B.
Now, as it happens, I've attended a few of the demos where these kind of offending placards have been displayed and, yes, it's always limited to a handful of demonstrators who operate outside of the mass of far more pleasant protestors (who occasionally offer to share their packed lunches with white infidels such as myself - I recommend the samosas) and, yes, the press photographers do spurn taking representative images and prefer to cluster around the half a dozen rent-a-fanatics like flies around shit
And if your answer to the Spot the Difference Challenge was something like 'at least the BNP would pull the UK out of Iraq and Afghanistan', help yourself to a sweetie from the jar at the front of the room
.
14 comments:
Who is this chap to my left? He looks to be of Welsh stock.
I think it's David Shayler
No, scratch that, Shayler used to work for the intelligence services
... the BNP wouldn't stand for any of that
Oh yes?
ummmmmmmmaybe
Just watched BBC news (not yet on i-player).
Top story was about one of the x-members of the nasty party - Phil Woolas.
They rented an expert who said something along the lines of,
"Well, this will really affect politics 'cos what is said in the hurly-burly of the street may have to be justified in a special election court."
Yeah, right. These posters were just knocked up during the hurly burly on the street.
Don't you just get sick of being lied to?
What was Stef's phrase? It's only subliminal if you don't notice it?
Lying shits.
Anyway, here's a link to the court case (here), check out the hurly-burly.
That's one of The Antagonist's catch phrases
But lots of other people rip off stuff from J7 researchers so it's fair game afaic
More of that anon
For all the lawbores who read the blog, head-of-legal has posted some comments here.
He draws on the irony that this is the week when prisoners get the vote, yet Phil Woolas, too nasty for the nasty party, is not allowed to vote for three years.
Wanker.
The Court case is worthy of some serious study. For example, at paragraph 42 we have,
"Thus section 106 is directed at protecting the right of the electorate to express its choice at an election, which right is protected by Article 3 of the First Protocol. Section 106 seeks to ensure that the electorate expresses its opinion in the choice of the legislature on the basis of facts and competing policy arguments rather than on false assertions as to the personal character or conduct of the candidates."
So, when we have grubby propagandists peddling lies and nonsense, they're breaching article 3 of the first protocol.
Art 3 of the first protocol reads,
"The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature."
My highlighting. How can you have a free expression of opinion if said opinion is based upon lies peddled by others?
woolass. 'nuff said.
I'm a gold bug, cos God prescribed it for me (and you too by the way).
But some crafty sh*t's making a lot from similar beliefs of others...
http://www.islamicmint.com/news_articles/news/tonsofgold.html
I dunno how, but I just found out about this today!
Roshonara Choudhry
"The chaotic scenes unfolded as Home Secretary Theresa May dramatically revealed that the Al Qaeda gang behind last week’s ‘Lockerbie-style’ cargo plane bomb plot are already working in the UK.
Well then Theresa you geriatric home escapee, your an accessory to whatever crime they are supposed to do if they are here and you do nowt about it.
http://tinyurl.com/2b6gzze
(warning horrible daily mail page)
Typical, coming here and taking our jobs
I'm not sure when the party is supposed to start in earnest
but a lot of effort is clearly being put into the catering
Post a Comment