There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu drooled:

Martin was jailed for shooting a child in the back after he had left his property.

16 is a young adult. Barras was a violent criminal going around committing home invasions as an accomplace of two grown men in their thirties. He was not a child engaged in a childs activites. He was a thug going around committing thuggery with grown men. Barras was a member of a gang that had terrorized Martin AND his neighbors by committing multiple acts of home invasion and burlgary.

Martin and his neighbors had filed numerous reports with the police who for some reason did nothing about the gang until after someone shot two of them and put them out of business. Then what the police did was go after the man who put the gang out of business.

Martin shot both of them inside his isolated farmhouse. Martin certainly did not shoot them when they were off of his property. Barras body was found ON Martins property where his accomplace left him.

He was shot in the back as he was running away. That was why Martin ended up in jail. Clearly an example of someone with a gun but not the training or mental stability to know when not to pull the trigger. A bit similar to your granny with a shotgun idea. What happens when she accidentally blasts the paperboy because he looks suspicious?

Barras and Fereas were shot inside Martin’s house. The only reason why they might have been trying to make a getaway is because Martin had a gun. If Martin hadn’t had a gun the incident might very well have had a different outcome with Martin dead and his attackers still being portrayed as poor lovable lads who deserved to be given light treatment.

Oh there are a whole lot of reaons why Martin ended up in jail that go far beyond any minor wrong doing by Martin. Martin was violently assaulted in his home with noone to help him. The real issue is despite a lack of help Martin managed to defend himself by using an appropriate tool of self defense. Martin took care of himself when the government refused to help. That is why Martin was put in jail because he showed up the government.

Again you have resported to your bullshit rhetoric of using over the top fantasies. I know quite a few old grannys who have shotguns who have not blasted the paperboy because he looked suspicious. But just humour ou for a moment, if the paperboy has kicked granny’s front door down in the middle of the night and forcibly entered her home then she shoots him that is his fault.

So shooting an unarmed child in the back is a minor wrongdoing in your eyes. Not really a lot of point arguing with you past that statement.[/quote]

16 is a young adult. His accomplace was a 30 year old grown man. How the hell do you expect Martin in the heat of the moment to have accurately deduced Barras age? I feel bad for a 16 year old getting shot but home invasion is a serious violent crime. Barras and Fereas were committing a violent crime and put Martin in the position of having only a moment to decide how to respond, it is totally unreasonable to class Barras as a child under those circumstances. You don’t want to argue it because you know I am right.

[quote]
Martin was jailed because he broke the law. I have very little sympathy for the kid that got shot, he should not have been there to be shot however Martin was an unstable guy who broke the law.

His defence at the retrial was based around how mentally unstable he was, that is hardly someone I would be handing a gun to.[/quote]

You are as disingenuous as ever. Martin was forced into claiming he was unstable because the legal system was unfairly stacked against him because it makes no provision for self defense. A sanity plea is the defense he could use.

422

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

His defence at the retrial was based around how mentally unstable he was, that is hardly someone I would be handing a gun to.[/quote]

I don’t know much about this case, never read about it aside from your back and forth with Sifu, but you and I both know that defense cases are built around what has the most chance of success rather than what is often the truth. That’s standard defense strategy.

I’m not a fan of giving a mentally unstable person a gun either.

423

England’s Children’s Minister wants a review of the case of two police officers told they were breaking the law, caring for each other’s children.

425

[quote]Sifu wrote:

So how did the armed rebellion idea work out for the guys at Waco?

Again you resort to ridiculous scenarios. The Branch Davidians were an isolated cult with a handful of followers who did not have widespread support of a large segment of the country behind them. The case was a terrible abuse of government power, the davidians might have done well in court because of that.
[/quote]

Yes it was a terrible abuse of government power but it shows exactly what happens if people take up arms against the government in the US. They get shot.

But that would not be the impact. People would still have no right to have a gun for self defence as I have pointed out to you on at least 20 separate occasions. This right has not existed in the UK since the 1920s. Changing the law back would have no impact on violent crime.

