Cherish right to speak out freely

“It is reported that Joy Garner reported this to the police, who in turn passed on the details to the CPS that prosecuted the BNP Leader. Everyone now seems to be asking if this was the correct action or if it was even legal and therefore, denying us freedom of speech? But what we should be asking ourselves, "Was this politically motivated by the Labour Party to high-light and give substance to Joy Garners application for the Police Commissioners position"?

If her main concern was for the resident that complained that action was taken, then why, when other residents complain about illegal acts attributed to our Councillors and those higher up the pay scale, "No action is taken"? Which throws into serious doubt her concerns for the people of this once great city.

I've high-lighted to our council and asked for action to be taken about a certain plot of land (Victoria Ground), to be investigated and action taken against those responsible regarding land theft. But because this land theft involves our council and their partners in crime St. Modwen Developments Ltd, I've had to revert to complaining to the Land Registry regarding the legality of the "First Registration". It is presently being investigated by their solicitors and hopefully, a response will be with me soon. Which in turn will be passed on to you the public to make your own decisions.

What's the betting then that Joy Garner and the rest of the manipulating oik' we call Councillors, digging a great big hole to bury their heads in and I bet a few Councillors of old will be joining them!

Hope this falls in the boundary's of "Free Speech". LOL”

“You have to weigh up Fegghayesman's argument.
We oppose Hitler because he was a killer of people.
We support Uncle Joe because he opposes Hitler(changed his mind).
Hitler loses, Uncle Joe wins and Uncle Joe then exterminates entire peoples.
Hitler must be stopped but Uncle Joe draws an iron curtain over most of Europe.

Please explain this anomoly.”

“Mole10 - I so wish you spoke the same version of English us mortals do. Using seven words where four will do doesn't make you sound clever mate!”

“You dismiss fegghayesman based on the official historical account of WW2.
If you accept that account, then you have grounds to prosecute that case, but if you begin to dismantle the official record, then dodgy ground appears.

I particularly like the bit about 'Chamberlain sitting down with Hitler and allowing him to take part of Czechoslovakia'.

Makes sense considering half the Government supported Hitler.”

“The phoney war had been over for a year. If anything Hess was (officially or otherwise) trying to remove GB from the war prior to the German invasion of USSR. As for what Fegghayesman says, I've rarely seen such a load of appologist tosh. So WW2 was our fault? Obviously when you calculated the potential number of deaths which our continuing the war caused, you weren't including Jews, Slavs, Gypsys, homosexuals and communists as they presumably don't count?”

“Is Fegghayes man right?

One of the biggest unanswered questions of WW2 is whether Britain (Churchill) actually did sit with the Nazis and begin discussions with them.
The phoney war period is most interesting.

Was Rudolph Hess sent on a mission of talks?
Did he land perfectly on a Scottish runway near a Dukes private airport?
Did Churchill meet him?
Many witnesses confirm that this went on.

The cover story is no meeting and the Hess plane crashed.

The secrecy is only legitimately held within war secrets and some have a 100 years worth of protection.

Protecting who from whom?”

“He sticks up for Hitler - then in the next breath denies being a nazi. Take mensa top ranking and go figure!”

“HAHA "should have talked to Hitler" unbelievable, So Great Britain went to war with Germany to 'protect Poland' and Hitler had no intentions of 'invading the UK' so we should have just sat back and done nothing as he attacked nation after nation murdering and enslaving millions as he went?

I suggest you go away and read a history book (try reading any book) I quote the man from the Fegg Hayes PONDerosa,

"instead of declaring war on Germany, Churchill should have sat and talked with Hitler"

REALLY? I dunno WHY the first lord of the Admiralty would (A) have been able to declare war on Germany (it was Neville Chamberlain, the prime minister, who declared war on Germany)
or (B) be "sitting down to talk with Hitler"
Churchill didn't become prime minister until 1940, here ya go,

"On the outbreak of the Second World War Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty and on 4th April 1940 became chairman of the Military Coordinating Committee. Later that month the German Army invaded and occupied Norway. The loss of Norway (a neutral country) was a considerable setback for Neville Chamberlain and his policies for dealing with Nazi Germany.
On 8th May the Labour Party demanded a debate on the Norwegian campaign and this turned into a vote of censure. At the end of the debate 30 Conservatives voted against Chamberlain and a further 60 abstained. Chamberlain now decided to resign and on 10th May, 1940, George VI appointed Churchill as prime minister.
Later that day the German Army began its Western Offensive and invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. (neutral countries) Two days later German forces entered France."
LINK- http://tinyurl.com/yondl8

MORE history and those nasty 'facts' for you sugar plumb,

September 1938 after the Munich agreement, Chamberlain (the PM) returned to the UK waving his piece of paper declaring "peace in our time" after "sitting down to talk with Hitler" and agreeing to let him take part of Czechoslovakia, with the promise that this would satisfy your hero's lust for land power and revenge,
Hitler soon broke the agreement in March 1939, taking all of Czechoslovakia.

