We are all what we are.

In life he was a thug, his death though a sad thing for his family, doesn't alter what he was by as much as one iota.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:

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

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

Some instances of violence & thuggery are clearly more major than other kinds. I don't really think you are qualified to comment on the scale of it.
His record does not appear to indicate any involvement in what most would regard as serious crime.

Subjective? You mean my opinion & no-one else's. Terms like 'decency' usually invoke common agreement. Wishing someone dead without fairly extreme cause would not be - I suggest - decent in the opinion of most people.

What extreme cause could you possibly have? It seems you didn't actually know the man yourself; nor, it seems, do you know anyone who has been affected by him, for good or ill. Interestingly, the councillor, Maureen Stowe, who left the BNP and joined the Labour party was reasonably sympathetic towards him personally. If he was really the sort of thug you are suggesting, I doubt that she would have been.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
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. .

If you have always managed to avoid violence you are fortunate, though arguably it may be somewhat spineless to do so if you or your family are being attacked, for example.

I think a temporary football ban is quite a common occurance, a bit like being barred from a pub (don't tell me - that's never happened to you either).

Do you know exactly what happened with the pub landlord? Was he solely to blame for the incident?

You say your idea of decency does not include being kicked out of the 'loathsome' BNP. How interesting. I should have thought you'd be quite happy to be thrown out of the BNP.

Like any political party the BNP is sometimes put in the position of having to distance itself from certain individuals who may- unfortunately - have adversely affected its electoral chances. Sometimes these can be otherwise quite worthy individuals who may have just made a mistake or unwittingly attracted adverse publicity. Since the BNP is particularly vulnerable in this respect, the individual occasionally has to be sacrificed for the greater good of the party.

Finally, you have no basis for knowing whether the BNP is 'loathsome' or not. as it appears you have no first-hand experience of the party. You are therefore in no position to pass judgement - either on the BNP or on this man who committed suicide.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
Some instances of violence & thuggery are clearly more major than other kinds. I don't really think you are qualified to comment on the scale of it.

No, the consequences of violence and thuggery can be more or less serious, but being a violent thug is an absolute. You either are, or you are not. He was.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
His record does not appear to indicate any involvement in what most would regard as serious crime.

Violence and thuggery IS serious crime. Parking on double yellow lines isn’t.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
Subjective? You mean my opinion & no-one else's. Terms like 'decency' usually invoke common agreement. Wishing someone dead without fairly extreme cause would not be - I suggest - decent in the opinion of most people.

Decency IS subjective.
You demonstrate this later in your post when you write “ I think a temporary football ban is quite a common occurance, a bit like being barred from a pub”
I believe that such things are indicative of absolutely NOT decent behaviour or lifestyle and no, I have NEVER been “barred” from a pub, nor ever even asked to leave (before chucking out time) or for that matter even been cautioned in any way by any member of staff in any pub and THAT is an absolute and factual truth.
Plainly there is a gaping void between what we consider to be decent behaviour. Point proved.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
It seems you didn't actually know the man yourself; nor, it seems, do you know anyone who has been affected by him, for good or ill.

But I DO know of people who have suffered from his beastly behaviour, the pub landlord for starters. I don’t know him personally, but I don’t need to.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
Interestingly, the councillor, Maureen Stowe, who left the BNP and joined the Labour party was reasonably sympathetic towards him personally.
If he was really the sort of thug you are suggesting, I doubt that she would have been.

Oh yes, Maureen Stowe, the woman who was so naïve that she didn’t realise that the BNP are what they are.
What was it she replied when asked about them?
“Can you believe I didn’t know? It’s shocking but they all wore suits and spoke about the things that were concerning people I knew too. I really thought they were the silent voice; “
60 odd years old, living in England, and didn’t know what the BNP was all about and not even taking the trouble to find out before signing up?
Hardly a good source to look for opinion or a judgment to rely on.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
If you have always managed to avoid violence you are fortunate, though arguably it may be somewhat spineless to do so if you or your family are being attacked, for example.

Not engaging in violence as a means of communication or interaction with others or as a part of the “football match spectator experience” is a thing that decent people take as read.

Responding to a violent attack on one’s nearest and dearest with violence may, or may NOT, be an appropriate course of action depending on the circumstances.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
I think a temporary football ban is quite a common occurance, a bit like being barred from a pub (don't tell me - that's never happened to you either).