Not at all, if they could flick a switch and change it back then good, that is a benefit for sports shooters. Other than that, not something that is important enough to take time up with. There are far more important issues that the government should be focussing on. Instead parlimentary process gets bogged down with nonsense ‘hot topics’ like Fox Hunting bans and restriction on guns when only a tiny minority of people in the UK had guns.

[quote]
I think it is stupid that a farmer living in an isolated farm was sentenced to life in prison for shooting two home invaders and women can’t defend themselves from rapists without facing prosection. How the Olympic shooting team’s training would factor in to your thinking instead of self defense is astonishing. People are being killed and having their lives destroyed because they can’t defend themselves and you are thinking about sports trophies. Incredible.[/quote]

Martin was sentenced for commiting an act of murder. He deliberately shot a defensless person that was not at that moment threatening his life. That is the law. His conviction was overturned not on the basis that he was acting in self defence but on the basis that he had diminished responsibility due to the fact he suffered from paranoid delusions.

In the US, Martin would not have been able to get a gun license in most states due to his paranoid delusion disorder.

Self defence is a non issue when it comes to the 97 law changes, they had no bearing on self defence as there was no right to a gun for self defence before the law changes. I have typed this same sentence multiple times but you still don’t seem to get it.

426

[quote]Sifu wrote:

The US congress has it’s own cable channel Cspan. Every week on Cspan they broadcast Prime Ministers questions. They have also broadcasted PM’s Q on PBS. They have done this for years I have been watching it since John Major was PM.

I have had an internet connection since 96 that I have been able to get online news from. Most news sources in Britain leave much to be desired. I read the BBC for years till their political biases became too much to ignore.
[/quote]

Well you have no excuse then!

If you actually had any depth of knowledge you would know that everyone said exactly the same when the BNP got a a couple of local councillors elected a few years back. Again there was a big outcry, a higher turnout at the next election and the BNP got spanked. Same will happen again.

[quote]
Especially if stories like senior members of the BNP making up lies about murders by minorities as propeganda continue to come out.

Dream on jerky boy. There is no way that mistakenly saying two stabbing victims are dead when they are still on life support comes close to MP’s claiming millions bogus expenses and lining their pockets while at the same time denying the Army and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan decent body armour because there is no money for it.

If you think that the man who filed the police complaint that led to the police investigation of MP’s expenses, getting his facts slightly wrong in a video blog, is worse than a millionaire like David Cameron, using taxpayer money to clear Wysteria off of his mansion while Marines are coming home in body bags because they had inferior body armour you are badly mistaken.

Here is a prediction for you. The dead Marines inferior body armour/MP’s expenses scandal is not over yet and there might be a day of reckoning come the next election.[/quote]

The BNP have always used hype, lies and propeganda to try to swell up outrage. People like Nick Griffen have far too many skeletons in their closet to ever really get anywhere.

Of course there is political corruption in all parties, but at least the base tennets of the other parties are not hatred and exclusion.

427

[quote]Sifu wrote:
They are 10 of 27 amendments to the constitution. Other amendments have subsequently been overridden so there is nothing legally to stop any of the first 10 from being.

You do not know what you are talking about. Prohibition is the only amendment that has ever been repealed. To implement new amendments can be a very difficult process. ie The Twenty seventh amendment took 202 years from the time it was submitted till it was ratified. The other way is it would take a constitutional convention (which hasn’t happened in centuries) to change all of them at the same time. [/quote]

There is a precedent and there is a process to amend the constitution or repeal amendments. It is possible, that is all I have said.

428

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

His defence at the retrial was based around how mentally unstable he was, that is hardly someone I would be handing a gun to.

I don’t know much about this case, never read about it aside from your back and forth with Sifu, but you and I both know that defense cases are built around what has the most chance of success rather than what is often the truth. That’s standard defense strategy.

I’m not a fan of giving a mentally unstable person a gun either.[/quote]

The poor man had his life destroyed by the government. The case really showed how tyrannical the British government is. They protect criminals more vigorously than they protect innocent citizens.

429

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Of course it is the person weilding the firearm that is important, that is the entire point. The person should not be weilding the firearm unless they can show that they are adequately trained and capable.

