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/

[agchristie]

Ellipsis

You have referred to 'leniency' as an explanation but 'vigilanteism' as you put it is not a justification for adding another supposed offence.

TCL

Please check the web in relation to Golding's arrest and then wikipedia for the outed guys background.

[Ellipsis]

The offence exists.

He allegedly committed it.

They charged him for it.

What more do you need to know? Why they never charged him for it before?

I would guess it's because, before, he didn't unearth an address that was known to the authorities and not released to the general public, dress up in uniform, go to that address and harass the occupants at that address, rather than let the appropriate legal agencies handle it.

Once he did that, they threw the book at him and charged him with everything they possibly could - including the uniform offence.

[agchristie]

Ellipsis

Going round in circles here, I'm saying simply, he wore the clothing before and wasn't charged, now he has been - inconsistent!

[Ellipsis]

Inconsistent? Doesn't it matter that he (allegedly) broke the law? Is all that matters that he'd gotten away with it before so he should have been allowed to get away with it again? And for not letting him, you call the authorities "vindictive"?

I don't even know whether wearing a uniform on a march is against the law. Maybe it isn't, which would explain the apparent inconsistency. What does appear to be against the law is wearing a uniform while behaving like a vigilante.

[agchristie]

Ellipsis

If for example someone commits five serious assaults say, you would expect charges or do you wait for a sixth that results in murder?

[agchristie]

TCL

Might I enquire how the research is going or have you perhaps now thrown in the towel?

You asked a very good question, almost deserving of a BA itself.

[FrogNog]

I would wait for the police to deal with it AG.
Shall I get a gang round your house to shout you down, while wearing a uniform?
That wouldn't be wrong or scary at all would it?
You are deliberately missing the point IMO

[agchristie]

Frognog

I'm not deliberately missing any point. I'm trying hard to see the reasoning. Why would you send someone round to visit me? I haven't got links to a terrorist group.

Of course, we can always rely on the law to protect us because 7\7 never happened did it?

[FrogNog]

Seriously? You really don't get what is wrong with this tactic?
I despair.

[agchristie]

Frognog

What tactics?

Residents of the place in Essex were very grateful for alerting them.

[Ellipsis]

Were they really agchristie? All of them? Do you have any evidence of that?

Because if I lived there, I don't think I'd sleep safer in my bed knowing that vigilantes were ignoring the authorities and stirring up trouble in my area ...

[agchristie]

Ellipsis

BF leadership confirmed that a number of residents had come forward to express their thanks.

DB

Just wondered. Thanks for that, good post.

[Ellipsis]

Sorry agchristie, but that's not really evidence is it?

> My own view on why he is being charged (with anything) is that "the authorities" in this country have always deplored people who act in any way above the law (look how judges always come down hard on what they see as contempt)

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[agchristie]

Ellipsis

I have resisted the urge to include a BF weblink which confirms it (though Im sure you would question the validity).

I know who I consider to be 'deplorable', the people who wish to wreak terror in this country.

[Ellipsis]

Agreed they are deplorable, but they are not the only ones. I like the rule of law, so naturally I abhor both terrorism and vigilantism.

[agchristie]

Ellipsis

I must end here for now. Goodnight.

[agchristie]

Ellipsis

If an outfit is deemed as a political uniform it must be illegal in marches, protests and demonstrations.

All the clothing is available online so does that also mean that anyone seen wearing it in public is breaking the law?

Off to work now, will pick up later.

[Ellipsis]

> All the clothing is available online

That's good to know, thanks. I can't think why you wrote that though, as you're not a BF supporter and the purpose of this thread is not to promote BF, its website and their clothing. And the reason you keep asking the same question over and over again isn't because you want to prolong the thread and keep it in Latest Posts for the propaganda value it offers ...

[agchristie]

Ellipsis,

The reason I mentioned the merchandise was purely because if anybody can buy and wear it in public they must be guilty too!

You really must drop these allegations of propaganda and promotion. The needle is stuck on the record. You are ploughing a lone furrow here not to mention playing your part in extending this thread...