A six year football ban, though technically temporary, is no minor penalty. It may be common amongst the social group that you associate with, it is not to the majority of the population of this country.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
Do you know exactly what happened with the pub landlord? Was he solely to blame for the incident?

It is immaterial. The actions of the thug were utterly inexcusable.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
You say your idea of decency does not include being kicked out of the 'loathsome' BNP. How interesting. I should have thought you'd be quite happy to be thrown out of the BNP.

My morality would prevent me from ever attempting to become a member of the loathsome BNP.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
Like any political party the BNP is sometimes put in the position of having to distance itself from certain individuals who may- unfortunately - have adversely affected its electoral chances.

It’s interesting that only when the thug caused trouble at a BNP event having previously announced in a drunken state that he was an elected councilor that he was shown the door.

His previous disgraceful conduct up to that point was of no concern, obviously an established pattern of such behaviour was commonplace amongst a number of the membership and so he did not stand out from the rest.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
Sometimes these can be otherwise quite worthy individuals who may have just made a mistake or unwittingly attracted adverse publicity. Since the BNP is particularly vulnerable in this respect, the individual occasionally has to be sacrificed for the greater good of the party.

If the clearing trash with a record of violence is to become the norm, and assuming this was not a one off event, the membership numbers will soon be falling

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
Finally, you have no basis for knowing whether the BNP is 'loathsome' or not. as it appears you have no first-hand experience of the party.

LOL! You have NO IDEA what I have or have not got first hand knowledge of.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
You are therefore in no position to pass judgement - either on the BNP or on this man who committed suicide.

Oh yes I am, on both.

Let’s just re-visit the guy that Maureen Stowe described as “lovely but daft”

Daft?

Psychopath more like.

He was jailed for 17 months in March 2006 after being convicted of “violent disorder” at a World Cup qualifier in October 2004, and later violence in Blackpool.

He was banned from ALL football grounds for six years. This followed on from a two-and-a-half year football banning order, imposed for being involved in over 20 violent episodes in five years.

How old was he? Plainly he started young.

(Interesting that the BNP lot are reported as saying that Smith was “not a man of violence”.

I guess it’s about the difference between what different people interpret as violence and thuggery. If the reports are true then apparently by BNP standards he wasn’t …)

The point to this thread when I opened it was to further highlight the cancer in the BNP body, the judgment that it shows with regard to its membership, especially above “grass roots” level, and the hypocrisy of some of its followers.

In fact I do feel sympathy for Luke Smiths family, since the loss of any family member by suicide is hurtful in the extreme to any family, but that is the limit of my sympathy.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
The point to this thread when I opened it was to further highlight the cancer in the BNP body, the judgment that it shows with regard to its membership, especially above “grass roots” level, and the hypocrisy of some of its followers.

Herein lies the substance of what this thing believes. The 'cancer' is not within the BNP, but rotting the scum who pretend to be 'decent' people - the same scum who threat to harm children, destroy property, attack the elderly and infirm, attempt to have people sacked from their jobs and, as has been shown here, praise the murder of people going about their daily lives. And all because of a difference of ideology while claiming to believe in freedom of speech. That is the real cancer here.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:

Violence and thuggery IS serious crime.

Unless it's against, by your reckoning, BNP members and their children.

Originally Posted by :
But I DO know of people who have suffered from his beastly behaviour, the pub landlord for starters. I don’t know him personally, but I don’t need to.

Yet another bare-faced lie.

Originally Posted by :
Not engaging in violence as a means of communication or interaction with others or as a part of the “football match spectator experience” is a thing that decent people take as read.

Which you obviously don't.

Originally Posted by :
Responding to a violent attack on one’s nearest and dearest with violence may, or may NOT, be an appropriate course of action depending on the circumstances.

Unless it's a BNP member protecting his children from being attacked by some commie scumbag. Then the BNP member, by your reckoning, becomes the 'thug'.

Originally Posted by :
My morality ......

:-):-):-):-):-):-)
That was the best bit. Had a good chuckle at that one.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:
No, the consequences of violence and thuggery can be more or less serious, but being a violent thug is an absolute. You either are, or you are not. He was.

Well, since it is you who have called him ‘a violent thug’ you appear to have set yourself up as judge & jury in the matter. In fact it’s quite clear there are differing levels of violence & the law reflects this – ABH and GBH, for example. Therefore there are no ‘absolutes’ involved.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
Violence and thuggery IS serious crime. Parking on double yellow lines isn’t.

