Jump to content

'Fire chief' thread.

Symbol Owner

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This thread was removed for one reason and one reason only and if anyone wishes confirmation they can simply PM the moderator.

Accusations of racism were made very early. There was a very strong one from BGD, then me and then Robinhood.

It wasn't deleted because of insults either as there were no more insults than in any of the other threads that have been running lately.

It was deleted because of the racist overtones of what was quite clearly a joke, but was prefaced with words that clearly stated that its contents reflected real life in Britain today, which is, that only British people work and that all ethnic minorities are unemployed or idle.

If anyone wants further proof of why it was deleted they should ask why, at the same time, the moderator has removed the original thread to which I referred, in which Flicka claimed all Muslims had a duty to kill infidels and that a prison visitor had confirmed this.

I have personal knowledge of why these threads were removed because I wrote to the moderator asking him to look at them and, if he agreed with me that the original post breached decent standards, to consider deleting them. Shortly afterwards they were removed.

The moderator also has to take cognisance of Warner's position vis a vis the Religious and Racial hatred Act of 2006, which both the posts quite clearly breached.

There will still be those who will claim that Flicka was not racist in posting these two threads, as it is also quite clear that there are people who share his views. Those views are, fortunately, not shared by anyone with an ounce of decency and it would appear, by the moderators of this forum.

So before anyone once again, offers their own twisted logic on why these threads were deleted, I would suggest that they ask Warners.

I shall post no more on this subject. It's all been said and I'm sure that members are fed up with it. I have no doubt that others will continue.

In view of what has happened I now hope that Flicka and others with his views will remember that this is a public forum in 2012. Think what you like in private about Muslims and immigrants but that's where it should stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
pepe63 - 2012-03-21 5:12 PM


pelmetman - 2012-03-21 4:46 PM


1 nil to the thought police then *-)


..but Dave,it wasn't just "thought" was it...it was posted onto a public forum and that's the point...




I'm with that french geezer Voltaire.......


"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ;-)..................


But then again what else can you expect from a dictocracy *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just regret I was unable to check the thread last night, but as it has been deleted I can’t comment on any of the posts

It would appear that some /many / all Forum members have read my post, very differently than myself.

My reaction to the text, was & still is:-

The mouthpieces purporting to represent the underdog, underprivileged or minority groups are much too quick to form an opinion of any event they see as potentially headline grabbing before being aware of the full facts, whilst the majority remain silent.

Their jumping in with both feet, guns blazing illustrates their true motives to be either headline grabbing or egotistical.


Two thoughts to ponder.

This country was once the envy of many other civilised nations for the Right to Freedom of Speech.

Do we all remain silent, before the political correct brigade totally erode this right.


We as a nation are also known as being able to laugh at ourselves, so would the responces been different if the subjects had been the Irishmen, the Scotsmen & the Englishmen. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tracker

You didn't miss much John - mainly CliveH and FG having repeated goes at each other!


The upshot was that whilst most of us saw the original joke as normal British style wry humour, one or two of the usual suspects got back on their politically correct high horses!


Apart from a few of the usual quite boring insults flying about nothing much was added to a debate that had, truth to tell, more than run it's course before yesterday!


I too enjoy laughing at ourselves - but I enjoy laughing at the others even more!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again I believe FG “over eggs” what has happened – by citing the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act FG tries to invoke a legal reason why Warner pulled the thread. Whilst Warner may have been sensitive to this, The Act itself DOES NOT make the original post illegal in the terms of that Act.


The reason being that whilst the apologist numpties pushing the Bill indeed wanted such jokes to be covered – the likes of comedian Rowan Atkinson successfully argued that to put this into law would compromise free speech.


This article from the Guardian sets it out clearly.


Once again FG – your desire to spin the truth has done nothing to enhance your reputation – quite the opposite I would suggest.


“The Racial and Religious Hatred Act was the (then) government's third attempt to make a new offence of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religious or racial background. Similar measures were included in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security bill in 2001, but were scuppered after objections from the House of Lords. The government again attempted to pass the provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Policing bill, then dropped them in April 2005 to guarantee the passage of the bill before the dissolution of parliament in the run-up to the 2005 general election.


