nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Being racist is illegal in Britain

Arcade_Tryer

http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/chelmsford-judge-tells-nazi-in-court-you-re-a-c-t/story-29606353-detail/story.html

Amazing that this is the same country that produced Orwell and Milton. Or maybe not so surprising.

Another case of liberal apologists believing their own personal beliefs take precedence over the ideas of enlightenment and basic human rights.

And before anyone says it, no I don't support what the guy said to the woman. Just his right to say it without being sent to prison by the state for doing so.

This story came to my attention due to the Guardian and its followers having a great laugh at the judge's comments. More liberal apologists who are completely oblivious to the fundamental idea of free speech and its protection which any modern society should be built upon.

Surely I'm not the only person astounded that this can happen in a country like Britain in the 21st century?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Ted111

smash wrote: »

Travellers aren't a race.

They're a different species. :pac:

If you're posting from england - You're in Big Trouble.

A Little Pony

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

He was jailed for breach of an anti social behaviour order.

Part of the order was not to use racist or offensive language.

I'm sorry but that only serves to make the story sound worse. Draconian.

Draconian is the word for it. It is basically thought police.

Pro Hoc Vice

A Little Pony wrote: »

Draconian is the word for it. It is basically thought police.

So you have no problem with me coming up to you and young children and saying things that those children find upsetting if you have children do you mind me saying to them your daddy has donkey breath because he sucks off ponys and to say to your children that's they are just stupid ***** and you have no problem with me going that every time you walk through town?

[Deleted User]

That's one ridiculous wig. I'd be more concerned about a judge who chooses to wear an archaic medieval wig being in a position to decide what's acceptable to society in 2016.

Zxclnic

A Little Pony wrote: »

Draconian is the word for it. It is basically thought police.

No. I think in terms of 'thought police', Orwellian is the word for which you were looking.

Besides, he wasn't put away for thinking something, he was sent down for breaching an ASBO by shouting racist abuse at a women and her two children.
Only guessing here, but calling the judge ''a bit of a cùnt'' really didn't help his cause either.
Also, given his 'previous' I'm genuinely surprised that the judge didn't see fit to order a thorough psychological assessment of the chap, as he may well have some serious mental health issues....
.......
Imagine him in front of Judge Judy!:)

Pro Hoc Vice

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's one ridiculous wig. I'd be more concerned about a judge who chooses to wear an archaic medieval wig being in a position to decide what's acceptable to society in 2016.

The wigs not medieval, the wigs introduced after the restoration the wig in the picture not introduced till later, also the wig in the picture only worn when a person is made a judge. It's very rare in UK or Ireland to see the wig, but some especially in criminal law like to wear them as funny enough most people don't recognise judges and barristers with out the wig and gown.

Jayop

A Little Pony wrote: »

Draconian is the word for it. It is basically thought police.

Unsurprising. :rolleyes:

I'm quite certain he was free to "think" whatever he liked. The problem was when he started shouting these things to innocent people leaving them in fear presumably.

If you think that the likes of that should go on then you're something else.

Smondie

His reaction in the court would suggest he has a few mental health issues going on as well as being a racist.

C*nt isn't a racial slur.

If the on street incident was stand alone, is it a racist thing to say you prefer white people?By this logic if I say "I prefer women" i'm been sexist. maybe it's just a preference.

Ulysses Gaze

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Prosecutor Lynne Shirley told Chelmsford Crown Court that Tanisha Ford, a black Caribbean woman and her two children, aged eight and six and also black Caribbean, were in Market Square, Harlow.

She had recently moved to the town and was looking for a shop.

"She noticed the defendant waving at her. She approached him and he asked her if she was looking for a toilet. She said no, looking for Slimming World. He gave her directions. It seemed a normal conversation and she walked off but as she did Hennigan said 'I don't agree with inter-racial relationships. I like natural'.

"She was shocked and surprised and asked what he meant. He said 'I prefer white children'. She was shocked further.

"She said her children were natural and he said 'I'm just saying'," said the prosecutor.

"The incident made her feel very upset, hurt, out of place and distressed. It's not the first time she's been racially abused and it brought back unpleasant memories," said Miss Shirley. "She was alarmed her children had to listen to the comments."

Ms Ford decided to call police. Hennigan was identified and while he was in custody officers found comments he made "very unpleasant," the court heard.

An Orwellian nightmare is the only way I can describe instances such as this.

How can a judge, other legal professionals, and thousands of people commenting on the Guardian (ok this bit I can understand) be so f**king stupid?

So not only did this moron mouth off in public to this woman and her kids, he then started making comments to the police that they found unpleasant?

You do realise as well that if this clown made comments towards the judge during the trial, or even just before she handed down the actual sentence, she's also more likely to come down heavier on him and give him a harsher sentence as well?

Something tells me he's not a mental giant.

petrolcan

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/chelmsford-judge-tells-nazi-in-court-you-re-a-c-t/story-29606353-detail/story.html

Amazing that this is the same country that produced Orwell and Milton. Or maybe not so surprising.

