[Closed] Only in Britain...

this makes me smile. there is some hope for the world.

Well done to the badger ladies.

BNP candidate Clifford Le May was left with a bloody nose after being caught up in a rival enclave of human rights activists.

Ahh, that would be the human right to be smash someone in the face if they don't agree with you then.

( I'm not saying he wasn't deserving of a bit of a kicking, just don't sit up on high and claim noble intentions )

That head line made this families day

Ahh, that would be the human right to be smash someone in the face if they don't agree with you then.

Because you know for a fact that Clifford Le May was acting perfectly peacefully ?

And that he wouldn't desperately milk a tiny scratch on the nose for all its political worth ?

[img] [/img]

Clifford Le May is local to me and has publicly supported "the right of free speech" of Emma West who's drunken racist tirade on a Croydon tram was posted on YouTube and went viral.

[url= http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/tram-woman-sobs-bnp-gets-busy.html ]"Tram Woman" sobs, BNP gets busy[/url]

And Clifford Le May has a history of accusing any non-white of violence. Quote :

[i] "Stop ruining our community by stuffing New Addington with violent immigrants who have no right to live among decent civilised white people."[/i]

And

[i]"I can recount hundreds of incidents – 99 per cent of all violent crime will be at the hands of black youths.

Everywhere I go I see violent young black men and women".[/i]

[url= http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Croydon-BNP-election-candidate-investigated-immigrants-rant/story-11367360-detail/story.html#axzz2V3syUu00 ]Croydon BNP election candidate investigated over immigrants rant[/url]

Although as the first link shows Clifford Le May doesn't mind, despite his apparent horror of violence, knocking around with another BNP member who has a conviction for assaulting two women.

cranberry - Member

( I'm not saying he wasn't deserving of a bit of a kicking, just don't sit up on high and claim noble intentions )

There's a difference between noble intentions and noble methods. Sometimes it's "by any means necessary", sometimes it's "the ends justify the means", sometimes it's "the only language they understand" But there is a point where peaceful opposition to hatred isn't effective.

what the last two said and awesome headline

Northwind - Member
But there is a point where peaceful opposition to hatred isn't effective.

[b]Which is where the law steps in[/b], not where anyone resorts to violence or becoming vigilantes. Irrespective of which end of any extreme spectrum of views the hatred comes from, the mature and civil society knows how to respond. There is no need to debase ourselves however repugnant the cause IMO.

Tolerance cannot only be applied to suit the views that we/you/one may support. That is the cost of free speech.

I wish someone would shoot all of the *&!£s with a muslamic ray gun, never mind a little tap to his nose.

I would be very happy if they all got a very good kicking. There is no reasoning with these people and they only understand one thing.

"If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot Fascists"

Would the rise of the nazis have been better served by a more concentrated a pamphlet campaign?
Were black civil rights protestors direct actions utterly wrong and debased them and their cause - perhaps the suffragettes?

Was the ANC morally bankrupt by its campaign against apartheid and it should have relied on the law for recompense?

You seem to think that the EDL share your [ our] middle class sensibilities and will be persuaded by the force of our reasonable arguments

Why not go to one of their meetings [ they do look a firendly rational bunch tbh]and let us know how that worked out for you- I am sure you will find it a hotbed of tolerance as they politely listen to your ideas and rebut your points with carefully grafted points.

I dont disagree with what you say in general but but it is very naive to think that it will work will all groups and in all situations

Tolerance cannot only be applied to suit the views that we/you/one may support. That is the cost of free speech.

But there is a point where peaceful opposition to hatred isn't effective.

Were black civil rights protestors direct actions utterly wrong and debased them and their cause - perhaps the suffragettes?

Both of them were (largely) non-violent. AFAIK the UK is still democratic enough that non-violent action should be sufficient.

I have very little desire to attend an BNP meeting and seriously doubt whether their more strident, indeed any, supporters would respond to moderate debate. But that doesn't mean that I would advocate violent reaction towards any of their members or indeed restrict their freedoms to articulate (sic) their views, however unpleasant. I would prefer to let the law deal with when they step beyond acceptable boundaries.

You may call it naivety, but I would merely prefer an opposition to the logical extreme which is anarchy and vigillanteeism IMO.

Good question re the ANC. Mandela's own approach went non-violent => accepting violence => rejecting violence. One can debate which period was the most successful.

they were largely non violent I agree but not totally-

Re Black civil rights - it really depended on the arm - Martin Luther King was the Black Panthers much less so

Same for Suffragettes

In broad terms you are probably correct and i could have picked better examples

Is this still being derailed by Clifford Le May because he got a scratch on the bridge of his nose, and instead of wiping it with a hankie he spread and smeared the blood over his nose and fingers and then stood posing in front of the cameras ?