A bill outlawing incitement to religious hatred was one of the Labour party's manifesto promises during the 2005 general election. Muslim groups, including the Muslim Council of Britain, wanted the same kind of legal protection for their faith that was offered to Jews and Sikhs who were already covered by existing race hatred laws.


A high-profile campaign including writers, actors and comedians lobbied parliament to reject the bill. The movement's figurehead was comedian Rowan Atkinson who claimed the bill would restrict the right to make light of religious sensibilities. Atkinson said: "To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom."


Even on its third endeavour the government failed to secure some key elements of the act. It lost a key vote to overturn two amendments introduced by the House of Lords after Labour whips miscalculated voting numbers and failed to recall a team of MPs campaigning in a local by-election. The Lords amendments limited the legislation to "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening...if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred", thereby restricting the offences to intentional acts of stirring up religious hatred. These changes also ensured that an individual charged with an offence must be shown to have used "threatening" language – rather than the broader government clause of "threatening, insulting and abusive" language.




The most controversial aspect of the bill was the offence of using insulting language (later dropped), which writers and comedians felt would barr them from joking about or criticising religion.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "This offence is capable of catching attacks on ideas as well as people. At best this is an empty sop to a community sorely let down by government. At worst it is a dangerous new blasphemy law out of step with our best traditions."


However, Liberty later described the act that passed both houses as "a great improvement on the bill proposed by the government. Criminalising even the most unpalatable, illiberal and offensive speech should be approached with grave caution in a democracy. Free speech is far more precious than protection from being offended."



Therefore – as can be seen from the above – “threatening language” is a requirement under the Act. As Flicka’s post did not contain any such threatening language then the Act does not apply to the post of Flicka’s.


If Warners were threatened by anyone with this Act - it was bulls**t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

You can't blame Warners though Clive................as any sensible business would take their default route and pulled the thread ;-)...........better that.... than risk having to employ an Lawyer :D


But it is typical of the thought police to use veiled threats to achieve their agenda........... *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CliveH - 2012-03-22 9:20 AM


If Warners were threatened by anyone with this Act - it was bulls**t.


....well, the quoted act certainly brings into question the (seemingly) widely held view that Francis is a lawyer (I don't believe he has ever said so :-S )


Nonetheless, there are acts under which action might be taken on race (rather than religious) grounds.


The Public Order Act, for instance, has a lower threshold for action on racial grounds, specifically the use of "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour" (note the or).


Whilst it is true that, under the act, some kind of intent also needs to be associated with this, in real life various prosecutions have been brought with some pretty tenuous "intent" connections. It would do any commercial organisation harm to be prosecuted in such a way, even if any action were ultimately unsuccessful.


Now, John has returned and posted as to his real intent, and of course this must been taken at face value; thus, it would appear that (given previous "form" and exchanges) he simply made a poor choice of parable (and introduction) to get his point across. (Best be careful in the future, John ;-) )


I don't believe I ever called him "racist", (far too little evidence for that), and I'm happy to leave it at that - but I still retain my sense of distaste over the post as it was made.


So, given the issue of proving "intent", it is highly unlikely that Warners (or John) would have had proceedings taken against them, but it seems to me that, both on taste grounds, and the (marginal) potential for proceedings, (not to mention the following spate of name-calling, etc.), Warners "pulling" the thread was sensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well put RH - happy to say I agree totally.


But I would add that John (and indeed myself) do have grounds against FG because he did put in writing his accusation of racism against us. Proving it is another issue as we would have to involve Warners, writs to id FG's ISP address and then chase him through that. Possible of course and the evidence is available. It may be deleted from here but it will still be available via the main server.


It is my understanding that UK courts take a dim view of false accusations of this sort.


Hence my twice repeated suggestion to FG that to carry on making such false accusations will not end well for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CliveH - 2012-03-22 1:16 PM


Hence my twice repeated suggestion to FG that to carry on making such false accusations will not end well for him.


He also played his usual BNP card and likened Flicka to being like them and the murderer in France for the shooting of the Jews and three soldiers who were reported to be of African descent. As it turns out the murderer, Mohammed Merah, is also of African descent and it wasn't a right wing white Frenchmen which people believed was carrying out the act. Gumpy is probably away beating his gums eating humble pie at the moment hence the peace :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...