E pluribus unum.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
If you have a rabid dog you put it down.

If an individual acts as a rabid dog and puts himself down I see no problem.

If that offends sensitivities then there you go.

In this case a guy who was so extreme that even the BNP wouldn’t have him in its ranks

I loved the quote attributed to his uncle

“He was a lovely, lovely lad who, like a lot of people, was just too sensitive to exist in what is effectively an extremely cruel world.”

It is precisely because of people like him that contribute so much toward making it an extremely cruel world!

I do feel some sympathy for his family, though I have no idea to what extent his family were party to trying to stop him being a brutal thug or to what extent his family were role models, nonetheless the loss of a close relative is never easy.

The fact remains however that we are one brutal thug less on the streets.

I do wonder if an Asian guy with a similar background had topped himself TUS would have been gloating about there being one less.

Quite a lot is my guess based on the howls of outrage when one of theirs was put down in a case of what I contend was not manslaughter, but actually justifiable manslaughter.

He was forced to resign as a councillor after continued allegations of violence.

He was due to appear in court having been charged with assault.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the charge had been proved, nor - it seems - were there much more than 'allegations' that he had been violent in the past,

No basis then for comparing him to a rabid dog that should be put down.

Or for claiming that we have 'one brutal thug less on the streets'.

In fact you have no proof at all that he's a brutal thug - unless accusations constitute proof.

If it was an Asian guy that had been accused and had been found dead before his trial would you describe him as a brutal thug or compare him to a rabid dog that should be put down without actually knowing the full facts?

I doubt it.

Where did you get the idea that the BNP had thrown him out for violence?

It only says he had been suspended from the party and had resigned as a councillor.

[Rep]

A violent convicted football hooligan, slung out of the BNP for reasons including him allegedly fighting at the BNP’s Red, White and Blue festival in Sawley (and that wouldn’t have been done without some serious investigation), banned by The Standards Board for thee years from being a councilor in any English council, banned from attending football matches because of his atrocious conduct, jailed for ignoring the ban, and charged with another act of violence, but topped himself before the case was completed.

A “duggie”, a thug, someone with no regard for the law, and a person who finally did the right thing.

I shed no tears for him shuffling off this mortal coil. More of the same should do the same.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
He was forced to resign as a councillor after continued allegations of violence.

He was due to appear in court having been charged with assault.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the charge had been proved, nor - it seems - were there much more than 'allegations' that he had been violent in the past,

No basis then for comparing him to a rabid dog that should be put down.

Or for claiming that we have 'one brutal thug less on the streets'.

In fact you have no proof at all that he's a brutal thug - unless accusations constitute proof.

If it was an Asian guy that had been accused and had been found dead before his trial would you describe him as a brutal thug or compare him to a rabid dog that should be put down without actually knowing the full facts?

I doubt it.

Then you would be utterly wrong.

Given the same facts I would condemn anybody in the same way and to the same extent.

His association with the BNP is relevant since he had been a BNP councilor though I do wonder if his expulsion was not more out of embarrassment and the fear of yet more bad press than for any reasons associated with him being an “undesirable” within their ranks.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
Where did you get the idea that the BNP had thrown him out for violence?

It only says he had been suspended from the party and had resigned as a councillor.

OK, Let’s look at this sweet innocent boy.

Let’s look at the latest in a string of offences, the assault on a pub landlord. Not accused, “London Orbital”, convicted actually, and awaiting sentence.

Source?

Former Burnley BNP councillor assaulted pub landlord (From Lancashire Telegraph)

Then there’s another gem that comes from the same storyline……

Quote (with regard to the BNP Sawly incident)

“ He had earlier been kicked out of the party following internal meetings over the Sawley incident - a decision which prompted leading BNP organiser Steven Smith to quit. He now heads the Cliviger-based England First Party.

Now that could be interpreted by some as the head of “England First Party” …….. well, who’s to say.

But back to “The lovely, lovely lad”

He’d been jailed for 17 months in March 2006 after being convicted of violent disorder in relation to incidents surrounding a World Cup qualifier in October 2004, and later violence in Blackpool.

He was also banned from football grounds for six years.

In addition he had been involved in over 20 other violent episodes in five years.

No justification in dismissing him as a violent thug?

How much more justification do you need?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
More of the same should do the same.

Yes, what a fantastic society it would be with young men with mental health problems found hanging on every corner :-) I'd say you're as mad as a hatter yourself judging by your posts on here.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:
Would guess that being kicked out of the BNP for violence must be like having being expelled from the Gestapo for anti-Semitism.

Ex-BNP man found hanged near Burnley pub (From Lancashire Telegraph)

Luke Smith, 26, of Brun-shaw Road, was found dead on a path leading from Yorkshire Street, near the Princess Royal Pub, to the canal around 4.30pm on Sunday.

The convicted football hooligan, who was forced to resign as a councillor after continued allegations of violence, was said to have been suffering psychological problems when he appeared in court last Monday charged with assault.

Oh dear. Tut Tut. How sad.