This was AFTER He reoccupied the Rhineland, in 1936 in contravention of post-WWI declarations. and In 1938 he had joined Austria to Germany (the Austrian Anschluss of March 1938)
Then there was the Sudetenland which bordered Germany and Czechoslovakia, which 'we' let him have, and STILL did nothing when he broke his promise and took ALL of Czechoslovakia,
in March 1939. Britain and France, condemning the action, also gave strong assurances to Poland.
and THAT is why Chamberlain and the French premier, Edouard Daladier, declared war on the monster, NOT "to protect Poland and her people" It was WAY too late for that, It was because He HAD to be stopped, it was obvious that, like all power mad dictators, his word was worthless,

and YOU would have 'negotiated' further with this creature,
Says it all really,
YOU really should stop making things up and stick to the historical FACTS in future, it might stop you appearing quite so stupid, I doubt it though,

ein volk ein Reich ein fuhrer............. EH?
Had enough, or do you want some more comrade?”

“Johntoe, johntoe, johntoe, when will you ever learn?
There is always more than one way of looking at a problem, the blinkered, knee jerk reaction you live by is one one of those ways.
If instead of declaring war on Germany, Churchill should have sat and talked with Hitler. The Germans were not interested in invading Britain, they greatly admired the British, so instead of jumping in with a knee jerk reaction, Churchill should have held his water and gone down the diplomatic route first.
If he had done this, lives lost would have been limited to probably a few thousand during the invasion of Poland, instead, that war cost the lives of somewhere around 55 million!
And how did they secure a safe and prosperous future for the Polish people? They stuck them behind the iron curtain and condemned them to decades of the most brutal and poverty ridden communist rule!
Without doubt, the Poles would have been far better off under German administration than that of the murdering socialist scum that ended up running the country.

Now, if there's anything else you're curious about, ask, you just reinforce peoples impression of yourself as an oaf when you try to be clever. :)”

“Being lectured on freedom and free speech by someone who believes that fighting Hitler was a "mistake" Go figure,

I have seen the video of Colemans leader sharing a stage in the USA with the ex 'Grand wizard' (Yeah, seriously) of the KKK, where he is addressing a meeting of far right white supremacy extremists nutters,
He assures them that the BNP have NOT 'sold out' and that their ideals (the BNPs) and his audiences ideals (the KKK) are still the same,... they haven't changed (THIS is ON VIDEO and on youtube) It's just that they (the BNP) have had to tone it down a bit in order to appear more "electable" He goes on, "so we can't use terms like racial purity, because if we did we'd get absolutely nowhere, so instead we use terms like, National identity, patriotisim, national security, because no one can 'come at us or attack us for that'
HE goes on, "But perhaps one day when WE CONTROL the British media, the British people will say YES, every last one (none whites) must go"

So forgive me if I argue against this filth and those who support them every time they exercise their precious right to free speech, by using MY right to free speech, a freedom that we can be damned certain would be quickly removed if ever that lot came to power (as IF)

So You say we should "listen to both sides of an argument"? I agree as it happens, Can I take it that since you believe it's OK for the extremists on the right to spout hatred it's equally OK for religious extremists to preach their hatred, or far left extremists?
Or is it, as I suspect, the usual far right interpretation of 'free speech' which is "agree with us or shut up" and 'freedom' usually means "you are 'free' to live in anyway that we say you should"

See, that's the very essence of 'freedom' it means that people sometimes say things you don't agree with, or have a lifestyle you don't approve of, not really things that we associate with the far right,
I, once again, prefer the likes of Coleman to be allowed to say whatever they want (other than incitement to violence) simply because I am in favour of 'giving them enough rope' and would prefer them spreading their garbage in the open where we can 'take them on'
In fact I would relish it,”