It all depends what it is you are calling ‘violence and thuggery’. There are mitigating factors in practically all cases & unless you can produce a bit more detail you are just indulging in name-calling.

It isn’t up to the likes of you – without any real knowledge of the circumstances of these cases – to condemn people outright.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
Decency IS subjective.
You demonstrate this later in your post when you write “ I think a temporary football ban is quite a common occurance, a bit like being barred from a pub”
I believe that such things are indicative of absolutely NOT decent behaviour or lifestyle and no, I have NEVER been “barred” from a pub, nor ever even asked to leave (before chucking out time) or for that matter even been cautioned in any way by any member of staff in any pub and THAT is an absolute and factual truth.
Plainly there is a gaping void between what we consider to be decent behaviour. Point proved.

Well, I know of people commonly regarded as decent – let’s say middle class people - who have been barred from the occasional pub. I cannot see any point at all in getting on one’s high horse about this.

‘Subjective’ is an irritating word that irritating people tend to use. Give me an example of any value judgement that is not ‘subjective’ – that is, where differences of opinion can never occur. Obviously there must be some common agreement about the meanings of words employed in making such judgements (such as ‘decency’) or communication between people would be impossible.

For example, if by my definition of decency you meant only thuggery and by your definition of thuggery I meant merely decency no conversation between us would ever make any progress. So I would suggest that what is ‘subjective’ in such judgements is rather less important than what people tend to regard as generally agreed definitions of terms.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
But I DO know of people who have suffered from his beastly behaviour, the pub landlord for starters. I don’t know him personally, but I don’t need to.

Well, you appear not to know whether an assault on him was provoked in any way, which is the question I was asking upon which you appear to be unable to shed any light whatsoever.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
Oh yes, Maureen Stowe, the woman who was so naïve that she didn’t realise that the BNP are what they are.
What was it she replied when asked about them?
“Can you believe I didn’t know? It’s shocking but they all wore suits and spoke about the things that were concerning people I knew too. I really thought they were the silent voice; “
60 odd years old, living in England, and didn’t know what the BNP was all about and not even taking the trouble to find out before signing up?
Hardly a good source to look for opinion or a judgment to rely on.

Well Maureen Stowe was probably a fairly ordinary working class individual who felt badly let down by the Labour party. When she turned to an alternative – the BNP – she was unaware that she would be attacked, abused & vilified by middle-class shock troops – people like yourself – who make it their business to ensure that the white working class never properly connect with the one party – the BNP – who would genuinely represent their best interests.

They sometimes – well, often - do not have the ideological nous to argue very effectively against people like yourself. Although what they do not understand of course is how shallow and treacherous the left really are. So when Ms Stowe was called a ‘racist’ she simply couldn’t find any argument against it – even though this is such a stupid word without any legal definition and as ‘subjective’ a term as you could possibly find.

She had been brainwashed, of course. So because she couldn’t endure the abuse and wasn’t bright enough to figure out how little such abuse actually amounted to, she defected to Labour. For goodness sakes she even admires Nelson Mandela – the terrorist of choice for all those brainwashed by PC.

Nevertheless, for all that, I would contend she is a genuine sort of person and if she thought Luke was basically a decent sort I am inclined to believe her since, after all, she did actually know him – whereas you did not.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
Not engaging in violence as a means of communication or interaction with others or as a part of the “football match spectator experience” is a thing that decent people take as read.

Responding to a violent attack on one’s nearest and dearest with violence may, or may NOT, be an appropriate course of action depending on the circumstances.

I think one’s nearest and dearest might prefer to be properly protected in such circumstances. Such protection would probably involve some use of violence, or at least the tangible threat of it.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
A six year football ban, though technically temporary, is no minor penalty. It may be common amongst the social group that you associate with, it is not to the majority of the population of this country.

It’s nothing to get too worked up about. You would need to canvass a group of active football supporters for their opinions on this. No point in referring the matter to people who never go to football matches, is there?

Originally Posted by The Bear:
It is immaterial. The actions of the thug were utterly inexcusable.

Well, since you don’t – and don't ever – appear to elaborate on this or any other incident in any way (and this is because I expect you don’t know any actual detail of the incidents in which he was involved) you are in no position to describe his actions as ‘utterly inexcusable’.