A gun is not a complicated device. All you do is point and click. All you care about is creating different classes of people where some are an upper class who get to defend themselves while others are an underclass who can’t defend themselves. With the government deciding who is upper class and who is lower class.[/quote]

So that would be your training that you would give a family member before they had a gun in their house? OK you point this end at anyone that you don’t like the look of, pull this and it goes bang.

Nothing about proper handling, nothing about maintainanance, nothing about target selection, nothing about controlling fear? Nothing about when to pull it, where to keep it, how to keep it?

430

[quote]orion wrote:

England’s Children’s Minister wants a review of the case of two police officers told they were breaking the law, caring for each other’s children.[/quote]

The country is run by people with the same mentality as Cock. They want every aspect of peoples lives heavily regulated by the government. They want everyone investigated. The country is a miserable police state.

431

[quote]Sifu wrote:
So shooting an unarmed child in the back is a minor wrongdoing in your eyes. Not really a lot of point arguing with you past that statement.

16 is a young adult. His accomplace was a 30 year old grown man. How the hell do you expect Martin in the heat of the moment to have accurately deduced Barras age? I feel bad for a 16 year old getting shot but home invasion is a serious violent crime. Barras and Fereas were committing a violent crime and put Martin in the position of having only a moment to decide how to respond, it is totally unreasonable to class Barras as a child under those circumstances. You don’t want to argue it because you know I am right.

[/quote]

It was not a violent crime. They entered the property and then when confronted they tried to leave. At that point as they were running away they were shot in the back. That is why it was so straightforward for the jury to convict.

[quote]
Martin was jailed because he broke the law. I have very little sympathy for the kid that got shot, he should not have been there to be shot however Martin was an unstable guy who broke the law.

His defence at the retrial was based around how mentally unstable he was, that is hardly someone I would be handing a gun to.

You are as disingenuous as ever. Martin was forced into claiming he was unstable because the legal system was unfairly stacked against him because it makes no provision for self defense. A sanity plea is the defense he could use.[/quote]

Had he been able to legitimately show that he was being threatened then he could have claimed self defence. The problem is that when you shoot someone in the back as they run away from you no jury is going to allow that it was self defence. So either he was mentally unstable or he commited murder, neither situation helps your argument.

432

I bet if Martin was a black immigrant who had shot a white man burgling his house, the BNP guy wouldn’t be championing his right to defend his home.

433

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:

So how did the armed rebellion idea work out for the guys at Waco?

Again you resort to ridiculous scenarios. The Branch Davidians were an isolated cult with a handful of followers who did not have widespread support of a large segment of the country behind them. The case was a terrible abuse of government power, the davidians might have done well in court because of that.

Yes it was a terrible abuse of government power but it shows exactly what happens if people take up arms against the government in the US. They get shot. [/quote]

As I pointed out earlier individuals and small groups are easily picked off, that is why we have the militia clause in the second amendment. The Davidians did not have support outside of their little cult so what they did was a dumb idea. Now if on the other hand half the state of Texas had been on their side and been ready to fight alongside them there is no way the government could have controlled them.

Only an idiot who is completely lacking in comon sense like you cannot understand that the second amendments right to rebellion is not going to work for some fringe group or lone wolf that does not have widespread support.

[quote]
As for changing the law back in the UK, I would oppose that but only because changing it back would be as much of a waste of time as putting it in place in the first place, there are far more important things that need government time.

What could possibly be far more important than reducing violent crime crime and protecting freedom?

But that would not be the impact. People would still have no right to have a gun for self defence as I have pointed out to you on at least 20 separate occasions. This right has not existed in the UK since the 1920s. Changing the law back would have no impact on violent crime. [/quote]

You are full of bullshit excuses. There is no good reason why self defense shold ever have been outlawed by the British government in the 1920’s. All they need to do is change the law so that people can own firearms AND they can use them for self defense. This is not complicated rocket science. This is simple common sense that rational people can easily understand.

[quote]
If it could be changed back without taking up lots of parliament time then great. I think that it is stupid that the British Olympic shooting team has to travel abroad to train for instance.

So in other words if they could it like they did with the 97 ban. They used all the drama and emotions surrounding Dunblane to bully any dissenters into keeping quiet so they could rush it through. I watched an MP on TV say now is the time to push this through because the emotions of the moment are high.

