BNP grandee lauds arson attack


by Rumbold
30th December, 2009 at 4:25 pm    

Edmund Standing reports that Lee John Barnes, The BNP’s legal director, has called the attack on the migrant centre in Calais an “act of National Liberation.” This isn’t the first time that he called for or praised violent activity, and his comments continue to remind us about the true nature of the BNP.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: The BNP






33 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. James Cowley

    RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: BNP grandee lauds arson attack http://bit.ly/6Moj1W


  2. pickles

    Blog post:: BNP grandee lauds arson attack http://bit.ly/6Moj1W


  3. House Of Twits

    RT @pickledpolitics Blog post:: BNP grandee lauds arson attack http://bit.ly/6Moj1W




  1. MiriamBinder — on 30th December, 2009 at 4:34 pm  

    It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Lee John Barnes, legal director for the BNP, has called this utterly senseless and criminal action an “act of National Liberation.” The (ahem) man is a moron who clearly cannot tell the difference between criminal actions and legitimate protest.

  2. David O'Keefe — on 30th December, 2009 at 6:38 pm  

    Grandee? Lee is going to love that.

  3. Cyburn — on 30th December, 2009 at 6:39 pm  

    surprised Griffin hasn’t kicked him out yet?

  4. Lee John Barnes — on 30th December, 2009 at 8:15 pm  

    I wondered when Lloyd would regurgitate Harrys story.

    Harrys Place and Pickled Politics = Dumb and Dumber.

    Nuff said.

    This is like sooooo old.

    Have you been in a coma ?

    Was Emily Pankhurst a terrorist or a freedom fighter ?

    Is Nelson Mandela a terrorist or a freedom fighter ?

    Hmmmmmm.

  5. Lee John Barnes — on 30th December, 2009 at 8:22 pm  

    A Grandee !

    Moi !

    Au Contraire.

    Does this mean I can wear black velvet pantaloons, a long black cloak and be driven around in an ebonite carriage led by black stallions ?

    Crikey.

    That almost makes me one of the Cameronite Tories.

    James Bethell eat yer heart out.

    Nothing British About The BNP My Arse !

    I am a Grandee and a Grandee trumps a Baron any day.

    Does this mean I am a toff like James Bethell and his Cameronite Tory, Notting Hill, Bullingdon Club chums ?

  6. Rumbold — on 30th December, 2009 at 9:45 pm  

    So, no apology Lee? You think it is acceptable to fire bomb buildings you dislike? Is that BNP policy?

  7. Don — on 30th December, 2009 at 10:08 pm  

    What are the chances of getting a straight answer to those questions?

  8. Lee John Barnes — on 30th December, 2009 at 10:09 pm  

    Apologise for what.

    1) It is not a crime until it is investigated and then officially declared as a crime, in this case possibly arson, and a formal criminal investigation into arson begins. This has not happened yet.

    2) The statement ‘an act of national liberation’ does not express any positive or negative connotations.
    The Bolsheviks though that revolutionary violence they inflicted on Russia was an act of national liberation, so too the Jews with Israel, the rebels in the United States and also the Nazis.

    It is simply a statement regarding the probable subjective intent of the possible persons behind the ‘attack’, if it is an attack of course.

    If you people are too stupid to understand the meaning of the statement, thats your problem.

  9. Don — on 30th December, 2009 at 10:56 pm  

    That’s what I figured.

  10. MiriamBinder — on 31st December, 2009 at 4:15 am  

    Good Lord … well well well, how very not surprising
    @ Lee John Barnes -

    “1) It is not a crime until it is investigated and then officially declared as a crime, in this case possibly arson, and a formal criminal investigation into arson begins. This has not happened yet.”

    You’ve got to love the logic! Arson isn’t a crime until it is declared a crime ;) the great defender of of all that is British declares. I suppose that the Oxford Dictionary isn’t English then as it states that: Arson (fire setting) is defined as `the wilful setting of fire on homes and property’ (Oxford English Dictionary). The very fact that wilful fire has been set to property makes it arson; the very definition of the term ‘Arson’ determines that it is a crime.