Next?

Typical Thatcherite Tory.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:
Then you would be utterly wrong.

Given the same facts I would condemn anybody in the same way and to the same extent.

His association with the BNP is relevant since he had been a BNP councilor though I do wonder if his expulsion was not more out of embarrassment and the fear of yet more bad press than for any reasons associated with him being an “undesirable” within their ranks.

OK, Let’s look at this sweet innocent boy.

Let’s look at the latest in a string of offences, the assault on a pub landlord. Not accused, “London Orbital”, convicted actually, and awaiting sentence.

Source?

Former Burnley BNP councillor assaulted pub landlord (From Lancashire Telegraph)

Then there’s another gem that comes from the same storyline……

Quote (with regard to the BNP Sawly incident)

“ He had earlier been kicked out of the party following internal meetings over the Sawley incident - a decision which prompted leading BNP organiser Steven Smith to quit. He now heads the Cliviger-based England First Party.

Now that could be interpreted by some as the head of “England First Party” …….. well, who’s to say.

But back to “The lovely, lovely lad”

He’d been jailed for 17 months in March 2006 after being convicted of violent disorder in relation to incidents surrounding a World Cup qualifier in October 2004, and later violence in Blackpool.

He was also banned from football grounds for six years.

In addition he had been involved in over 20 other violent episodes in five years.

No justification in dismissing him as a violent thug?

How much more justification do you need?

So you are basically that a young man who, it appears, had a minor conviction for assault (though he had not yet been sentenced), & in the past had received a football match ban, deserved to die in the way he did.

It's good news that he killed himself, is it?

These were minor - not top scale - offences. Perhaps, in hindsight, we can see they were most probably occasioned by the same troubled mind that later caused him to hang himself.

Any decent human being would show pity for a young man's suicide.

But you do not fall into that category. Shame on you.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
So you are basically that a young man who, it appears, had a minor conviction for assault (though he had not yet been sentenced), & in the past had received a football match ban, deserved to die in the way he did.

If you read the articles printed about the … man … you will find that he has a string of convictions and a record that is simply shameful.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
It's good news that he killed himself, is it?

In my opinion, yes.

At the very least his established behaviour has been ended and other people who might, probably would, have had to endure his antics in the future will now not need to do so.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
These were minor - not top scale - offences. Perhaps, in hindsight, we can see they were most probably occasioned by the same troubled mind that later caused him to hang himself.

No they were not minor offences. The … man … had a record of violence and thuggery. That is not minor in any way.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
Any decent human being would show pity for a young man's suicide.

But you do not fall into that category. Shame on you.

The word ”decency” used in the way that you do becomes subjective.

Since my idea of decency includes avoiding violence, avoiding causing trouble to such an extent as to get given a massive ban on my social activities because of my behaviour, does not include beating up a pub landlord, does not include being kicked out of the loathsome BNP (that in the very least shows how awful he must have been) the accusation of me NOT being decent in YOUR opinion has the potential to say far more that is detrimental about YOU than about me.

Let’s just review the situation.

It's clear from the article that to what would appear to be to at the very least a substantial degree the “mental health problems” the man had were brought on by drug abuse.

Other aspects of his thuggish nature could be attributable to some other psychosis, and / or, and much more probably simply down to what today is politely called a “personality disorder”.

There are many definitions of what a personality disorder amounts to, none of them pleasant and all usually involving words such as antisocial.

One of many similar definitions of “personality disorder” that I have encountered is ….

A pattern of behavior and emotional response that is socially disapproved or unacceptable, with little evidence of anxiety or other symptoms seen in neuroses.

Which by the assertion that there is little evidence of anxiety or other symptoms seen in neuroses, and it actually very often being learned behaviour, could be read as coming down to someone with a personality disorder being just a plain nasty piece of work.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:
One of many similar definitions of “personality disorder” that I have encountered is ….

A pattern of behavior and emotional response that is socially disapproved or unacceptable, with little evidence of anxiety or other symptoms seen in neuroses.

Which by the assertion that there is little evidence of anxiety or other symptoms seen in neuroses, and it actually very often being learned behaviour, could be read as coming down to someone with a personality disorder being just a plain nasty piece of work.

Bear. Take another look through this thread.

You posted an initial message which has been met with nothing but social disapproval from everybody else who has posted on this thread. I have even been sent a personal message from what I can only describe as an unexpected (but nonetheless welcome) source thanking me for my decent behavior in chastising you.

The only person who thinks what you said is acceptable is you.

There is little evidence of anxiety or other symptoms seen in neuroses coming from you.

I therefore conclude that you are just a "plain nasty piece of work".

It seems all the evidence fits the bill, don't you think?

No. I'm not medically qualified to make that judgement. And neither are you qualified to make judgements regarding what brought about mental health problems based upon reading a newspaper article which may or may not reflect the truth of the matter in any case.

You are an interesting character, no doubt. But this issue alone, the sheer lack of compassion for a fellow human being, is enough to make me think twice about replying to you on this forum.

[Rep]