Another case of liberal apologists believing their own personal beliefs take precedence over the ideas of enlightenment and basic human rights.

And before anyone says it, no I don't support what the guy said to the woman. Just his right to say it without being sent to prison by the state for doing so.

This story came to my attention due to the Guardian and its followers having a great laugh at the judge's comments. More liberal apologists who are completely oblivious to the fundamental idea of free speech and its protection which any modern society should be built upon.

Surely I'm not the only person astounded that this can happen in a country like Britain in the 21st century?

He was sent to prison because he breached his ASBO for the ninth time. If he cannot live by society's rules then he can live by the prison rules.

Helluva clickbait post title though.

B_Wayne

Seems sort of obvious that this was the straw that broke the camels back. If a person harasses people and engages in racist abuse on a repeated basis which this person was. They cannot expect to face no legal response. Somewhat telling when you see the types that are leaping to defence of person that says this.

Hennigan then banged on the glass panel of the dock, performed a Nazi salute and twice shouted "Sieg Heil" before starting to sing "Jews gas them all...."
...

He gave her directions. It seemed a normal conversation and she walked off but as she did Hennigan said 'I don't agree with inter-racial relationships. I like natural'.

"She was shocked and surprised and asked what he meant. He said 'I prefer white children'. She was shocked further.

"She said her children were natural and he said 'I'm just saying'," said the prosecutor.

Also showed immense disrespect towards the judge so probably in contempt of court as well. Poor mite.

Grayson

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/10/swearing-judge-launches-four-letter-response-after-being-abused/

He had been hauled before an Old Bailey judge in October 2012 for making Nazi salutes at a pub in Bishopsgate in the City of London.

Hennigan claimed he had only been raising his arm to collect his change after paying for a drink, but was convicted of breaching an Asbo after a trial.

Hennigan, from Harlow, Essex, has dozens of previous convictions for offences including drug and firearm possession and common assault.

He faced a court for breaching his Asbo in 2010, when he launched racist abuse at a newsagent before attacking him with a display of sweets.

He's just misunderstood.

KingBrian2

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/chelmsford-judge-tells-nazi-in-court-you-re-a-c-t/story-29606353-detail/story.html

Amazing that this is the same country that produced Orwell and Milton. Or maybe not so surprising.

Another case of liberal apologists believing their own personal beliefs take precedence over the ideas of enlightenment and basic human rights.

And before anyone says it, no I don't support what the guy said to the woman. Just his right to say it without being sent to prison by the state for doing so.

This story came to my attention due to the Guardian and its followers having a great laugh at the judge's comments. More liberal apologists who are completely oblivious to the fundamental idea of free speech and its protection which any modern society should be built upon.

Surely I'm not the only person astounded that this can happen in a country like Britain in the 21st century?

I reckon it is good that racism is not tolerated still plenty of sexism in the UK as a recent survey has shown so if it is not one thing it's another. Banning one hatred over another won't eradicate these beliefs.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Prosecutor Lynne Shirley told Chelmsford Crown Court that Tanisha Ford, a black Caribbean woman and her two children, aged eight and six and also black Caribbean, were in Market Square, Harlow.

She had recently moved to the town and was looking for a shop.

"She noticed the defendant waving at her. She approached him and he asked her if she was looking for a toilet. She said no, looking for Slimming World. He gave her directions. It seemed a normal conversation and she walked off but as she did Hennigan said 'I don't agree with inter-racial relationships. I like natural'.

"She was shocked and surprised and asked what he meant. He said 'I prefer white children'. She was shocked further.

"She said her children were natural and he said 'I'm just saying'," said the prosecutor.

"The incident made her feel very upset, hurt, out of place and distressed. It's not the first time she's been racially abused and it brought back unpleasant memories," said Miss Shirley. "She was alarmed her children had to listen to the comments."

Ms Ford decided to call police. Hennigan was identified and while he was in custody officers found comments he made "very unpleasant," the court heard.

An Orwellian nightmare is the only way I can describe instances such as this.

How can a judge, other legal professionals, and thousands of people commenting on the Guardian (ok this bit I can understand) be so f**king stupid?

More AH using the bits they need from a story to support their own view.

What about the piece of the article that said...

John Hennigan, 50, facing sentence for his NINTH breach of an Anti Social Behaviour Order in 11 years began his tirade from the dock at Chelmsford Crown Court by telling Judge Patricia Lynch QC she was "a bit of a c**t".

Hennigan then banged on the glass panel of the dock, performed a Nazi salute and twice shouted "Sieg Heil" before starting to sing "Jews gas them all...."

Judge Lynch, still speaking in a measured tone, commented: "We are all really impressed. Take him down
Hennigan, of Brockles Mead, Harlow, had pleaded guilty to breaching his ASBO on 20 April 2015 by using racist language towards Tanisha Ford.

His ASBO, which runs until further order, was made in April 2005. It prohibits him from acting in an anti social way or from using racist language.

