20:11 PM4/23/13
to
They've changed attitudes to European membership and the policies of
the main political parties in the last four years.
Cynic
Apr 23, 2013, 1:55:08 PM4/23/13
to
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:20:11 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>So the reason you think that the public is able to significantly
>>influence government policy is because anyone can quickly drum up an
>>independent political party and get voted into power?
>>Like I said, you are in cloud-cuckoo land.
>UKIP says you're wrong.
>They've changed attitudes to European membership and the policies of
>the main political parties in the last four years.
I doubt that is true. What do you reckon would be different if UKIP
did not exist?
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>So the reason you think that the public is able to significantly
>>influence government policy is because anyone can quickly drum up an
>>independent political party and get voted into power?
>>Like I said, you are in cloud-cuckoo land.
>UKIP says you're wrong.
>They've changed attitudes to European membership and the policies of
>the main political parties in the last four years.
did not exist?
--
Cynic
Bill
Apr 23, 2013, 5:25:25 PM4/23/13
to
and Cameron's commitment to an EU referendum would never have been
made.
Cynic
Apr 24, 2013, 7:14:50 AM4/24/13
to
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:25:25 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>UKIP says you're wrong.
>>
>>>They've changed attitudes to European membership and the policies of
>>>the main political parties in the last four years.
>>
>>I doubt that is true. What do you reckon would be different if UKIP
>>did not exist?
>
>Well for a start Clegg's speech on immigration wouldn't have been made
>and Cameron's commitment to an EU referendum would never have been
>made.
So - no change whatsoever, just as I thought.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>>UKIP says you're wrong.
>>
>>>They've changed attitudes to European membership and the policies of
>>>the main political parties in the last four years.
>>
>>I doubt that is true. What do you reckon would be different if UKIP
>>did not exist?
>
>Well for a start Clegg's speech on immigration wouldn't have been made
>and Cameron's commitment to an EU referendum would never have been
>made.
--
Cynic
Bill
Apr 24, 2013, 7:41:14 AM4/24/13
to
we will see what happens on the elections a week tomorrow and if
anything changes.
My money is on about 12 UKIP county councilors, with at least two of
them 'dropping a bollock' in the first few months by saying something
the press considers dreadful and racist.
Having watched their pretty awful PPB last night I'd say it was only a
matter of time before they're back to being called 'The BNP in
blazers'.
0 new messages