    “2) The statement ‘an act of national liberation’ does not express any positive or negative connotations.
    The Bolsheviks though that revolutionary violence they inflicted on Russia was an act of national liberation, so too the Jews with Israel, the rebels in the United States and also the Nazis.”

    That’s true enough except that by associating what is by its very definition a crime against a facility built by legitimate civic authorities you have compounded what is a crime, by its very definition, into a criminal act during a civil war. So we have here a crime which is not crime because according to Mrs Barnes’ little boy it has not been declared a crime transformed into an act of war which is a war because Mrs Barnes’ little boy has (presumably) declared it one. Unless anyone else has heard of an official declaration of war in France that has somehow managed to escape me of course ;)

    So let us talk about being “too stupid” shall we? Even if I accept that your convoluted reasoning has some merit and let us say that for the sake of argument I do accept it; By declaring the conflagration of the potential shower blocks in Calais “an act of national liberation” you determine that the conflagration is a wilful act and thereby effectively declare it a crime.

    Whichever way you look at it little boy … you need to go back to school as you certainly aren’t ready for the real world!

  11. Lee John Barnes — on 31st December, 2009 at 9:16 am  

    Miriam my dear,

    Just because the press say it is a crime, doth not maketh it a crime.

    First the fire brigade investigate.

    Then they tell the police ‘ hey cops we have done an investigation and we think you should classify this as an investigation’

    Then it becomes a suspected crime.

    How can i declare it a crime ?

    I CANT.

    I was stating a possibility in relation to the subjective perception of an individual in the event it was a crime, not making a declarative statement regarding the intent of the person (which would be impossible as I do not know their motivation if it was a crime) in the event it was a crime.

    Get it know dear.

  12. MiriamBinder — on 31st December, 2009 at 9:30 am  

    “Get it know dear”?

    Dear Mrs Barnes,

    I really think that it is time you let your little boy into the secret that word meaning cannot be altered just to suit his little world view. When his little jackbooted friends come into real power it will no doubt become a regular thing but not till pigs fly ;)

  13. douglas clark — on 31st December, 2009 at 9:54 am  

    Lee John Barnes,

    The strap line to your post reads:

    The French Rise Up

    And your first few paragraphs say:

    When governments do not listen to the people, then the people will rise up against the government.

    This is not a crime, this is an act of National Liberation.

    That is the whole of your comment on the Telegraph piece. The rest of your post is a direct quote from the Telegraph article.

    Only someone on a wind up would write that and then expect to defend it on the grounds that you do @ 8.

    It is you that has stated categorically that it is not a crime and has chosen to describe it alternatively ‘as an act of National Liberation’.

    ‘Course, you are some sort of lawyer, and for lawyers words mean whatever they want them to mean….

  14. Rumbold — on 31st December, 2009 at 11:14 am  

    Lee John Barnes:

    As Mariam and Douglas say, your whole piece praises the burning of the centre. If I refer to a criminal act as an ‘act of national liberation’ I can reasonably assume to be praising it.

  15. Don — on 31st December, 2009 at 2:37 pm  

    I was stating a possibility in relation to the subjective perception of an individual in the event it was a crime, not making a declarative statement regarding the intent of the person (which would be impossible as I do not know their motivation if it was a crime) in the event it was a crime.

    Pretend logic, what fun. Unfortunately This is not a crime, is a declarative statement, and …this is an act of National Liberation. is another.

    The first statement (This is not a crime,) could be presented as having 3 possible interpretations:

    #1 There was no act of arson, the speaker has knowledge that the fire was accidental.

    #2 It has not been settled that the fire was caused by arson, so it is not technically a crime yet.

    #3 It was an act of deliberate fire-setting, but the act was laudable and cannot be morally considered a crime.

    The first two are eliminated by the second declaration (…this is an act of National Liberation.) which imputes a motive behind the act. ‘Act of National Liberation’ is a laudatory term used only by the supporters of the act in question.

    So can we get back to the questions?

    Do you think it is acceptable to fire bomb buildings you dislike?

    Is that BNP policy?

  16. Faisal — on 31st December, 2009 at 2:55 pm  

    What a fucking plonker. The BNP’s best legal mind and yet out of his depth in a puddle of his own urine.