Not at all, if they could flick a switch and change it back then good, that is a benefit for sports shooters. Other than that, not something that is important enough to take time up with. There are far more important issues that the government should be focussing on. Instead parlimentary process gets bogged down with nonsense ‘hot topics’ like Fox Hunting bans and restriction on guns when only a tiny minority of people in the UK had guns. [/quote]

Wow! People are being murdered by criminals because they are defenseless, but you are worried about sports. You remind of Hitlers artwork. Hitler would draw street scenes of government buildings in Vienna, with beautifully detailed buildings but the people on the streets were little stick figures. People were insignificant to Hitler and people are insignificant to you.

[quote]
I think it is stupid that a farmer living in an isolated farm was sentenced to life in prison for shooting two home invaders and women can’t defend themselves from rapists without facing prosection. How the Olympic shooting team’s training would factor in to your thinking instead of self defense is astonishing. People are being killed and having their lives destroyed because they can’t defend themselves and you are thinking about sports trophies. Incredible.

Martin was sentenced for commiting an act of murder. He deliberately shot a defensless person that was not at that moment threatening his life. That is the law. His conviction was overturned not on the basis that he was acting in self defence but on the basis that he had diminished responsibility due to the fact he suffered from paranoid delusions. [/quote]

He was the victim of a home invasion. Home invaders are dangerous, violent criminals. Martin was sent to jail because britain is full of assholes like you who want to second guess an old man who was assaulted in his home by two men who are one of the most dangerous types of violent criminals there is. The grossly unfair manner in which the British legal system treated Martin and others is a disgrace.

[quote]
In the US, Martin would not have been able to get a gun license in most states due to his paranoid delusion disorder. [/quote]

In the US shotguns aren’t licensed. More importantly in the US the law is based upon the old English Common law, “an Englishmans home is his castle” which allowed people to use deadly force to defend their home from invasion by felons. Since a mans home is his castle and under rules of retreat it is considered his final retreat, homeowners are given much benefit of the doubt criminally if they shoot a home invader inside their home.

Because Martin no longer had the benefit of the ancient common law right of castle defense he was forced to make an insanity plea because he could not plead self defense because of the unfair, fucked up, British laws on self defense with firearms that you constantly bring up.

The way you ignore inconvenient facts is sick. You have some serious issues.

Oh of course I forgot, all the British are so proper and law abiding that if they or their family were attacked and they had a firearm available to defend themselves with they wouldn’t use it. For a proper British subject would sooner see their entire family brutally slaughtered in front of them than violate one of her Majesty’s laws. It just wouldn’t be proper old boy her Majesty’s law means more to a proper Englishman than life itself. I get it now.

434

[quote]Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:

England’s Children’s Minister wants a review of the case of two police officers told they were breaking the law, caring for each other’s children.

The country is run by people with the same mentality as Cock. They want every aspect of peoples lives heavily regulated by the government. They want everyone investigated. The country is a miserable police state.[/quote]

Did you actually read the report? A department has filed an issue and senior members of the government have commented that the case needs to be reviewed because the department probably has misenterpreted something and waded in unnecessarily. Seems like the process is working ok to me.

435

[quote]Sifu wrote:

As I pointed out earlier individuals and small groups are easily picked off, that is why we have the militia clause in the second amendment. The Davidians did not have support outside of their little cult so what they did was a dumb idea. Now if on the other hand half the state of Texas had been on their side and been ready to fight alongside them there is no way the government could have controlled them.

Only an idiot who is completely lacking in comon sense like you cannot understand that the second amendments right to rebellion is not going to work for some fringe group or lone wolf that does not have widespread support.
[/quote]

Large groups of people don’t need guns to change things in a democracy. They can vote for change. Small groups who do not have the support of the majority will always be seen as nutters.

Way to slip and slide and try to change the argument. You tried to imply that me not wanting government time taken up repealing the 97 law was a sign that I didn’t care about people’s safety. I point out how ridiculous that is and you change the subject and start talking about a total change to UK gun laws. Which would be about as simple as changing the law in the US to ban all guns. It would also be about as popular.