He has been locked up before for breaching it. Among his 23 convictions for 47 offences, there are eight previous breaches. Most offences happened in Harlow and include abusing a bus driver, pub door staff and raising an arm in a Nazi salute to a member of the public.

After another breach in October 2012 in which he did a Nazi salute in a central London pub and called black people "c**ns and "n*****s" an Old Bailey judge described him as "a disgrace to the values of this country".

A truly wonderful human being with much to offer society.

Your Face

This is silly.

Guy:Incognito

Folks, can you all stop seeing this for the reasonable result of being a **** that it is and just get outraged like the OP wants. Cheers.

Ted111

Your Face wrote: »

This is silly.

So's your face.

Jayop

Your Face wrote: »

This is silly.

Post reported. :rolleyes:

Ulysses Gaze

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Folks, can you all stop seeing this for the reasonable result of being a **** that it is and just get outraged like the OP wants. Cheers.

Ok

http://i.amz.mshcdn.com/FCP-M5EriZwBy9jJnZnVh7Liuak=/fit-in/1200x9600/http%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2FJack-Nicholson.gif

Junkyard Tom

It's not illegal to be racist - it's illegal to commit racist acts.

There's a difference between holding views and acting upon them.

Thoughts =/= behaviour.

RedemptionZ

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's not illegal to be racist - it's illegal to commit racist acts.

There's a difference between holding views and acting upon them.

Thoughts =/= behaviour.

Does airing your views, even if pig ignorant and racist constitute an action? I don't believe it should.

I suppose it depends on the nature of the comments and how threatening the language is.

Guy:Incognito

RedemptionZ wrote: »

Does airing your views, even if pig ignorant and racist constitute an action? I don't believe it should.

I suppose it depends on the nature of the comments and how threatening the language is.

"airing" your views in a loud and obnoxious manner at a woman and kids constitutes an action in my book. It would certainly be enough to provoke a serious action on my part if it were directed at my missus and kids.

RedemptionZ

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

"airing" your views in a loud and obnoxious manner at a woman and kids constitutes an action in my book. It would certainly be enough to provoke a serious action on my part if it were directed at my missus and kids.

Again though for me it depends on the manner in which it is said and the language used. If a threat is implied then it should be against the law. If it's simply stating what you believe, even if it is disgusting and racist and completely unnecessary to say in the situation, such as to a mother and her children I still believe it shouldn't be outlawed. It's a scummy scummy thing to do but I just don't believe in censoring people like that.

Pro Hoc Vice

RedemptionZ wrote: »

Again though for me it depends on the manner in which it is said and the language used. If a threat is implied then it should be against the law. If it's simply stating what you believe, even if it is disgusting and racist and completely unnecessary to say in the situation, such as to a mother and her children I still believe it shouldn't be outlawed. It's a scummy scummy thing to do but I just don't believe in censoring people like that.

A person can say I hate say white people or a person can say women should stay indoors, an ASBO is something different.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/anti_social_behaviour_guidance/#an01

"ASBOs are civil orders to protect the public from behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. An order contains conditions prohibiting an individual from carrying out specific anti-social acts or (for example) from entering defined areas. The orders are not criminal sanctions and are not intended to punish the individual. They are designed to be preventative, not punitive."

So if you have no problem with a stranger causing you are your family harassment alarm or distress, then fine but I for one don't think it's on.

Ulysses Gaze

RedemptionZ wrote: »

Again though for me it depends on the manner in which it is said and the language used. If a threat is implied then it should be against the law. If it's simply stating what you believe, even if it is disgusting and racist and completely unnecessary to say in the situation, such as to a mother and her children I still believe it shouldn't be outlawed. It's a scummy scummy thing to do but I just don't believe in censoring people like that.

That will be subjective though to the person at the receiving end.

Have you seen this guy? Quite intimidating looking bloke. For a young mother with kids who is new to the town, to be beckoned over by him and then a few insults fired off at her, those words, innocuous as they may seen, may have made her felt threatened.

Smondie

A junkie at a bus stop asked me for some change. I was in fear. Thought the fecker might stab or Rob me.

Should I have gotten him arrested?

Your Face

Ted111 wrote: »

So's your face.

Good one.

Junkyard Tom

RedemptionZ wrote: »

If it's simply stating what you believe, even if it is disgusting and racist and completely unnecessary to say in the situation, such as to a mother and her children I still believe it shouldn't be outlawed.

Well that is behaviour and it's directed at another individual so it's no longer simply 'airing your views'. Does that behaviour constitute a violation of another person's natural right to be left the fuck alone?

I would say yes.

Also, should punching someone in the mouth as a response to provocation be considered a liberty on a par with the liberty to insult someone to their face? If not why not?

Ted111

Your Face wrote: »

Good one.

jesus. lot of hostility.

you should join jayop, he's telling his mammy on me.

Your Face

Ted111 wrote: »

jesus. lot of hostility.

you should join jayop, he's telling his mammy on me.

*hugs*