Britain First - Paul Golding

[agchristie]

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://www.britainfirst.org/video-britain-first-leader-paul-golding-speaks-essex-court-today/

[jackthehat]

Surely the point is that the self-designed insignia on the 'uniform' contains elements that have been used without the requisite permissions?

That is where these charges have arisen rather than from the look/style of the 'uniform' itself.

[mikey4444]

Ellipsis...well said at 23:59...lots of common sense there but why is it so difficult for others to see this ? They seem to have been taken in, hook line and sinker !

[THECORBYLOON]

The fact that a prosecution has not taken place for some decades does not mean one is not appropriate now. Various members of paramilitary groups wear or wore uniforms but it may have been more appropriate to prosecute under anti - terrorism acts rather than the 1936 Public Order Act. It is odd that there are several images of BF members wearing very similar clothing including a flat cap.

They are also in bother because they are using a crown on their merchandise and I notice their emblem on their website is different in that the leaves and crown are missing.

[Ellipsis]

> Information about the 'outed' guy's background is available on the web but his address wasn't in the public domain. BF tracked him down and Golding stated, as said before, he was acting in the public interest. He states he went without seeking to cause harassment and was surprised to be arrested.

Nobody should be surprised to be arrested when behaving like a vigilante.

[mushroom25]

mikey, the best part of ellipsis' post of last night was the mis-spelling of facebook.

whether deliberate or not, it's summed up social media perfectly.

[slaney]

The 1936 Public Order Act does not apply to Northern Ireland apparently...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_1936

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/6

[agchristie]

JTH

The BF have conducted a considerable amount of campaigns since their existence where some activists wear their own attire. Why only now does someone face prosecution under the legislation?

Complaints have been raised concerning the insignia but it has not been declared illegal.

TCL

Yes, the legislation still exists but the above applies.

[mikey4444]

agchristie....

If I have read your post of 21:22 last night correctly, then the population of Medway would appear to be 2% Muslim, so I am at a loss to understand why the other 98% of residents feel so threatened by such a tiny amount of people who are not the same as them. I ask the question again.....if this 2% were mostly white, rather than mostly non-white, would there be so much opposition to a new place of worship being opened ?

[agchristie]

Mikey,

It's not that simple. There are five mosques in the Medway district including one a very short distance from the proposed site. There are a number of concerns including serious parking congestion for residents and commuters.

Many do believe the inequalities of Islam are outweighing the inequalities of Britain and that simply there is no need for another mosque.

[mushroom25]

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 squeeze on commuters will cause a huge increase in side-street parking with all its attendant difficulties of access for residents, emergency services, etc.

that this particular building project is a mosque is irrelevant, it could have been a church, a cinema, or anything. the fact is that it's a planning blunder by kent council. you don't suppose that this is what the locals are objecting to?

[agchristie]

Mush, give yourself a pat on the back. Well expanded.

[-Talbot-]

You can do your bit here, mikey.


http://www.kmwa.org.uk/donate.html

[agchristie]

Talbot, Ive no answer how your post has gone into Best Answer!

It seems to happen from time to time!

[agchristie]

Talbot, as interesting as your reply was I have to amend!

Mush, the honour is yours!

[THECORBYLOON]

MUSHROOM, do you honestly believe the BF would be fielding a candidate if a cinema were being proposed? Have you not read her election leaflet?

[-Talbot-]

Forget BF.

More than 50 letters were sent to Medway Council from people opposing the development. Commuters who use the council-run car park are angry about the loss of spaces, while residents are worried about cars being parked outside their homes.

Despite objections, council officers recommended approval but councillors have delayed a decision because members of the planning committee echoed residents’ concerns.

Medway Council said further negotiations will take place before a decision is made.

[THECORBYLOON]

Fifty letters? That means that not even all the regular users of the parking places have complained and fifty is a very small percentage of those whom others say will be affected.

[-Talbot-]

a decision because members of the planning committee echoed residents’ concerns.

[mushroom25]

TCL, it may be the case that BF have seized on an already contentious local issue and overlaid it with their own agenda. that would be reprehensible, as would any move by the chatterati to play the race card in what is essentially a local planning dispute.

[agchristie]

TCL

That pre-supposes all objections were made by that medium. There were emails, phone calls, meetings etc. I can assure you that the depth of ill feeling runs far deeper.