Again with your histrionics. We were referring to a specific law which only really affected sports shooters and gun collectors. Now you are ranting about Hitler.

More histrionics. Someone tried to burgle his house, when they discovered that someone was in the property they turned and ran. At that point they were shot in the back. He was hardly an old man, he was 55. At no point was he assaulted and for you to describe a couple of sneak theives as ‘the most dangerous types of violent criminal that there is’ is absolutely laughable and just goes to show how suited you are to the daily mail and it’s sensationalist style.

Except that is not what ‘An Englishmans[sic] home is his castle’ means. All it means is that you can refuse entry to your home and it has never actually been that meaningfully applied under the law in the US or the UK if the police turn up with a warrant they can march into your house.

In most US states Martin would also have been found guilty, this is not due to gun laws, this is due to the fact that if you shoot someone who is running away from you in the back, it is not normally considered self defence.

[quote]
Self defence is a non issue when it comes to the 97 law changes, they had no bearing on self defence as there was no right to a gun for self defence before the law changes. I have typed this same sentence multiple times but you still don’t seem to get it.

Oh of course I forgot, all the British are so proper and law abiding that if they or their family were attacked and they had a firearm available to defend themselves with they wouldn’t use it. For a proper British subject would sooner see their entire family brutally slaughtered in front of them than violate one of her Majesty’s laws. It just wouldn’t be proper old boy her Majesty’s law means more to a proper Englishman than life itself. I get it now.[/quote]

Well as only a couple of thousand people were affected by the law change in 97 then the impact would have been negligible (as I have already stated several times.)

436

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:

The US congress has it’s own cable channel Cspan. Every week on Cspan they broadcast Prime Ministers questions. They have also broadcasted PM’s Q on PBS. They have done this for years I have been watching it since John Major was PM.

I have had an internet connection since 96 that I have been able to get online news from. Most news sources in Britain leave much to be desired. I read the BBC for years till their political biases became too much to ignore.

Well you have no excuse then!

You are living in your own dream world of wishful thinking. The election of two MEP’s was a watershed. The most likely result is that people are going to see that all the dire doom and gloom predictions by the old gang parties do not happen. Then at the next election the millions of voters who sat on the fence and did not vote for the old gang or anyone else decide to support the BNP.

Before the June elections all the old gang parties made a unified appeal to the voters that it is us against the BNP. The low voter turn out means that millions sat on the fence in an election between the old gang and the BNP. You are not facing the reality that the low voter turnout means that millions of voters could not be motivated to vote for the old gang in order to stop the BNP.

Not voting is a vote! It is a vote of NO confidence. Face it Cock the old gang are damaged goods. They have had decades of power where they have taken their position for granted while repeatedly screwing the people. They have decades of damage to overcome to win back voters. What they need to do to win back voters they have no credibility on. In the time that Labour has been in power Britain has taken in more immigrants than America did during 1890-1900. Labour credibility on immigration is nonexistant and Tory credibility is dodgey at best.

If you actually had any depth of knowledge you would know that everyone said exactly the same when the BNP got a a couple of local councillors elected a few years back. Again there was a big outcry, a higher turnout at the next election and the BNP got spanked. Same will happen again. [/quote]

A few years back? If you actually had any depth of knowledge you would know that things have changed in the last few years. It was only two years ago the muslims blew up the London Underground and it was only last year that they had failed bombings on nightclubs and the Glasgow airport.

It has only been a year since the economy collapsed under the weight of mass immigration and government incompetence. Only a blind fool like you can’t see that the ground has shifted underneath the political establishment. The old gang have made a complete mess of the country and they have nothing to offer but more of the same.

The BNP is the ultimate protest vote for a people who have been bullied and thretened into silence by political correctness that devalues and degrades them.

[quote]
Especially if stories like senior members of the BNP making up lies about murders by minorities as propeganda continue to come out.

Dream on jerky boy. There is no way that mistakenly saying two stabbing victims are dead when they are still on life support comes close to MP’s claiming millions bogus expenses and lining their pockets while at the same time denying the Army and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan decent body armour because there is no money for it.