  17. Lee John Barnes — on 31st December, 2009 at 6:03 pm  

    The words ‘this is an act of national liberation’ are a speculative statement referring to the possible subjective perceptions of the individual who may, or may not, have undertaken the action, if such action actually too place.

    There is no statement from myself either condoning nor condemning the act, the non-act or as regards the subjective opinion of the person who may, or may not, have undertaken the act if such act ever existed in the first place.

    I am an admirer of man like Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, T.E. Lawrence, Arminius, Vercingetorix, Atilla The Hun, John Liliburne and Oliver Cromwell.

    I judge not any deed until I first fully understand the motives and motivation of the man who undertook the action, or non-action, whatever that action may, or may not be.

    One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

    Now shut the fuck up you pathetic whining maggots.

  18. MiriamBinder — on 31st December, 2009 at 6:43 pm  

    “Now shut the fuck up you pathetic whining maggots.”

    Mummy must be so proud of her little boy!

  19. bernard — on 31st December, 2009 at 6:44 pm  

    Fuck off, Barnes.

  20. douglas clark — on 31st December, 2009 at 8:00 pm  

    Lee John Barnes,

    The words ‘this is an act of national liberation’ are a speculative statement referring to the possible subjective perceptions of the individual who may, or may not, have undertaken the action, if such action actually too place.

    Oh, you are so fucking funny:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrAwK9juhhY

    Fuck me, so fucking funny. Some words count. Yours don’t.

    Speculative? Yes. Incendiary?, Yes. Stupid? Yes. Complete utter lies? Yup?

    Typical BNP?

    I’d have thought so.

    One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

    Or alternatively:

    You are just a wrong un.

  21. douglas clark — on 31st December, 2009 at 8:39 pm  

    Now shut the fuck up:

    You´re a bum you´re a punk
    You´re an old slut on junk
    Lying there almost dead on a drip in that bed
    You scumbag you maggot
    You cheap lousy faggot
    Happy christmas your arse I pray god it´s our last.

  22. douglas clark — on 31st December, 2009 at 10:11 pm  

    Lee John Barnes,

    Where are you?

  23. Don — on 31st December, 2009 at 10:26 pm  

    May I suggest that we avoid being side-tracked. This isn’t HP’s. Remain courteous.

    The words ‘this is an act of national liberation’ are a speculative statement referring to the possible subjective perceptions of the individual who may, or may not, have undertaken the action, if such action actually too place.

    Gutless.

    Happy New Year.

  24. douglas clark — on 1st January, 2010 at 12:23 am  

    Don,

    No.

    And a Happy New year to you.

  25. douglas clark — on 1st January, 2010 at 12:43 am  

    I would point, perhaps to this:

    Now shut the fuck up you pathetic whining maggots.

    @ 17.

    Lee John ‘mental’ Barnes.

    It is he that made me think of a lyric, it is he that assumes that thee and me are as thick as shit.

    Perhaps you remain completely courteous when described as a maggot.

    I don’t.

  26. MiriamBinder — on 1st January, 2010 at 9:12 am  

    @ Douglas Clark #25 – I suppose that it is all relative really. When a highly evolved, intellectually stimulating being calls me a maggot I might consider countering but when it is anything but … I’d just call it pure envy, jealousy and thwarted aspirations.

    In the case of #17 it is definitely the latter ;)

  27. Don — on 1st January, 2010 at 10:48 am  

    Douglas,

    When trapped LJB squirts abuse like a squid squirts ink – hoping to slip away in the resulting distraction.
    It’s pretty much his only debating tactic.

  28. MiriamBinder — on 1st January, 2010 at 11:28 am  

    And still Dons’ questions remain unanswered. One can but wonder whether Mrs Barnes’ little boy took his own advice “Now shut the fuck up you pathetic whining maggots.” ;)

  29. douglas clark — on 1st January, 2010 at 1:05 pm  

    Don and MiriamBinder,

    You both make me feel like I’m Rachel Maddow in one of her ‘talk me down’ segments.

    Thanks.

  30. douglas clark — on 1st January, 2010 at 1:36 pm  

    I think this deserves a link:

    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/12/31/2009-a-race-odyssey/

    Read and enjoy

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.