No one knows what happened.

After all he claims "I'm not a racist", and yet he also says "Stop ruining our community by stuffing New Addington with violent immigrants who have no right to live among decent civilised white people." Which is racism by anyone's definition of the term.

So he's a liar as well as a racist, hardly a person who can be trusted to tell the truth.

In this picture it clearly looks like he's being manhandled by the police. Perhaps the police accidentally scratched the bridge of his nose ?

[img] ?5[/img]

Although it could be something as simple as him walking into a lamppost - he certainly looks daft enough.

Anyway, a bit more back on topic - badger causalities in London earlier :

[img] [/img]

teamhurtmore - Member

Which is where the law steps in

I would like to believe so. But since the last unprovoked violence I saw on a demo was from the police, I can totally understand why people aren't prepared to stand around and wait to be defended.

A BNP / EDL march has been thwarted by an army of women dressed as badgers, led by Brian May from Queen.

Look at the URL though

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/473597/20130601/bnp-edl-hate-fascist-badgers.htm

Since when are badgers fascist and why would the EDL hate them? Really surprised badgers are fascist, after all they are mixed race.

Oh great, now for some reason I have that dam song in my head. Badger mushrooms 😀

Would the rise of the nazis have been better served by a more concentrated a pamphlet campaign?

Have you just compared a handful of not very bright hooligans, blaming their own inadequacies on others, who were outwitted by women in badger costumes with the might of Germany's industry and people focused on a single plan ?

( and you didn't even have the good grace to put <Godwin></Godwin> tags round your post )

Junkyard - lazarus
...and i could have picked better examples

Not so. They are very good examples and highlight the challenge that we always face when trying to decide what is the right thing to do. This is the core of centuries of debate for which no one has found a single answer. I guess in this case, we are illustrating the classic consequential v categorical debate.

So in this case, I am favouring the categorical stance ie, respect freedom of speech, the law and non-violent responses. But you challenge this fairly with some examples where it is possible to argue that the ends justify the means. Fair response. So let's keep the very same starting points and take the case of a prisoner held in custody somewhere - he is believed to have direct knowledge of a terrorist plot that could endanger thousands of people including your friends and family. The only way to stop the loss of innocent lives is to torture him/her. What would you recommend? Do you remain a consequentialist? Would the means justify the ends, or would you actually stick by a more categorical view that torture is wrong? Perhaps both our positions might change completely, who knows!

take the case of a prisoner held in custody somewhere - he is believed to have direct knowledge of a terrorist plot that could endanger thousands of people including your friends and family. The only way to stop the loss of innocent lives is to torture him/her. What would you recommend?

Setting the badgers on him.

he is believed

Good evidence is hardly ever procured by torture.

EDIT: Or this... 😆

Setting the badgers on him.

I wouldn't stop with the Badgers, I'd go straight for the Wolverines. Or possibly Honey Badgers. 😆

I'm struggling to take it seriously after ernie suggested setting the badgers on the prisoner.

When my Mrs tortures me I sing like a canary

You crossed a line with the Honey Badger. That would be extreme torture. There would also be the risk that the Honey Badger would just kill him.

Honey Badger don't give a s##t

Some of them do...

[img] [/img]

Ernie, that's a top answer! 😉

Le May? Sounds a bit French.

A badger did that to his face...!!!
Imagine if it were a child...

Its a good job they never clashed with the swan protestors, he'd be nursing a broken arm.

A badger did that to his face...!!!
Imagine if it were a child...

Wouldn't catch me messing with a badger

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

And as an 'awwww' post, can we have some Badger cubs?
[img] [/img]

and you didn't even have the good grace to put <Godwin></Godwin> tags round your post

THM the prisoners dilemma is interesting and I believe that most people would torture if they knew it would definitely result in some good - I do like utilitarianism. I may kill a bomber before they do something if I knew it would save lives - i could have used a Goodwin there 😉 . However the certainty is so absolute that it does not transfers well to the real world tbh so i is not a great thought experiment IMHO
We would have no idea what torture would achieve so I would not do it as i dont believe it actually works.

It's proper Brass Eye 😀 Today, the twisted brain wrong of ALP/HAB/ET fascists were chased by women in BADGER HEADS shouting "Where's your self re-cocking-spect?".

in other news.. From the moon, Cowsick's a little dot. From the ground, it's a huge mess! Like Dante meets Bosch in a crack lounge!