If you think that the man who filed the police complaint that led to the police investigation of MP’s expenses, getting his facts slightly wrong in a video blog, is worse than a millionaire like David Cameron, using taxpayer money to clear Wysteria off of his mansion while Marines are coming home in body bags because they had inferior body armour you are badly mistaken.

Here is a prediction for you. The dead Marines inferior body armour/MP’s expenses scandal is not over yet and there might be a day of reckoning come the next election.

The BNP have always used hype, lies and propeganda to try to swell up outrage. People like Nick Griffen have far too many skeletons in their closet to ever really get anywhere. [/quote]

More pots and kettles from Cock. Noone has used hype and lies more than Labour. People have died as a result. Dave Cameron misappropriated tax payer money to clean wysteria off of the chimney of his mansion while troops in afghanistan were dying because they don’t have proper kit! 25 of the new prospective candidates for MP that the tory’s will run in the next election have since their selection taken on jobs as lobbyists! The BNP has nothing like that on it’s record.

[quote]
Of course there is political corruption in all parties, but at least the base tennets of the other parties are not hatred and exclusion. [/quote]

That is patently false. Labour absolutely hates white people, they hate Christians, they hate Jews, they hate men, they hate women, they hate homosexuals, they hate success, they have promoted policies of discrimination based upon race, gender, religion, economic status.

No party in Britain is more hateful and exclusionary than Labour.

437

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:

The US congress has it’s own cable channel Cspan. Every week on Cspan they broadcast Prime Ministers questions. They have also broadcasted PM’s Q on PBS. They have done this for years I have been watching it since John Major was PM.

I have had an internet connection since 96 that I have been able to get online news from. Most news sources in Britain leave much to be desired. I read the BBC for years till their political biases became too much to ignore.

Well you have no excuse then!

You are living in your own dream world of wishful thinking. The election of two MEP’s was a watershed. The most likely result is that people are going to see that all the dire doom and gloom predictions by the old gang parties do not happen. Then at the next election the millions of voters who sat on the fence and did not vote for the old gang or anyone else decide to support the BNP.

Before the June elections all the old gang parties made a unified appeal to the voters that it is us against the BNP. The low voter turn out means that millions sat on the fence in an election between the old gang and the BNP. You are not facing the reality that the low voter turnout means that millions of voters could not be motivated to vote for the old gang in order to stop the BNP.

Not voting is a vote! It is a vote of NO confidence. Face it Cock the old gang are damaged goods. They have had decades of power where they have taken their position for granted while repeatedly screwing the people. They have decades of damage to overcome to win back voters. What they need to do to win back voters they have no credibility on. In the time that Labour has been in power Britain has taken in more immigrants than America did during 1890-1900. Labour credibility on immigration is nonexistant and Tory credibility is dodgey at best.

If you actually had any depth of knowledge you would know that everyone said exactly the same when the BNP got a a couple of local councillors elected a few years back. Again there was a big outcry, a higher turnout at the next election and the BNP got spanked. Same will happen again.

A few years back? If you actually had any depth of knowledge you would know that things have changed in the last few years. It was only two years ago the muslims blew up the London Underground and it was only last year that they had failed bombings on nightclubs and the Glasgow airport.

It has only been a year since the economy collapsed under the weight of mass immigration and government incompetence. Only a blind fool like you can’t see that the ground has shifted underneath the political establishment. The old gang have made a complete mess of the country and they have nothing to offer but more of the same.

The BNP is the ultimate protest vote for a people who have been bullied and thretened into silence by political correctness that devalues and degrades them.

Especially if stories like senior members of the BNP making up lies about murders by minorities as propeganda continue to come out.

Dream on jerky boy. There is no way that mistakenly saying two stabbing victims are dead when they are still on life support comes close to MP’s claiming millions bogus expenses and lining their pockets while at the same time denying the Army and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan decent body armour because there is no money for it.

If you think that the man who filed the police complaint that led to the police investigation of MP’s expenses, getting his facts slightly wrong in a video blog, is worse than a millionaire like David Cameron, using taxpayer money to clear Wysteria off of his mansion while Marines are coming home in body bags because they had inferior body armour you are badly mistaken.

Here is a prediction for you. The dead Marines inferior body armour/MP’s expenses scandal is not over yet and there might be a day of reckoning come the next election.

