To be upset that there are 3 Ukip posters up in houses down my road :(

[LEMmingaround]

It is a pretty working class street, some council, some privately owned houses. Not sure if that is relevant but WHY the fuck would you advertise the fact that you are a fuckwit? All of the people with the notices up are older people - older than me, which is 43 (im not older!!!! - ok, maybe a bit).

Its pretty worrying really that what i would normally see as very respectable folk have been sucked in by this bullshit?

This is a conservative ward, and although dissilussioned with the previous gov i have always voted labour - i am going to have to vote bloody tory in a half beat effort to keep Ukip out of the area :(

My DD lives in a town with a ukip counsellor - its fucking dire and getting worse :(

[Martorana]

What MrsBlackthorn said.

There is a difference between criticising and being gratuitously offensive.

[sundaypolitics26]

Martorana - that piece is obviously offensive, but like I've said before quoting it does not in itself constitute a crime. And nor should it. He knew his choice of text, it coming from a former wartime hero would create an uproar. I would rather live in a society that allows people to speak out against a religion than one that condemns individuals and stifles controversial protests.

Mrs Blackthorn - "Anti-Muslim" as you just referred to it is not anti-Islam, which is what this piece is. The distinction is vitally important. It could be construed as inciting hatred against a person for their religion without understanding this crucial point which is what the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 covers.

[MrsBlackthorn]

For the purposes of the act, anti-Islam and anti-Muslim are precisely the same thing. Linguistically, and legally, could you define what you mean by each? Because case law defines a (or some) Muslim(s) and adherents to Islam as the same.

How, and why, are you defining between the two? When they mean the same thing..:

[MrsBlackthorn]

For comparison, this is essentially the same as saying "oh no, I'm not anti-Feinian, just anti-Catholic..."

[BeyondRepair]

more anti UKIP DAily Mail articles....

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629265/Ukip-caught-taking-advantage-European-single-market-print-anti-EU-election-leaflets-GERMANY.html

Nigel Farage dragged into fresh hypocrisy row over EU flyers gaffe
Comes after Latvians were used to hand out anti-immigration leaflets
Ukip leader was also criticised for employing German wife as secretary
Lib Dems say they are happy to see party using European single marke

[BeyondRepair]

Oh and another....

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629502/The-street-looks-like-Helmand-Province-Ukip-candidate-claims-Islam-against-modern-Britain-stands-for.html

[sundaypolitics26]

I would have thought it is quite clear, Islam being the religion and cultural beliefs whilst a Muslim being a follower of the religion and those customs.

The meaning of “religious hatred” according to the act is a 'hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief'.

If you read the passage not once does it refer to individuals (ie a group of persons) critically. The criticism is wholly directed towards the religion and its effect on society.

This is crucial because there is a section within the act that states you have the freedom to express criticism of a religious belief. Hatred is defined as something other than the expression of contempt, dislike, criticism, ridicule, insult or even abuse of another’s religious beliefs.

www.36bedfordrow.co.uk/cmsfiles/The-Barrister---Amjad-Malik-QC.pdf

[sundaypolitics26]

To quote the QC - "A speech that attacks Christian beliefs or Hinduism is legitimate religious debate. A speech that incites people to physically attack or threaten violence against Christians or Hindus is not. The Act protects people, not their religious tenets, beliefs or practices."

No crime has been committed

[Martorana]

I don't agree with you. I think that the passage would give the racist knuckle draggers ammunition to escalate their attacks. Particularly as it was Churchill who said it.

But even if I did, why on earth would anyone want to vote for, or in any way associate themselves with somebody who was prepared to be so incredibly rude? Just because you think you have a right to read out such offensive rubbish, anyone with any decency would no do so.

[sundaypolitics26]

Martorana - You don't agree with the QC then? The speech in no way 'incites people to physically attack or threaten violence against Muslims'. It may incite further criticism but that is not a criminal offence.

It is not about associating with incredibly rude people, it is about protecting free speech, no matter how offensive providing it is within the law.

[Martorana]

We don't yet know whether Mr Weston's shoddy little stunt will be classed as incitement to racial or religious hatred- it goes to court later this month, doesn't it?

I think it most definitely is, considering the context. We'll see what the court says.

[Deverethemuzzler]

I heard NF on Radio 4 yesterday.
He was being asked about the resignation of Sanya-Jeet Thandi.

He blustered a fair bit then said (not verbatim, my memory is not that good) 'I don't know, she MAY have been intimidated into leaving, I can't say'

That sums the man up. The way he says things that are not true or have nothing to back them up but once they are said, they can't be unsaid.

Their proof that they are not a racist party is that they have a few members who are not white/uk. One leaves and cites her reasons very clearly and he makes a serious accusation on national radio and gets away with it!

But people go on about a bias against UKIP

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

I hadn't heard about that resignation, deverethemuzzler, cheers.

'Thandi added: "Ukip is exploiting the stupidity of ignorant anti-immigrant voters for electoral gain. While the party deliberately attracts the racist vote, I refuse to be associated with them."'

Well, it took her long enough to notice, but better late than never I suppose..?

[MrsBlackthorn]

"No crime has been committed"

Well, clearly both the police and the CPS disagree, and feel there is a case to answer. As an atheist, I disagree with much of what religious people say, and can and do criticise them for doing so. But there is both a moral and legal difference between doing that, and inciting hatred of a racial or religious group. There is a legal standard for such, and is up to the jury to decide.

Reading today about Farage's car crash interview on LBC. After famously saying he "felt uncomfortable" because other people were speaking languages other than English on the train, it turns out that both his wife and children speak german to each other. Challenged on that, he said he "had a distinct feeling English was not the language of choice" for the other people on the train. Both presumptuous AND hypocritical.

THEN, when asked about comments he'd made about feeling uncomfortableness Romanians moved next door to him, and whether he'd feel the same if they were Germans, he replied that it was about "quality not quantity".

It would be funny if it weren't absolutely terrifying.

[Icimoi]

He simply cannot hide his fundamental, innate racism, can he?

[Martorana]

As I said, if no crime has been committed the case will be thrown out. Clearly both the police and the CPS think there is a case to answer but time will tell. That's British justice for you!

[mswibble]

I havent read the whole 29 pages but in reply to the OP, one of my new mates is always posting stuff about UKIP on Facebook and rightly or wrongly, it has completely altered my opinion of her. I dont advertise who I intend to vote for and I am judging her for who she will be voting for.