Normally when something is described in this way, some detail of the incident tends to be known. But all you know is that the man in question was in the BNP and you don’t like the BNP. That is the extent of your knowledge. And because you don’t like the BNP the actions of one of its members become ‘utterly inexcusable’ in your view. But your views are based more on bigotry & prejudice than on reason.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
My morality would prevent me from ever attempting to become a member of the loathsome BNP.

You have no way of knowing it is loathsome unless you are personally involved with it. For example, I could describe all members of the Garrick Club as 'loathsome'. But I do not belong to the Garrick Club and in fact I personally know almost nobody who does. Therefore the majority of its members are a total mystery to me. However, because I may be strongly biased against gentlemen’s clubs – regarding them as ‘elitist’ or some such nonsense – I could describe the Garrick Club as ‘loathsome’ – even my views would be based only upon ignorance and prejudice – just as yours are in relation to the BNP.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
It’s interesting that only when the thug caused trouble at a BNP event having previously announced in a drunken state that he was an elected councilor that he was shown the door.

His previous disgraceful conduct up to that point was of no concern, obviously an established pattern of such behaviour was commonplace amongst a number of the membership and so he did not stand out from the rest.

If I understand you correctly, you appear to be arguing that if he had started fights at BNP meetings & he had not been an elected councillor, this would have gone unnoticed. You are mistaken.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
If the clearing trash with a record of violence is to become the norm, and assuming this was not a one off event, the membership numbers will soon be falling .

That is your opinion based on absolute and total ignorance. I cannot begin to explain to you how utterly mistaken you are.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
LOL! You have NO IDEA what I have or have not got first hand knowledge of.

In that case, elaborate your point. What experience have you had? Unless you state what authority and evidence you can provide for your views, I will continue to insist you have no first hand experience of the BNP and therefore have no idea at all what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
Oh yes I am, on both.

Bullsh*t.
[Rep]

You have to laugh, no, really, you do.

“Going around their normal lives” writes “Hunter”.

No doubt that would be making reference to Brown who was, as part of HIS normal life making life, hell for someone else, and at the time he was accidentally (but some might say fortuitously) “put down” by a man who had come to the aid of his son who Brown was attacking.

Brown died in what has been decided by a court as manslaughter that resulted in a man defending his son from attack. Not murder, an act of defence that went over the top and that resulted in an unintentional death. That’s manslaughter.

Hunter then commented on my statement regarding the pub landlord that the vicious thug attacked and that I didn’t need to know the landlord personally to know of people who had suffered from Smith’s thuggery that it was … “Yet another bare-faced lie”. Well, Hunter, where is the lie in what I wrote?

There followed a reply to my condemnation regarding football thuggery that simply didn’t make sense and then a comment related to attacks on a BNP protecting his kids from some “commie scumbag” the significance of which totally evades me.

Strange thinking, some of these BNP people. Maybe it’s what attracts them to such a loathsome political movement, the inability to understand.

London Orbital then “went into one” Ignoring attempts to in some way move away from the point that violence except in some cases of self defence is ALWAYS wrong “London Orbital” attempts to dilute the issue by bringing in the difference between GBH and ABH. Don’t go there, you may end up face egged. It’s like being run over by a drunk driver who intended to hit you and being run over by a drunk driver who accidentally hit you. The fault lies with the driver being drunk.

It gets better. The claim that there are mitigating circumstances in acts of violence in nearly all cases is ot only patently wrong, it is absurd and if that is what you truly believe than it says a great deal about your view on decency.

It just gets better and better. Decent people being barred from “the occasional” pub.

Decent people do not behave in a manner that would ever get them barred from a pub.

We move to subjectivity. Yes, opinion is a key factor and since opinion is about ones personal values and standards of what is acceptable and what is not it follows that a person having lower values and standards would quite possibly see being banned from football matches, being banned from public houses, and engaging in fights as NOT being indication of un-decent behaviour.

It therefore follows that my personal values and standards are (considerably) higher than such a person.

We get back to the pub landlord that the thug Smith attacked. The findings of the court that convicted Smith show that there were no extenuating circumstances such as self defence by Smith, the ONLY mitigating circumstance that there could be. No, Smith was simply running true to form.

Face it, “London Orbital”, you’re attempting to defend the indefensible, the actions of a nasty violent thug who has (in his case) jumped off This Mortal Coil. Let’s not contemplate why he “tipped” himself since it would be pure speculation to believe it was out of contrition, or raw cowardice resulting from the prospect of a nasty sentence for his nasty actions and recent comeuppance.