The BNP have always used hype, lies and propeganda to try to swell up outrage. People like Nick Griffen have far too many skeletons in their closet to ever really get anywhere.

More pots and kettles from Cock. Noone has used hype and lies more than Labour. People have died as a result. Dave Cameron misappropriated tax payer money to clean wysteria off of the chimney of his mansion while troops in afghanistan were dying because they don’t have proper kit! 25 of the new prospective candidates for MP that the tory’s will run in the next election have since their selection taken on jobs as lobbyists! The BNP has nothing like that on it’s record.

Of course there is political corruption in all parties, but at least the base tennets of the other parties are not hatred and exclusion.

That is patently false. Labour absolutely hates white people, they hate Christians, they hate Jews, they hate men, they hate women, they hate homosexuals, they hate success, they have promoted policies of discrimination based upon race, gender, religion, economic status.

No party in Britain is more hateful and exclusionary than Labour. [/quote]

OK, lets play another fun game of Sifu Fact Check!

according to Sifu, the July 7, 2005 bombings were 2 years ago. (I remember them well, I was on the tube at the time it happened, as were my wife and father.)

According to Sifu the 30 June, 2007 Glasgow Airport bombing was 1 year ago. The nightclub attempted bombings happened the same week incidentally.

Next you blame a global recession on UK immigration policy, might need some economics majors to help explain that one to Sifu.

One thing that you do get right is that the BNP is a protest vote, but that is kind of the point, you don’t actually want the protest vote guys to get in, you just want the other guys to change things up a bit.

Incidentally, in case you didn’t know. Cameron is not part of the Labour party. Just from your post, you seem to think that he is.

438

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
They are 10 of 27 amendments to the constitution. Other amendments have subsequently been overridden so there is nothing legally to stop any of the first 10 from being.

You do not know what you are talking about. Prohibition is the only amendment that has ever been repealed. To implement new amendments can be a very difficult process. ie The Twenty seventh amendment took 202 years from the time it was submitted till it was ratified. The other way is it would take a constitutional convention (which hasn’t happened in centuries) to change all of them at the same time.

There is a precedent and there is a process to amend the constitution or repeal amendments. It is possible, that is all I have said.[/quote]

No you wrote “Other amendments have subsequently been overridden” only one amendment has ever been repealed. While it is possible that any of the bill of rights amendments could be repealed there is a strong mentality to treat the bill of rights as sacrosanct.

439

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
They are 10 of 27 amendments to the constitution. Other amendments have subsequently been overridden so there is nothing legally to stop any of the first 10 from being.

You do not know what you are talking about. Prohibition is the only amendment that has ever been repealed. To implement new amendments can be a very difficult process. ie The Twenty seventh amendment took 202 years from the time it was submitted till it was ratified. The other way is it would take a constitutional convention (which hasn’t happened in centuries) to change all of them at the same time.

There is a precedent and there is a process to amend the constitution or repeal amendments. It is possible, that is all I have said.

No you wrote “Other amendments have subsequently been overridden” only one amendment has ever been repealed. While it is possible that any of the bill of rights amendments could be repealed there is a strong mentality to treat the bill of rights as sacrosanct.[/quote]

Is it possible for things that are written in the constitution to be amended? Is it possible for amendments to be repealed or subsequently further amended?

Yes or no answer please Sifu?

440

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Of course it is the person weilding the firearm that is important, that is the entire point. The person should not be weilding the firearm unless they can show that they are adequately trained and capable.

A gun is not a complicated device. All you do is point and click. All you care about is creating different classes of people where some are an upper class who get to defend themselves while others are an underclass who can’t defend themselves. With the government deciding who is upper class and who is lower class.

So that would be your training that you would give a family member before they had a gun in their house? OK you point this end at anyone that you don’t like the look of, pull this and it goes bang.

Nothing about proper handling, nothing about maintainanance, nothing about target selection, nothing about controlling fear? Nothing about when to pull it, where to keep it, how to keep it?[/quote]

Actually I produced some self defense training videos for the family, so they understand how to respond properly.

Here I am with some Karate students…

and this is how we deal with someone looking at us on a nightclub dancefloor…