Proposed march through Wooton Bassett

[FrozenNorth]

Here

Initially saw this on the BBC but this link gives a bit more detail. I support everyone's right to free speech but ... dear goodness, this seems to be exceptionally bad taste. My DH is an army doctor and, during his time in a free Afgan clinic for civilians run by the army, saved many Afgan lives. He's going out there again in January. I can imagine I'd be incredibly distressed if he'd lost his life in the conflict and somebody wrote to me explaining what he'd 'really' died for. Ugh. Maybe it's just my personal bias, but I can't help feel that the proposed march is sited to cause maximum potential for violent conflict and to cause maximum hurt to those who are bereaved.

Speedy, I don't understand how you think that people who can say what they want, where they want and to whoever they want have had their freedom of speech curtailed.

Quimby, they can say it in WB if they want. Having a large demonstration in WB with empty coffins is entirely different to free speech in WB.

I'm sure you're right about the law on demonstrations, I don't know. This one should be modified to take place somewhere else.

"He has access to the national radio to express that perfectly legitimate view; he does not need to do it in a town where a tradition of reespectful public mourning of men and women killed in battle has developed."

But the same could be said of any major demonstration, they will have had press coverage and more likely than not have had access to national news outlets to express their views and as such why the need to march? I've said all along i disagree wholeheartedly with the march and honestly believe as most others do that it is a thinly veiled attempt to cause controversy, but they are breaking no laws or procedures and as such are afforded the same rights as any other march,protest or demonstration.

smallwhitecat: "The chap on the today programme said quite explicitly that the march was to mourn those murdered by the british in Afghanistan" - still 6's and 9's. Unless he explicitly said he was protesting against British soldiers, it is still about your interpretation. I take his words (from your quote) to mean the British government. As for his choice of location for the march - well, he's already said that was about seeking publicity. I've already said that I agree that the location of WB is wrong, but I still disagree with your interpretation of the purpose of the demonstration.

peacocks - huh? You're clearly saying that you would want to curtail their freedom of speech by banning the march. Anyway you've said you think the location is the issue, so perhaps that means you don't mind them having the right to protest as such, it's just where they do it that you're concerned about.

" but they are breaking no laws or procedures and as such are afforded the same rights as any other march,protest or demonstration."

The police could deny the march as they are being inflamatory, especially if they hold up the same kind of banners as on other demonstration ie; murders, baby killers, death to infidels etc.

The police are more than aware that if this march takes place in WB then the BNP and other groups will turn up to defend WB and the armed services from such an atrocity and I don't believe that the police will be able to control what happens next.

The Luton 7 were lucky to escape the wrath of the crowds gathered and to the best of my knowledge there were no or few BNP there, imagine how this will end.

atlantis, If this march goes ahead the BNP will be there, no doubt about that....and while I agree with MQ that the best way to deal with Islam4UK is to ignore them....

it just wont happen...

Has it received approval from the police?

I can't see it going ahead.

"I'm sure you're right about the law on demonstrations, I don't know. This one should be modified to take place somewhere else."

which is what I've said all along, that i thought the police should have banned or modified the march because it I believe it will become unpoliceable.But that once the police give the ok or say that they can police the march effectively it is entitled to the same protections under law as any other.

"The police could deny the march as they are being inflamatory,"
I'm not sure if being inflammatory is one of the accepted reasons to ban a march or demonstration because most protests and demonstrations will involve some issue which could be deemed inflammatory to someone by their very nature.

"I don't believe that the police will be able to control what happens next."
I'd agree with you and have said so repeatedly. I think such a demonstration has a high probability of getting out of hand and it is an unjustifiable risk to public order to allow the march in it's current guise and the route should be altered. However the mere fact that others ay show up and cause trouble is not a reason to ban a march otherwise all marches would be easily nullified by oppossing groups threatening to turn up and cause trouble. The police have a duty to protect the group from any agressors who try to derail a march and so the police would have to be satisfied that the level of violence and the escelation of trouble possible is one which they can control. If they are satisfied that, even though they are almost certain groups will show up and trouble may start,they can control this trouble then the march should take place.
However,if like you and I, they believe that the level of trouble is one which they could not control only then and then alone would they be jutified in modifying or banning the march.
And i doubt many law enforcement agencies would like to admit that controlling a certain situation or section of the public is beyond their control as they may feel it implies a deficiency in their professionalism.

Doesn't it come under the Public Order Act as it would be a large demonstration?

"Has it received approval from the police?

I can't see it going ahead."

Nor me. Part of me thinks that they view it as a win-win situation as even if they are banned or mederated then they can then wax lyrical at the hypocrisy and innate racism of the british gov. who won't let them mourn their dead in a similar fashion as british people are allowed.