I know which I believe to be the case.

We next move to Maureen Stowe. Nice little essay “London Orbital” but no gold star. Read what she said and you will see that it was as a result of her finding out what the BNP really are that she bailed out.

She may have been naive in not establishing or understanding what a disgusting “political” “party” they were before jumping on board, but credit to her when the light dawned she did the right thing in short order.

Football supporters and the attitude to being banned comes next. Ignoring the assumption that I don’t ever attend a match at Carrow Road with my son (when there’s a decent team playing!) the implication that rank and file supporters don’t see a ban as being any big deal once again shows much more about the attitude of the sector of the population that you associate with than do decent people.

“London Orbital”, you’re exhibiting precisely the same attitude as a drug user shows when on being questioned replies “Everybody does stuff”

Well everybody does NOT, and decent people, the majority in the country, do NOT have the attitude that is at least laissez-faire if not tacit approval of low life living that you are presenting here.

The loathsome BNP. “How do you know it’s loathsome?” asks “London Orbital”

By its objectives, by its history by its agenda, and by the actions of far too many of its members. Benchmarked against normal decency and values loathsome is a good word to use.

My own knowledge about the BNP? Considerable, and details of which I will keep to myself for a number of VERY good reasons.

Why is it that by attempting to defend and justify the indefensible ad unjustifiable these BNP people can’t see they are simply showing themselves up for what they really are?
[Rep]

A truely garbage 'essay' by 'the bear'. Not bothering to condemn the belief that children and the elderly should be threatned or attacked by scum life antifa only shows he really supports such actions and condones violence of this nature. So much for 'personal values and standards'.

Such people rank alongside rapists and paedophiles and don't deserve to be allowed to breathe the same are as the rest of us.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hunter:
A truely garbage 'essay' by 'the bear'. Not bothering to condemn the belief that children and the elderly should be threatned or attacked by scum life antifa only shows he really supports such actions and condones violence of this nature. So much for 'personal values and standards'.

What a strange and warped logic you display. Still, that might in part explain your close association with the BNP.

Where have I even commented on attacks on children or the elderly by ANTIFA (ANTIFA.net or ANTIFA.com by the way?) Since you raise the issue I do have an opinion on both attacks on the vulnerable, and on ANTIFA.

In the case of the elderly if they spout racist based hatred then they should be confronted in a like manner.

Similarly the young though a little more time spent on helping them see through the received “wisdom” from their nasty elders is appropriate.

As for ANTIFA, it’s strange how a group claiming to be anti – fascist behaves in a fascist manner. No surprise that it attracts idiots who feel their inner doubts and uncertainties salved by membership of a simplistic violent group led manipulative leaders.

Leaders who were it not for having identified and subsequently capitalised on a niche in other circumstances would have been at best some form of junior manager at best.

In my opinion though probably well intentioned ANTIFA are in many respects in connection with their methods if not all their aims a doppelgänger of the BNP, the National Front, and other bizarre supremacist collections of other nasty and otherwise no count numpties.

Originally Posted by Hunter:
Such people rank alongside rapists and paedophiles and don't deserve to be allowed to breathe the same are as the rest of us.

LOL! If we have to put up with the exhalations of some of the BNP top table in the Global environment then I’m dammed sure that they will have to put up with that from those who stand up for decency.

Odd thing about BNP meetings though, it’s not so much the ubiquitous halitosis, probably a thing brought on by the excreta they come out with that makes the air rancid, it’s the quite amazing degree of body odour that seems to be an essential part of being qualified to become a “member”.

Good word, member, to describe a BNP aficionado when considered in the pornographic use of the word.

BTW … I really mean it about BNP meetings smelling of sweat and dirty bodies.

On top of that there’s one quite senior member in particular that someone really should tip the wink to that aftershave and deodorant will never take the place of a decent wash.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:
Brown died in what has been decided by a court as manslaughter that resulted in a man defending his son from attack. Not murder, an act of defence that went over the top and that resulted in an unintentional death. That’s manslaughter.

Your replies do make me laugh. You condemn all violence on the part of an ex-BNP member as 'thuggery' yet someone who is armed with a knife and actually uses it to kill – and, of course, happens to be Asian - is automatically acting in self defence.

