Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880084)

Official CPS policy on the issue
I think that defence covers everything the couple are even accused of. So why were they arrested? Especially as the policy goes on to say

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880093)

Are you saying you(and the police) can be sure that no violence or murder would take place in the following month as a result? They would also have to track down those who had been 'incited' or 'solicited', which would be impossible as the pictures had broadcast around the world on TV etc.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34880092)

I don't believe that is the CPS policy on the Crime and Disorder act, nor the Public order act. Oh wait, you're not talking about what the couple are actually accused of are you?

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34880095)

So you would prefer the police to ignite a riot.
Inciting someone is a crime, being incited isn't, acting on that incitement in a criminal way is.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880096)

It's a cut and paste from the CPS website.

Originally Posted by nomadking

The point is to stop the incitement taking place in order to prevent further(in the future) violence. If removing troublemakers ignites a riot then the protest shouldn't have been allowed to form in the first place. After all the 'peaceful':rolleyes: organisers/participants would want any troublemakers removed.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880084)

Official CPS policy on the issue
I think that defence covers everything the couple are even accused of. So why were they arrested? Especially as the policy goes on to say

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34880095)

So you would prefer the police to ignite a riot.
Inciting someone is a crime, being incited isn't, acting on that incitement in a criminal way is.
Am I missing something here though, you appear to be suggesting that someone's power to incite others suddenly stops once they're arrested, and those inititially incited would miraculously no longer be incited.
Or are you under the impression that in order to protest, a group must show all their plackards to the police for approval, along with a script of what slogans are going to be shouted, that way the police can stop something before it happens?

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34879873)

And decide what punishment to give out. if any.

Do you want compensation? or do you want them to sign a new offensive offenders register?
What's wrong with a good old fashioned ASBO?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879874)

Or do you want to bully/oppress others to make sure that Muslims can in no way be criticised no matter what they say or do?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 34879892)

"Repeated Arrests" is rather overkill, we still are not clear into why the Police and CPS are prosecuting this couple but it's not exactly part of a trend. I don't see it as bullying, I see it as an overreaction to the bulling this couple were alleged to have done.

They are alleged to have unleashed the verbal abuse on this woman at breakfast in front of an audience. That is bullying, it's certainly not a 'free and open' dialogue'.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34879893)

The victim in this case was not the one who went to the papers. It was the accused, at the behest of the Christian Institute. Now I would have thought that even a hint of their involvement would start to ring alarm bells. A lot has been written about the woman, who was on the receiving end of this couple's wrath, but there is precious little about the couple themselves. I wonder why the likes of the Daily Heil, The Sexpress and the Torygraph haven't delved into their background and bothered finding out anything about them?




Which I would have thought, as experience service providers such as these, should have known better to have not even started a discussion on the subject.



How do you know this? She was recovering from an operation, I hardly think she was in much of a position to "give as good as she got." But, on the presumption that this is what happened, what would you have expected her to have done? Just sit there meekly and take the abuse that was allegedly thrown at her?



But it is more than what was said about Mohammed, she was insulted by their assertions that her religious dress was oppressive and some kind of bondage. I dare say the was a whole lot more said than that as well, but we only the Daily Heil's et al version of what they want us to know.



Yes, I am sure you have, but then I don't think Stormfront's collective opinion holds much of an independent perspective to be honest. But I am sure they are just a little more than confused, to hear the the accused is an immigrant and the victim is a British born white woman.



I am sure a lot of people do see it as you do, but then I am sure there a lot of people who would rather Muslims were not allowed to stay in guest houses where white Christians go, but there you go.

This has nothing to do with an imagine PC conspiracy, what it has to do with is an individual's right, to live their lives as they wish, unharassed and unhindered by someone's yobbish behaviour and bigoted opinions.

As far as her husband is concerned, reading the woman's words, she sounds as though she has a mind of her own in these matters and her husband has little influence over her decisions. Which kind of flies in the face of the accused assertion that she was under some kind of bondage.

Originally Posted by Stuart C (Post 34880366)

Is there any evidence that the muslim woman "slagged off" Christianity? Not as far as I know.. I have to admit, I think that the thread title is possibly a bit inaccurate..

As for the comments. Was Mohammed a warlord. Yes, I believe he was. Assuming I am correct, I don't think any Muslim would deny it.

Maybe the comment about Muslim women's clothing being a form of bondage was actually more offensive. I certainly would class it as being being as offensive as, say, a Muslim saying that because Christians wear crosses (a symbol of torture) that they idolise torture.


Note: I know that Christians do not idolise torture and that the cross actually symbolises the sacrifice Christ made.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34880382)

Sorry, but I don't respond to "Waiting...."

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34880367)

You seem to write your post as if you were at the breakfast table.
So the " Bigotted " opinions were only one way were they?
People are entitled to stay where they want, but if i decided to convert to the muslim faith I would look into the history.
I dont recall it being a place only white christians go, maybe I read the wrong papers hey?
But again, freedom of speech is a two edged blade, do you agree on that?
Waiting....

---------- Post added at 23:09 ---------- Previous post was at 23:02 ----------




Stuart, all we know about what happened is what we are being force fed by the press.

Originally Posted by Stuart C (Post 34880391)

True, although they aren't force feeding it (nor could they).



It's not OK (which is actually why I made the point about Christianity), but what we have seen in the papers suggests that the Christians did all the attacking. I am not saying they did: I do not know.

This is why I said that the thread title is possibly inaccurate. Based on what we have seen so far, there is no evidence to suggest they were defending their beliefs


You are allowed to voice an opinion. You just have responsibilities that go with that right (something that has not actually changed).

We don't know what was said in that argument, but for it to go to court, I suspect it was a lot more serious than just some random comments about Mohammed being a warlord and bondage. I am sure Derek could tell you just how hard it can be to get CPS to prosecute a case.