"Doesn't it come under the Public Order Act as it would be a large demonstration?"
I'm not sure,as i said earlier my knowledge of the law is from an Irish standpoint so am not overly familiar with UK law.
If it were to come under the act what would be the relevant affects? are there any barriers to it or references to public decency or maybe a moral clause etc?

Hasn't been given approval yet..(as far as I know)

Doubt it will ever go ahead, ...but the fact that they even suggested it has done enough damage.

You're Irish MQ..?

smallwhitecat - there's nothing "charitable" about my interpretation, I assure you! I think your interpretation is "obvious" to you because you are predisposed to think that they are protesting against soldiers, not the government. Honestly, the interpretation which makes most sense to me (not least because I have heard Muslim extremists say this many times before) is that their complaint is against the British government. There's nothing you've said that proves that your interpretation is more likely than mine. Anyway let's not get caught up in pointless to-ing and fro-ing over this!

Am glad we agree, this shouldn't go ahead in WB.

No earthly reason why it should be allowed to. We agonise too much while others trample over sensitivities and gloat.

There's some vague idea that underneath it all people share the same ideals and that just isn't true. It's just something westerners like to think because they are imbued with western ideals of tolerance, sensitivity, altruism and can't imagine that other cultures don't necessarily share respect for individuals, free speech, freedom of religion and so on.

We've moved on as a nation -- someone said most people find the BNP offensive, and that's true, and a good thing. Why should we tolerate intolerance, when we've grown out of it?

It's been suggested that the BNP would be there to "defend" the soldiers.

But the BNP have themselves compared the military to Nazi War criminals with regards to Afghanistan. Prior to that they've also called the RAF murderers.

So if the BNP are there might they actually be standing alongside Islam4UK?

Now that would be interesting.....

Or is the BNP's point that the freedom for a UK citizen to call a soldier a Nazi War Criminal is dependant on them being of the "right" skin colour?

"You're Irish MQ..?"

I am indeed.

Shame they didn't hold the march today, really... Nobody would have been able to get into the town. If they had, nobody would have cared because everyone was busy with the snow. Or perhaps it could just have been a snowball fight between the Sharia lot and the BNP.

"Or perhaps it could just have been a snowball fight between the Sharia lot and the BNP"

I have to see this.

BP;

have linked the BNP policies..

here

read the foreign affairs policy.

Oh yes I'm aware of those policies, especially the ones that will give our daughters and homosexual children less rights than our generation enjoyed. There's nothing quite like pulling the ladder up after you and denying the same quality of life to the next generation. Unless of course you believe they should never have had those rights, in which case shouldn't you be in the kitchen right now?

I even know that they want to pull out of Afghanistan and NATO (and that last one demonstrates either the ignorance of the BNP or their willingness to utter meaningless sound bites).

However what's that got to do with them labelling soldiers as Nazi War Criminals and murderers?

Oddly enough Islam4UK want the troops out too, so that's another point in common!

Maybe I keep missing it...but where is the BNPs policy on women..?

can you link it to me please...

I presume that you know their web site....

Go and look at the white paper for the family, the general tone is quite shocking but in particular look at the bit about bringing in a "married man's tax allowance". There won't be one for women, so it will encourage the woman to stay at home rather than the man.

There's then some other bits about the removal of housing related benefits for single mothers, unless they were married and are widowed (so I guess that also applies if the husband ups and leaves them).

I don't think it's in that document but they've also spoken about removing the anonymity of rape victims.

If you're interested about what they would do to homosexuals well they want to stop civil partnerships and take away their right to adopt.

And this is just the stuff that they admit to during a time when they're moderating their language so as to not appear too extreme....

Oh and there's another similarity with Islam4UK, they both want to change our societies into something intolerant, sexist, racist and homophobic.

So it's not so much changing our society that's the issue, once again it's the colour of the skin of those who want to change society...

BP;

will you do me a favour, will you give me 10 minutes of your time...? I want you to read the BNPs policies and then come back and tell me everything they are saying is rubbish, and only thick idiots would agree with them....I want you to be completely honest with me....because when I read them I think they make perfect sense..

And re; your last post...

well, I actually agree with children being brought up within a marriage and I think women should stay at home with their dc...I think married couples should be given priority over single mothers on housing....because the way things are at the moment, you're rewared for being reckless.

Re; anonymity for rape victims....far too sensitive to discuss on here, but there are cases where women have totally ruined men by accusing them of rape, those accusations have been proved false...man is ruined in the majority of cases...

It can't be right that I could accuse a man of rape maybe just to hurt him, he is named and i'm not.