Was Brown in danger of killing the man's son? Of course not. Brown has not received any sort of justice and his murderer ought to be put away for a very long time. But this will not happen in politically-correct Britain.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
London Orbital then “went into one” Ignoring attempts to in some way move away from the point that violence except in some cases of self defence is ALWAYS wrong “London Orbital” attempts to dilute the issue by bringing in the difference between GBH and ABH. Don’t go there, you may end up face egged. It’s like being run over by a drunk driver who intended to hit you and being run over by a drunk driver who accidentally hit you. The fault lies with the driver being drunk.

This comparison doesn't work at all. The difference between ABH and GBH is not one of intention - i.e. whether one is accidental or deliberate - but of degree. The consequences of ABH are less serious therefore the offence would not be punished so harshly.

We are not dealing with absolutes as you keep insisting.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
It gets better. The claim that there are mitigating circumstances in acts of violence in nearly all cases is ot only patently wrong, it is absurd and if that is what you truly believe than it says a great deal about your view on decency.

Mitigation would consist of there being some element of self-defence. Obviously an unprovoked attack on someone could never be justified.

You were happy enough to accept self defence as an argument in favour of Keith Brown's murderer - even though no-one's life was actually being endangered.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
It just gets better and better. Decent people being barred from “the occasional” pub.

Decent people do not behave in a manner that would ever get them barred from a pub.

Well, I would just love to bar you from my pub. Then you could test out your own theory on yourself. I repeat that I have witnessed quite inoffensive people accidentally get on the wrong side of some temperamental member of the bar staff and have ended up – to their amazement - getting barred. Of course at the time they were quite upset. However I think they should not really have worried because they were not seriously at fault, and these things do happen from time to time.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
Face it, “London Orbital”, you’re attempting to defend the indefensible, the actions of a nasty violent thug who has (in his case) jumped off This Mortal Coil. Let’s not contemplate why he “tipped” himself since it would be pure speculation to believe it was out of contrition, or raw cowardice resulting from the prospect of a nasty sentence for his nasty actions and recent comeuppance.

I know which I believe to be the case.

I suppose there might be some who would kill themselves out of 'raw cowardice'. It seems a pretty desperate thing to do. Graham Greene once remarked that his own occasional desire for suicide was thwarted by the fact that he felt too cowardly to carry out the act. It is not really a rational thing to do. Those who do kill themselves are usually afflicted with depression. Some might argue they deserve a bit of sympathy - from decent forgiving Christian people, that is.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
We next move to Maureen Stowe. Nice little essay “London Orbital” but no gold star. Read what she said and you will see that it was as a result of her finding out what the BNP really are that she bailed out.

She may have been naive in not establishing or understanding what a disgusting “political” “party” they were before jumping on board, but credit to her when the light dawned she did the right thing in short order.

No doubt she was subsequently required to make all the right noises as evidence of her contrition. The left would have settled for nothing less than a fully signed confession. If you doubt this consider how unlikely it would have been that the 'light dawned' as you put it. As you previously pointed out, if she had managed to reach the age of 60 or so without hearing anything at all about the sort of negative publicity which is put about attacking the BNP, how likely is it she would suddenly have managed to exhibit the kind of fully-fledged college-educated mentality of the Red brigade (mistakenly called 'anti-fascist') that her words would tend to suggest. My little essay - gold star or not - gets to the heart of the matter, methinks. Stowe was reading from a prepared script. She became a prisoner of the left - and more fool her.

Originally Posted by The Bear:
The loathsome BNP. “How do you know it’s loathsome?” asks “London Orbital”

By its objectives, by its history by its agenda, and by the actions of far too many of its members. Benchmarked against normal decency and values loathsome is a good word to use.

My own knowledge about the BNP? Considerable, and details of which I will keep to myself for a number of VERY good reasons.

Why is it that by attempting to defend and justify the indefensible ad unjustifiable these BNP people can’t see they are simply showing themselves up for what they really are?

So it appears you went to a meeting where someone had – what was it? – bad breath. Some 'considerable knowledge'.

It’s not a matter of defending and justifying the indefensible – only allowing that there may be different interpretations of the facts.

After all you seem willing to support a murderer who happens to be from an ethnic minority – someone who has killed a man and offered a plea of self defence - even though no-one’s life was actually at stake.

Which says everything about your values really, doesn’t it?

Biased in the extreme.
[Rep]