Originally Posted by London Orbital:
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.

Now that’s twisting facts. Brown died as a result of an accident that should not have happened, and Khan is being punished for the consequential manslaughter. There’s nothing accidental about beating up a landlord of a pub or engaging in football hooliganism and worse.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
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.

Where? In the case of thuggery it IS an absolute. A person either is or is not a thug. Smith was a thug.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
Mitigation would consist of there being some element of self-defence. Obviously an unprovoked attack on someone could never be justified.

Of course self defence might be reasonable justification to use sufficient force as to prevent harm to ones self or ones family but that’s not what has been the underlying theme with Smith’s record.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
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.

Brown wasn’t murdered.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
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.

Decent people avoid getting on the wrong side of bar staff. If they find things going in a direction that such might happen they get up and leave.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
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.

Well that last bit rules me out since I’m not a Christian!
No, suicide can be the act of a coward afraid to face the consequences of his actions.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
(on Maureen Stowe)
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.

Oh I don’t know, age is no guarantee of sense, especially amongst some women who have led sheltered lives and to whom life is all chintz and soft fluffy kittens. They do exist, even today. Maureen Stowe was one such. When she found out what really went on she was obviously mortified and did the decent thing.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
(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'.

Someone? It seems to be a requirement and at most meetings! Just like the other smells! It really is quite amazing.

No comment on the aftershave and deodorant not hiding the need of a good wash though! I guess you know who I mean. Better mind how you tell them.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
It’s not a matter of defending and justifying the indefensible – only allowing that there may be different interpretations of the facts.

Rubbish. Certainly in the case of the BNP and the thug Smith.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
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.

It wasn’t murder, and the raising of his ethnicity tells a great deal about your views on the ethnicity of people.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
Which says everything about your values really, doesn’t it?

Biased in the extreme.

Too right! Biased against thuggery, thugs, and the BNP.

Come to think of it I could have condensed that into “Biased against the BNP”.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:
Come to think of it I could have condensed that into “Biased against the BNP”.

You admit the bias then. The judge who refused to condemn Brown's killer was biased in exactly the same way in my view. You don't push a knife into the body of unarmed man in 'self defence.' Only a biased court would have let Khan off the hook.

Ethnicity is not an irrelevant factor here because I am sure that if I had taken that action in defence of a younger member of my family, say, and had 'accidentally' killed the person who - let us say - belonged to an ethnic minority, I would no doubt be looking at a very long sentence indeed.

I don't really object to your calling Smith a thug - although your view that 'thuggery' is an absolute seems pretty mindless to me.

Nevertheless, calling him a thug is probably fair comment under the circumstances.

Gloating over his suicide though was a step too far.

'Biased' is far too mild a term to describe your mentality - which I shall not make any further comment on.
[Rep]