-
Posts
-
The policemen who beat Rodney King were acquitted too. It doesn’t mean they didn’t commit any crime though. They were caught on tape just like Griffin and Collett. Griffin said that if someone told the police what he had just said he would get 7 years in prison. If that’s not an admission of guilt I don’t know what is.
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
The policemen who beat Rodney King were acquitted too. It doesn’t mean they didn’t commit any crime though. They were caught on tape just like Griffin and Collett. Griffin said that if someone told the police what he had just said he would get 7 years in prison. If that’s not an admission of guilt I don’t know what is.
So now your saying that all those who were acquitted in a court of law are actually guilty, or is it there guilty if you say so?
Do you believe in our court system?
What part of Nick and Mark being made innocent in our court system, dont you understand?
He didnt say that, he said if he said that OUTSIDE YOU THICK TWAT :D
Im bored of you now.
yawn
To commit a crime, there has to be a law which says it is illegal
There is no law which says incitement to religious hatred is illegal, hence they were tried on incitement of racial hatred. As Islam is a religion and not a race, the defence had no difficulty in getting Griffin off- in boxing, it would be called a technical knockout.
Jus cos there isn’t a law doesn’t make it right
@slayer wrote:
Jus cos there isn’t a law doesn’t make it right
Jus cos you say that doesn’t make it right :wink:
Some of the remarks clearly referred to Asians, so I don’t think the jury did their job properly. For example:
“When these Asians go out looking for a victim, they don’t go looking for Asian victims.
They don’t go mugging Asian grandmas, they don’t go stabbing each other, they don’t go trying to solicit sex off little Pritesh or little Sanjita, they go straight to the whites because they are trying to destroy us…”Pritesh and Samjita are not muslim names either. Clearly this was incitement against Asians.
You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that if someone is caught on tape carrying out a crime and he admits on tape to carrying out a crime then there’s a good chance that he’s guilty.
All those people who campaigned against a law to ban incitement to religious hatred should now realize what they’ve done. Even today, a Sikh in Glasgow was attacked by a gang of white youths who beat him up and cut his hair. So I think we do need a law to protect religious minorities.
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
Some of the remarks clearly referred to Asians, so I don’t think the jury did their job properly. For example:
“When these Asians go out looking for a victim, they don’t go looking for Asian victims.
They don’t go mugging Asian grandmas, they don’t go stabbing each other, they don’t go trying to solicit sex off little Pritesh or little Sanjita, they go straight to the whites because they are trying to destroy us…”Pritesh and Samjita are not muslim names either. Clearly this was incitement against Asians.
You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that if someone is caught on tape carrying out a crime and he admits on tape to carrying out a crime then there’s a good chance that he’s guilty.
All those people who campaigned against a law to ban incitement to religious hatred should now realize what they’ve done. Even today, a Sikh in Glasgow was attacked by a gang of white youths who beat him up and cut his hair. So I think we do need a law to protect religious minorities.
Mr B- i don’t disagree, however the defence found it easy to steer the jury down the line of relgious hatred which isnt yet illegal
Slayer, Mr bigastuff doesn’t believe in our democratic system, especially when it dont agree with him.
I think blair is a war criminal, but if it never gets proved, sadly he’s not, and i hate bliar with a passion.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!