News1 min ago
Britain First - Paul Golding
455 Answers
Appears at court today but what of the charges he faces? The 'uniform' charge is bizarre to say the least. Short video in the link where Golding outlines the situation.
https:/
https:/
Answers
mikey, the mosque is being built on a car park adjacent to the station, which is a key commuting point for workers in London. as well as the loss of that facility, the local council has arranged a deal with the train company for the mosque to block-buy nearly 80 spaces in their own car park. thus aside from the disruption of the building work itself, the resultant...
10:57 Sun 09th Nov 2014
Whilst I wouldn't generally give the bloke the time of day, he does have a point.
I wonder how many prosecutions resulted from this?:
http://
I wonder how many prosecutions resulted from this?:
http://
Mr Golding appears to be making a fundamental mistake in assuming that his self-righteousness is a defence in law.
Exposing a ‘terrorist’ without apparent proof, certainly in terms of legal action, is simply vigilantism which leads to mob violence against potentially innocent people. Just because Mr Golding says someone is a terrorist does not make it a fact.
His comparison with none-prosecuted paedophiles is the classic defence of the hard-done-to – look at them they are worse than me!
That is perfectly true, but the none-prosecution of one crime does not mean that his crime should not be prosecuted, that is not how the law works. If it did, every thief would walk free because GBH thugs are walking free.
Mr Golding does appear to have a point about the ‘uniform’ prosecution – it will be interesting to see how that goes.
Exposing a ‘terrorist’ without apparent proof, certainly in terms of legal action, is simply vigilantism which leads to mob violence against potentially innocent people. Just because Mr Golding says someone is a terrorist does not make it a fact.
His comparison with none-prosecuted paedophiles is the classic defence of the hard-done-to – look at them they are worse than me!
That is perfectly true, but the none-prosecution of one crime does not mean that his crime should not be prosecuted, that is not how the law works. If it did, every thief would walk free because GBH thugs are walking free.
Mr Golding does appear to have a point about the ‘uniform’ prosecution – it will be interesting to see how that goes.
Exposing a ‘terrorist’ without apparent proof, certainly in terms of legal action, is simply vigilantism which leads to mob violence against potentially innocent people. Just because Mr Golding says someone is a terrorist does not make it a fact.
------------------
In that case, I would have to ask why he's not being prosecuted for slander/defamation of character as opposed to harrasment?
------------------
In that case, I would have to ask why he's not being prosecuted for slander/defamation of character as opposed to harrasment?
-- answer removed --
Naomi, exactly.
There has been a lot of rubbish reported about the thuggish behaviour by the BF on their marches and demonstrations. Look at Hexthorpe, S.Yorks and the locals whose lives are blighted by the asb and intimidation of Roma immigrants. The disrespect shown by an anti BF protestor in Dover towards an 80 yo woman who served in the Falklands. The march in Rotherham and the passionate speech by the impressive Jayda Fransen, deputy leader.
The march last weekend at Rochester was met with protestors, many who had their faces covered up, trying to block their progress unsuccessfully. Very strong public opinion here voicing disapproval over a mosque which has been given planning consent.
No arrests involving the BF and many activists without 'uniforms' displaying patriotism but many choose to deem it racism.
Ms Fransen is standing for the BF on the 20th where UKIP are set to rout the opposition in Rochester & Strood.
There has been a lot of rubbish reported about the thuggish behaviour by the BF on their marches and demonstrations. Look at Hexthorpe, S.Yorks and the locals whose lives are blighted by the asb and intimidation of Roma immigrants. The disrespect shown by an anti BF protestor in Dover towards an 80 yo woman who served in the Falklands. The march in Rotherham and the passionate speech by the impressive Jayda Fransen, deputy leader.
The march last weekend at Rochester was met with protestors, many who had their faces covered up, trying to block their progress unsuccessfully. Very strong public opinion here voicing disapproval over a mosque which has been given planning consent.
No arrests involving the BF and many activists without 'uniforms' displaying patriotism but many choose to deem it racism.
Ms Fransen is standing for the BF on the 20th where UKIP are set to rout the opposition in Rochester & Strood.
>>>I would have to ask why he's not being prosecuted for slander/defamation of character as opposed to harrasment?
Probably because you can't be prosecuted for slander/defamation! It's not a criminal offence and you can only sue someone for it if you've got an extremely large amount of money to spend on lawyers.
Probably because you can't be prosecuted for slander/defamation! It's not a criminal offence and you can only sue someone for it if you've got an extremely large amount of money to spend on lawyers.
Probably because you can't be prosecuted for slander/defamation! It's not a criminal offence and you can only sue someone for it if you've got an extremely large amount of money to spend on lawyers.
----------------------
So I guess the person he has supposedly 'outed' is not overly fussed at having their name linked to terrorism and the 7/7 bombings/false allegations of terrorist activity.
At a glance, it would appear that one person is being prosecuted to the full letter of the law and beyond whilst another is using it to their absolute advanatage in preserving anonymity.
Fair enough. I smell something fishy and I'm not talking about the contents of Baldrick's apple crumble, as Blackadder might say.
----------------------
So I guess the person he has supposedly 'outed' is not overly fussed at having their name linked to terrorism and the 7/7 bombings/false allegations of terrorist activity.
At a glance, it would appear that one person is being prosecuted to the full letter of the law and beyond whilst another is using it to their absolute advanatage in preserving anonymity.
Fair enough. I smell something fishy and I'm not talking about the contents of Baldrick's apple crumble, as Blackadder might say.
-- answer removed --
