Happ Hazzard Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 It was a figure of speech. A colloquialism if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Trust the Daily Mail to remind us the true meaning of incitement to racial violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Trust the Daily Mail to remind us the true meaning of incitement to racial violence. As opposed to the extremist Muslim group that put the poster out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members WWFChilli Posted December 23, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted December 23, 2010 Â "Allllllllllll the muslims... So many muslimssss" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 (edited) Trust the Daily Mail to remind us the true meaning of incitement to racial violence. As opposed to the extremist Muslim group that put the poster out? Taken from the article. Mr Rumaysah, who said his campaign was not linked to any group Although he does refer to it as "Our message, our campaign" etc  EDIT - This is my favourite bit.  Sister Christine Frost, founder of the East London Neighbours in Poplar charity, said: 'The more posters I saw, the more angry I got. 'Someone is stirring hatred which leaves the road open to revenge attacks or petrol bombs through letter-boxes.  'I told the Mayor we are all scared.  'If we said such things about Muslims, we'd all be hanging from lamp-posts. Yes, yes they are stirring hatred. Edited December 23, 2010 by Keith Houchen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Ford Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 If you were to swipe some of the text from that xmasisevil.com website, and stick it on the BNP website, no-one would notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Trust the Daily Mail to remind us the true meaning of incitement to racial violence. As opposed to the extremist Muslim group that put the poster out? Â *sigh* Â So one guy prints a few leaflets and hands them out - potential audience maybe a few dozen. Â The Daily Mail prints sticks it on their website (and presumably in their paper), therefore increasing the audience for the leaflet by some millions. Who's shit stirring the most? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Just seen the verdict in the Tommy Sheridan case  So David, you were saying? *whistles* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvertedSmiley Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 (edited) The verdict was barely announced and the News of the World were running adverts for an 18-page pullout on Tommy Sheridan on Sunday. Â Scum. Â Many of those witnesses who gave evidence during the perjury trial gave quite contrasting evidence in the original libel trial. Wonder if the Crown will be charging them with perjury? Edited December 23, 2010 by InvertedSmiley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted December 23, 2010 Author Share Posted December 23, 2010 Just seen the verdict in the Tommy Sheridan case So David, you were saying? *whistles* You're right.  Being found guilty in court is a definite sign of guilt.  Nothing to do with the Crown office being under incredible pressure to get a result because of the money spent on the case.  As for your point there InvertedSmiley, you're 100% bang on the money. Those witnesses won't be charged because they aren't Tommy Sheridan. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 You're right. Being found guilty in court is a definite sign of guilt.  Nothing to do with the Crown office being under incredible pressure to get a result because of the money spent on the case.   Er, what now? I said, you were saying?  Are you now saying that the courts are corrupt because he has been charged, convicted by a jury and will likely be to prison for a few years?  Shouldn't you be posting in the conspiracy thread if that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoghurt Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 (edited) You're right. Being found guilty in court is a definite sign of guilt.  Nothing to do with the Crown office being under incredible pressure to get a result because of the money spent on the case.   Er, what now? I said, you were saying?  Are you now saying that the courts are corrupt because he has been charged, convicted by a jury and will likely be to prison for a few years?  Shouldn't you be posting in the conspiracy thread if that's the case.  It's a never-ending loop, he's a socialist, or a fascist depending which month and like all conspiracy theorists it's never enough, it's always the capitalist man or some utter drivel.  Edit - The direct comparison was intentional for obvious reasons. Those reasons are very obvious. And you know what they are so dancing round the ignorance tree will be ignored. Edited December 23, 2010 by Yoghurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Ford Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Just seen the verdict in the Tommy Sheridan case So David, you were saying? *whistles* You're right.  Being found guilty in court is a definite sign of guilt. You undermine any further point you wish to make right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvertedSmiley Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Just seen the verdict in the Tommy Sheridan case So David, you were saying? *whistles* You're right.  Being found guilty in court is a definite sign of guilt. You undermine any further point you wish to make right there. Plenty of people have been found guilty of a crime in court only to have the verdict over-turned at a later date.  It's interesting that the charges against Sheridan were dwindling as the weeks went by. I think that by the close of procedings they were down to around 4 out of the original 19.  Are you now saying that the courts are corrupt because he has been charged, convicted by a jury and will likely be to prison for a few years? Shouldn't you be posting in the conspiracy thread if that's the case. Tommy's the first person is Scottish legal history to be convicted of perjury. I for one wont be holding my breath waiting for the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Ford Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Agreed. However, there are plenty more that have been found guilty and are just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts