Further update on chemical plot


by Sunny
24th October, 2006 at 1:52 pm    

Despite the fact that two former BNP members were caught with a “record haul” of chemical explosives, some rocket launchers and nuclear/biological suits, most of the media is curiously still treating it as a non-story.
So far: 24 Dash, BBC, ITV, Channel 4. But they are all only a few lines long, and seemed to be derived from a wire-story sent out by PA this morning:

A former British National Party election candidate and a dentist both appeared in court today accused of possessing an explosive substance.

Robert Cottage, 49, of Talbot Street, Colne, Lancashire, and David Jackson, 62, of Trent Road, Nelson, Lancashire, were charged under the Explosive Substances Act 1883 after chemical components were allegedly found at Cottage’s house.

Cottage stood for the BNP in this year’s local elections in Colne. Both men were remanded in custody at Preston Crown Court. No application for bail was made for either men. The case was adjourned until January 15, 2007 for a plea and case management hearing.

A provisional trial date has been set for February 12 at Manchester Crown Court. It will be held before a High Court judge and is expected to last one and a half weeks.

And that’s it. Despite being told BBC News would be attending the hearing, I get the feeling they haven’t really bothered.
[hat tip: Lancaster UAF]

Update:
I have also been told by a journalist that the police are placing severe media restrictions on the story for some reason.
My contact has clarified, as Katy and NotSaussure others have below, that standard reporting restrictions now apply to this case given the men have been charged and now await trial. The media can only report or broadcast:

(a) the identity of the court and the names of the examining justices
(b) the names, addresses and occupations of the parties and witnesses and ages of the accused and witnesses
(c) the offence(s) or a summary of them with which the accused is charged
(d) the names of the legal representatives engaged in the proceedings
(e) any decision of the court to commit the accused or any of them for trial and any decision of the court on disposal of the case of any of the accused not committed
(f) the charge(s) on which the accused, or any of them have been committed and the court to
which they have been committed
(g) the date and place to which committal proceedings have been adjourned, if adjourned
(h) any arrangements as to bail on committal or adjournment
(i) whether legal aid was granted (or, when the Access to Justice Act 1999 is in force, whether a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence service was granted to the accused or any of the accused)..

I was further told that: “The whole problems comes from the police sitting on the story at the time of the raid.

So the question then arises; if this is not a major story why is the police placing such heavy media reporting restrictions on it? Also worth reading is BBC Newswatch’s response below.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: The BNP






97 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Pickled Politics » Pickled Politics on Google Calendar

    [...] us at the usual address. Trackback link   |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Digg this   |   Filed under:Uncategorized [...]




  1. Bill — on 24th October, 2006 at 2:33 pm  

    I get the feeling they don’t want to be done for contempt of court by prejudicing the trial now that someone’s been charged.

    All the stuff about rocket launchers and so forth would be evidence and to report it now would fall foul of sub judicie restrictions.

    Admittedly had reporters been present they could have done some “colour” from the scene – assuming there was any colour to report.

    I’m afraid we’ll have to wait for the trial to judge propery the media’s reaction; and *if* this happens, it might also indicate why the cops apparently downplayed it at first.

  2. Kulvinder — on 24th October, 2006 at 2:51 pm  

    Sunny this article makes me a little uneasy, its very very tabloidy. Just give them their day in court as is fair and deal with everything afterwards. Its too gleeful for my liking. Theres nothing that warrants discussion in the meantime.

  3. Leon — on 24th October, 2006 at 2:53 pm  

    It doesn’t strike me as gleeful at all. I think Sunny has identified a serious issue here that needs answering.

  4. TottenhamLad — on 24th October, 2006 at 2:55 pm  

    Stop wetting your knickers over this story.

    If you want a real ‘cover up’ to worry about then worry about Charlene Downes the 14 year old English girl murdered and then served up as Kebabs in Blackpool by the very ‘English’ sounding gentlemen…

    “…Iyad Albattikhi, 28, who ran the Funny Boyz takeaway in Blackpool, is charged with her murder.
    The co-owner of the business Mohammed Raveshi, a 49 year old former social services worker and foster father, is charged with assisting in the disposal of her body….”

  5. TottenhamLad — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:09 pm  

    Anyone see this from the Observer?

    Racial murders: nearly half the victims are white

    “…Senior police officers have admitted that ‘political correctness’ and the fear of discussing the issue have meant that race crime against white people goes under-reported….”

    Surprise, surprise…

  6. Kulvinder — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:24 pm  

    Interesting link TL, though the majority of racially motivated murders on white men were by other white men.

  7. Redwatch — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:30 pm  

    Kulvinder wrote :
    “though the majority of racially motivated murders on white men were by other white men.”

    How can someone commit a racially motivated murder against someone of the same race ?

  8. Chairwoman — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:33 pm  

    How about white racists against Jews? I gather we were classified as white in a recent report.

  9. Leon — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:39 pm  

    Reports like that remind me of the saying; “Lies, damned lies and statistics”…

  10. Jagdeep — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:40 pm  

    Why do want to watch the colour red? Are you colour blind or something?

    I actually like pink and beige and certain shades of blue sometimes.

    I’m starting a website called TurqoiseWatch.com

  11. Chairwoman — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:46 pm  

    Well there I was, ready to enter Redwatch and browse until I saw the C18 logo. So I made an excuse and left.

  12. soru — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:46 pm  

    Guardian on redwatch

    Interesting they show up to comment on this.

  13. Leon — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:50 pm  

    Yep, the fash here yet again…

  14. Jagdeep — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:50 pm  

    And there I was thinking this chap was a pleasent member of the synasthesia society.

  15. Redwatch — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:52 pm  

    Ooh, Jagdeep, you’re such a card aren’t you ?

    Sorry, did I say card, I meant to say twat.

  16. Kulvinder — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:55 pm  

    How can someone commit a racially motivated murder against someone of the same race ?

    By a variety of methods!? The Rwandan genocide was done by people of the same ‘race’ (as i believe you apply the term). I’m not sure if you were asking a rhetorical question to contemplate on, but the profiles of the victims and their killers suggests that taking simplistic ideas of ‘race hate’ in this country is misleading. Every ‘race’ has acted on another.

  17. Chairwoman — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:55 pm  

    Jagdeep – I had to look that up, but found it really interesting as cooking certain foods always triggers certain subjects, none of which are connected in any real way. Now I know there’s a name for it. Thank you. Much more fun than Redwatch would have been.

  18. TottenhamLad — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:56 pm  

    Leon: Reports like that remind me of the saying; “Lies, damned lies and statistics”…

    Oh you mean the same Lies, damned lies and statistics as used by the government as seen in the BBC report:
    Force admits rejecting white men

    “…Police are under pressure to meet the government target, set in 1999, that by 2009, 7% of police officers in England and Wales should be from ethnic minority groups…”

    Looks like some people only want to believe certain statistics when it suits them.

  19. Chairwoman — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:56 pm  

    Redwatch – Thank you for demonstrating civilised and sophisticated argument.

  20. Redwatch — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:58 pm  

    “Redwatch – Thank you for demonstrating civilised and sophisticated argument.”

    You’re welcome, comrade.

  21. Jagdeep — on 24th October, 2006 at 3:59 pm  

    Oh wow I was called a twat, I’m so upset.

    Ahem. This is my favourite from the article:

    One of the targets was Lazenby and numerous addresses were posted on the site for members to “check out”. One message read: “We need to find this reporter fast. If we can scare this cunt off, then we might get an easier time instead of being slagged off and made to look a bunch of muppets.”

    That’s hilarious – they’re scared of looking like muppets so they want to threaten a journalist ‘cunt’! Heh….

    The event, which was addressed by Leon Greenman, a Holocaust survivor, was described as a “Holohoax meeting”.

    Hey, brave men, threatening a holocaust survivor.

    Since the knife attack, McFadden has received a letter and a phone call warning him that if Redwatch is closed down his children will be shot

    Shooting children…is there no end to this bravery?

  22. Redwatch — on 24th October, 2006 at 4:02 pm  

    “Since the knife attack, McFadden has received a letter and a phone call warning him that if Redwatch is closed down his children will be shot”

    Translates :

    Since the self-inflicted scratch incident, publicity seeking toe-rag McFadden has been desperately trying to keep his story in the limelight by concocting even more unbelievable bullshit.

  23. Leon — on 24th October, 2006 at 4:03 pm  

    You’re welcome, comrade.

    Amazing, a nazi calling a Jew a comrade!

  24. Redwatch — on 24th October, 2006 at 4:06 pm  

    “Amazing, a nazi calling a Jew a comrade!”

    Are you saying that Chairwoman is a nazi ?

  25. Jai — on 24th October, 2006 at 4:08 pm  

    =>”Are you saying that Chairwoman is a nazi ?”

    Are you saying that you’re a Jew ?

  26. Redwatch — on 24th October, 2006 at 4:11 pm  

    Are you saying that you’re a Jai ?

  27. Jai — on 24th October, 2006 at 4:13 pm  

    =>”Are you saying that you’re a Jai ?”

    Obviously.

    Your move.

  28. Chairwoman — on 24th October, 2006 at 4:19 pm  

    Dave3Para – Indeed you are

  29. Leon — on 24th October, 2006 at 4:25 pm  

    GI Joe comes to PP?

  30. Not Saussure — on 24th October, 2006 at 4:44 pm  

    Sunny, your journalist friend is misinformed. The reporting restrictions you list are imposed not by the police but by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/96025–h.htm#37
    They apply in all criminal cases once charges are brought — there’s nothing special about them.

    NB the bit about ‘once charges are brought’. Had these chaps not been charged straight away under the Explosives Act and had, for example, been held for several weeks without charge under the Terrorism Act, then the press could have printed a great deal more about them until they were actually charged with something.

  31. Dan Goodman — on 24th October, 2006 at 5:04 pm  

    The last point raises an interesting question – does this mean that when the media does make a big fuss about something like this its because they’re allowed to because there’s no evidence? Can we then take it that when we see a story like this being reported widely, it must not be true? ;-)

  32. Sahil — on 24th October, 2006 at 5:08 pm  

    Ditto Dan, it seems to be the case with all the other ‘news’ stories for the last few weeks.

  33. Uncleji — on 24th October, 2006 at 5:18 pm  

    Islam fudys and now facists I never realised that the “progressive generation” was such a umbrella term. all we need now is a member of Respect and we’ve got the whole set of Totalitarian ideologies

  34. sonia — on 24th October, 2006 at 5:27 pm  

    rocket launchers!

    why would we trust the journalist?

    in any case, perhaps the police didn’t want to alarm anyone.

    naturally the media wouldn’t be v.interested as the people involved weren’t muslim.

    do we really think the MSM has any desires/cares apart from being able to get readership with screaming headlines?

  35. Leon — on 24th October, 2006 at 5:42 pm  

    No Leon,3 Para are UK troops fighting for you.

    You are? Can you help us out, we have this war criminal in office that needs arresting, ta.

  36. mirax — on 24th October, 2006 at 5:45 pm  

    one of the more bizarre threads on PP…is it just me or is redwatch mindnumbingly stupid?

  37. ZinZin — on 24th October, 2006 at 6:18 pm  

    Dave 3 Para.

    A fantasist of the highest order. Go and play Kenny Senior somewhere else

  38. genghis — on 24th October, 2006 at 6:28 pm  

    Everyone is missing the point here.

    Why isnt this story as newsworthy for all the national media as the story of the raids of arrests and subsequent ‘Trial by Media’ of muslims ?

    Just smacks of a hypocritical stance of the media!

    TL. Great Story…problem is…it wasnt racially motivated.

    What we are talking about here is that had the perps in this case been ‘muslims’ there would have been a barrage of tabloid headlines and TV media asking muslims Imams to condemn it, the community would have been unders suspicion, and furthermore numerous spin-off documentaries would have made etc etc.

  39. ZinZin — on 24th October, 2006 at 6:36 pm  

    Dave3 para
    You racist cunt i am fucking white.

    Also a proper soldier does not brag about how many people they killed. Got that Rambo.

  40. Kulvinder — on 24th October, 2006 at 6:44 pm  

    I don’t think a proper soldier would have been in afghanistan last week, the uk this week and back to afghanistan soon…well unless the british army uses unique tours.

  41. PFM — on 24th October, 2006 at 6:49 pm  

    [Dave3 para
    You racist cunt i am fucking white.

    Also a proper soldier does not brag about how many people they killed. Got that Rambo.]

    lol

    forget barfi im sticking to this!

    i guess time will tell when the trial starts ;)

  42. Chairwoman — on 24th October, 2006 at 6:57 pm  

    3 Para have been back since 12th October Kulvinder

  43. Field Marshal Uncleji — on 24th October, 2006 at 7:05 pm  

    “Leon,you are talking about the Prime Minister of our great country.We UK forces do not get into politics we are loyal come what may.”
    I don’t know your guvnor seem to up for a coup since he did that interview for the Mail and really I haven’t really trusted the army since the Curragh Incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curragh_Incident.

  44. Yakoub/Julaybib — on 24th October, 2006 at 7:06 pm  

    Someone from MPACUK forum posted this response to their email, which was received on 20/10/06:

    Thanks for your e-mail. We had planned to cover this issue on last week’s NewsWatch programme, but unfortunately had to drop the item at the last minute because we couldn’t confirm information we needed to
    make sure our report didn’t break the law.

    The simple answer is that the national BBC should have covered this but missed the story – it was featured on BBC Radio Lancashire, where the offences occurred, but should have had wider coverage nationally.

    However, it’s also interesting that of the national newspapers, only the Sunday Times carried any mention of the case at all.

    I think this is partly down to the way the police locally handled the whole thing – and there have been discussions about the lack of information coming from them.

    However, I should point out that much of the information you may have read on various websites goes far beyond what should be reported once people have been arrested and charged, and the BBC could not have given anywhere near that much detail of the case.

    But I’m told there will definitely be someone covering next Monday’s court hearing in Burnley.

    I hope that’s useful,

    Ian Jolly
    NewsWatch

    Also, a great deal of what appears in papers and the Web appeared to come from Police themselves. Altogether, it smells absolutely rancid.

    Wasalaam

    TMA

  45. Katy — on 24th October, 2006 at 7:19 pm  

    Sunny, I don’t know which journalist you spoke to about the restrictions but it sounds like they had no idea what they were talking about. I see that NotSaussure has made this point about the reporting restrictions, but as the resident PP lawyer I feel the urge to stick my oar in anyway:

    1: The police have no power to place reporting restrictions upon journalists or anyone else in relation to what is said in court proceedings. The Court can restrict the reporting of names of parties in limited circumstances, but if it doesn’t want what is said in court to be reported it has to sit in camera – something which is virtually never done. The principle of a public, open criminal justice system is taken very seriously by the judiciary in this jurisdiction. I have seen a few applications to sit in camera but I have never seen one granted.

    2. The reporting restrictions referred to are statutory, and exist to prevent cases from being derailed by media speculation pre-trial. No matter how sensationally an initial story is reported prior to arrests being made (e.g. Soham, to take a notorious example) as soon as suspects are charged the reporting immediately becomes much, much more circumspect, and confined to the details set out by your journalist friend.

    3. This case was not sat on by the police. As I recall, it was reported to a certain extent just after the search, because the police released details of the search to journalists who were interested. You yourself put an article about the search on this site just after it happened. That wouldnt have happened if the police had sat on the story. It was right there on the newswire for journalists to run with if they wanted to, but – inexplicably – they didn’t. That is why the initial search didn’t make the national headlines: national journalists weren’t interested.

    The real question in this case isn’t about the police or about reporting restrictions. It’s about why the MSM, even as it salivated over reports of Islamic terrorism, wasn’t remotely interested in reporting white racist terrorism. Journalists probably don’t want the debate to be framed in that way because it means that suddenly it’s their biases that come under the microscope. But that’s the really interesting question here.

  46. Katy — on 24th October, 2006 at 7:33 pm  

    You forgot to say “Dave 3 para fighting for you”.

  47. genghis — on 24th October, 2006 at 7:34 pm  

    LOL! @HTML tags!

    Quite right too Katy. The question arises then that muslims feel hard done by. The Hypocrisy of UK National Media outlets condemn all muslims and the whole community with Flimsy evidence. However, when the perpertators of a ‘would be’ terror threat comes from Whites espesh in this case BNP the National Media has gone all Ostrich on us! Wonder why?

    Can it possibly be that there really is a ‘conspiracy’ of sorts, in that the media is attacking and highlighting even innocuous incidents that involve muslims, nationally ?

    Singling out, victimising, targeting words that smack of rascism…

  48. Anas — on 24th October, 2006 at 7:45 pm  

    I don’t think it’s a conspiracy as such, rather institutional ignorance and bias.

  49. Suzy — on 24th October, 2006 at 7:46 pm  

    The reason why the media places news involving Muslim terrorism under intense scrutiny is because of the intense number of plots to murder countless numbers of innocent people in the name of extremist Islamic ideology by British men. 18 months ago 55 people were slaughtered by Muslims from Leeds. Two weeks later another mass slaughter in the name of Islamic extremism was narrowly avoided. Men are on trial for plotting to slaughter ‘dancing sluts’ inside nightclubs. Last week a Muslim on trial pleaded guilty to plotting to a plot to explode bombs in London and New York. There are large numbers of these terrorist plots active and being monitored. All of this emanates from a minority community from within a tiny Muslim populace of 1.5 million people. This violent and hateful ideology has bedrock supporters in small virulent groups that despise our society. So much they want to slaughter thousands of us. All of this, as well as suicide bombers from Derby, Birmingham and London having murdered innocent people in Israel and elsewhere. So, this is not a media conspiracy. This is a reality. If the media has been negligent in paying due attention to this it should be corrected. But screaming howls of pain feeds into the rancid victimhood and persecution complex that feeds the hatred to kill so many in the name of Islamic extremism in the first place. Get some perspective.

  50. Don — on 24th October, 2006 at 7:51 pm  

    What did Dave say they got him deleted?

  51. Don — on 24th October, 2006 at 7:52 pm  

    they = that

  52. Anas — on 24th October, 2006 at 8:02 pm  

    Suzy, in a period of acute hysteria such as we are in now — and which we were certainly in post 9/11 & 7/7 — doesn’t the media have an extra special duty not to inflame things by reporting stories that may or are uncertain may not have a basis in fact — and to wait until more det a few more concrete details can be ascertained?

    This is especially true when we risk alienating and demonising Muslim communities across the country: and unless you didn’t know the overwhelming majority of Muslims are absolutely against any terrorist attacks in Britain.

  53. Anas — on 24th October, 2006 at 8:16 pm  

    correction:
    doesn’t the media have an extra special duty not to inflame things by reporting stories that are uncertain and may or may not have a basis in fact — and to wait until a few more concrete details can be ascertained?

  54. Yakoub/Julaybib — on 24th October, 2006 at 9:04 pm  

    You have got to locate the reporting of Islam not just in a post 7/7 and 9/11 context, but in terms of the way Muslims have long been ‘othered’ by the media as irrational, primitive, underdeveloped, medieval and even barbaric for decades. This is as much about insecurities created by globalization and reformulated racisms as it is about genuine terrorist fears. Can you imagine how The Scum would report a mosque blown up by Nazis? – in lurid, voyeuristic detail! And what people often fail to notice is that the media is consensual and conservative, despite the myth that it regularly calls governments into question and challenge the status quo. Every journalist knows this white bomber thing was not good copy, but perhaps without fully realising why – that it would utterly undermine the tacit media/government agreement that the ‘real’ threat is from Muslims.

    Wasalaam

    TMA

  55. ZinZin — on 24th October, 2006 at 10:59 pm  

    I would like to apologise for the intemperate language i use d earlier. Very sorry about that.

  56. lost soul — on 24th October, 2006 at 11:23 pm  

    Hey, doesn’t that go against freedom of expression and information. On what ground can the police place restriction on case of that kind? Surely, if the media was interested in reporting it they would have. But then this is White supremists or While fundementals which cannot be exposed. We should all make a fuss about it.

  57. DR1001 — on 24th October, 2006 at 11:27 pm  

    Suzy your use of the word ‘slaughter’ numerous times is just the type of sensationlist persepective that is a problem in whipping up fear. Lets keep it calm and not like a movie trailer.

    And as someone this is a tiny fraction of people from over a billion within the muslim faith wordlwide, that are out to kill. Lets put that into perspective too.

  58. Don — on 25th October, 2006 at 1:33 am  

    Ghengis,

    ‘I’m glad that not everyone has the same perspective as you!’

    We all have different perspectives. From mine, yours is fucked up.

  59. Don — on 25th October, 2006 at 1:52 am  

    Da nada.

  60. Jltbro — on 25th October, 2006 at 2:15 am  

    “How can someone commit a racially motivated murder against someone of the same race ?”

    Perhaps if you and tottenhamlad ‘could’ actually read what you post – instead of forwarding links by people who gave you a summary of the story. The Guardian article goes on to say:

    “Fahy also warned of caution in over-interpreting the figures. He said that the 24 white victims also included those who were Jewish, ‘dark-skinned’ Europeans or gypsies. In addition, seven of those were killed by white attackers, four by black, six by Asian, with seven whose racial background was not identified.”

  61. Jltbro — on 25th October, 2006 at 2:16 am  

    Sunny i really think your investagative work should be thrown to the mainstream on the Gurdian’s CIF section – perhaps then answers would be forthcoming.

  62. Sunny — on 25th October, 2006 at 2:25 am  

    Katy and Saussure, thanks for clarifying. I’ve amended the text above… I got another email saying the same.

    Katy: This case was not sat on by the police. As I recall, it was reported to a certain extent just after the search, because the police released details of the search to journalists who were interested. You yourself put an article about the search on this site just after it happened. That wouldnt have happened if the police had sat on the story. It was right there on the newswire for journalists to run with if they wanted to, but – inexplicably – they didn’t. That is why the initial search didn’t make the national headlines: national journalists weren’t interested.

    Well that’s not exactly what I was informed. The wire services never reported this story, only a few local papers did. They report almost anything so that isn’t surprising.

    BBC Lancaster did run the story but apparently, the journo was advised by the police that this was nothing big. Another Asian journo who was chasing this up emailed me to say the police completely tried to downplay this story and pretend it wasn’t anything worth reporting.

    I know certain people at the BBC and they’d love for nothing more than expose the BNP so I’m not entirely convinced the big broadcasters sat on this.

  63. voice of reason — on 25th October, 2006 at 9:33 am  

    Hi,

    Katy, legally you’re spot on, but however the case was sat on by the old Bill.

    Lancashire Police like most police forces have a pressline through which the inform local and national media of cases of interest. The didn’t put this on the line and I think that counts as sitting on. Also they normally update the media on any progress on court cases, remand appearences, etc.. They didn’t do that this time out

  64. sonia — on 25th October, 2006 at 10:19 am  

    oh come come we don’t really think the police informs the press about everything.. what – is everyone so naive and so idealistic to really believe that happens 100% of the time?

    *chortle*

  65. Mr Brown — on 25th October, 2006 at 10:36 am  

    The only reason Old Bill sat on the case was he’d put too many clothes in it so he had trouble closing it.

  66. sonia — on 25th October, 2006 at 10:36 am  

    45 – Katy

    glad you stuck your oar in there – makes sense what you say. i agree the questions should be more on why the MSM weren’t interested.

  67. Leon — on 25th October, 2006 at 10:41 am  

    Not quite the point Sonia, it’s about what the police choose to inform or downplay and the reasons why.

  68. voice of reason — on 25th October, 2006 at 10:58 am  

    Hi Sonia,

    The relationship between the police and the local media is very important. Its in their interest to have two way trust because the Police need to media at times. What’s happened here has damaged that relationship.

  69. sonia — on 25th October, 2006 at 11:17 am  

    i didn’t say it wasn’t important…

    :-)

  70. sonia — on 25th October, 2006 at 11:17 am  

    perhaps it wasn’t to the point – Leon – just something i wanted to highlight.

  71. sonia — on 25th October, 2006 at 11:22 am  

    it sounds like no one actually has any concrete idea ( apart from what katy mentioned on the law) on what the police ought to be doing re: (their local media) or do in reality most of the time. which would be relevant to the point at hand. i.e b4 getting worked up – it might be useful to know e.g. that the overworked police don’t get around to doing what they should do – and this wasn’t particularly ‘different’. which would then affect any theorizing that goes on about it.

  72. Para — on 25th October, 2006 at 11:44 am  

    My mate Alan killed 4 Taleban yesterday.The Paras put a groove in their rifle butt for each Taleban kiled. Dave 3Para fighting for you

  73. Para — on 25th October, 2006 at 11:46 am  

    Sorry killed not kiled. Dave 3Para fighting for you

  74. Anas — on 25th October, 2006 at 1:34 pm  

    I for one feel much safer

  75. Chairwoman — on 25th October, 2006 at 1:58 pm  

    Anas – Did you read my mind?

  76. Para — on 25th October, 2006 at 5:46 pm  

    Sleep well tonight,we have the Taleban on the run.No way will they ever come to the UK to perform acts of terrorism as there won’t be many left soon. Dave 3 Para fighting for you

  77. ZinZin — on 25th October, 2006 at 6:09 pm  

    Dave3para does this Alan fellow exist?

  78. Anas — on 25th October, 2006 at 6:22 pm  

    Para, I’m sure a lot of heroin dealers will sleep comfortably tonight, safe in the knowledge that they’re assured of a plentiful supply.

  79. Don — on 25th October, 2006 at 6:55 pm  

    ZinZin,

    Of course Alan exists. That’s why, when you give Dave a sweetie, you have to give one for Alan too.

  80. Para — on 25th October, 2006 at 8:49 pm  

    Why all this anti ZinZin? All my mates are laying down their lives for the likes of your good self and indeed anyone who resides in the UK. You do back us ZinZin..don’t you. Dave 3Para fighting for you

  81. Para — on 25th October, 2006 at 8:56 pm  

    My mate Alan is Black as the ace of spades.Parents from Trinidad one of the best fighters you will ever come across. Dave 3Para fighting for you.

  82. ZinZin — on 25th October, 2006 at 11:06 pm  

    Dave3Para
    Of Course i support the British armed forces fine upstanding fellows that they are.

    2 hours and 40 minutes to make Alan up and give him a background story. Thats not very impressive is it Rambo.
    6 minutes later and some of my best mates are black.

    Can Picklers have a wipe round so that Dave and erm Alan can get proper psychiatric care. The Priorys not cheap.

  83. Sahil — on 25th October, 2006 at 11:42 pm  

    Ditto!!

  84. Leon — on 26th October, 2006 at 10:14 am  

    A wipe around?

  85. soru — on 26th October, 2006 at 10:22 am  

    Presumably a wipe around is something Kismet would pay enough money for to meet the Priory bill.

  86. ZinZin — on 26th October, 2006 at 5:13 pm  

    Shit i meant whip round. Damn my spelling

  87. Leon — on 26th October, 2006 at 5:36 pm  

    Yeah I know, just couldn’t resist the obvious silly joke…

  88. ZinZin — on 26th October, 2006 at 5:38 pm  

    Leon may i suggest a whip round for illiterate types such as myself?

  89. genghis — on 31st October, 2006 at 10:35 am  

    Sunny,

    Your site has rascist links ^. Isnt this you exercising ‘editorial’ control, same as what you accused MPAC of?

  90. Leon — on 31st October, 2006 at 10:44 am  

    genghis, we have no control over who comes here, only admin and the thread starter can delete comments. Hence yours and the BNP idiots comments being deleted on the other thread. Give it a rest and let Sunny come online, I’m sure he’ll delete this crap…

  91. sonia — on 31st October, 2006 at 10:59 am  

    ha hah don’t worry genghis – you and your references to Whitey are just as racist.

  92. genghis — on 31st October, 2006 at 11:08 am  

    Sonia,

    Do something useful, Kitchen —>

  93. sonia — on 31st October, 2006 at 11:40 am  

    :-) gotto try harder genghis..can’t rile me that easily. in any case, doing something useful for me would be to do some work as im at the office! ho ho

  94. andrewbnp — on 7th November, 2006 at 9:45 pm  

    Trial of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett to end this week. All nationalists and defenders of free speech please go to Leeds Crown Court to support them. It’s got to be a victory for the BNP and the right to tell the truth about Muslims gang-raping under-age white girls.

  95. andrewbnp — on 7th November, 2006 at 9:45 pm  

    Trial of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett to end this week. All nationalists and defenders of free speech please go to Leeds Crown Court to support them. It’s got to be a victory for the BNP and the right to tell the truth about Muslims gang-raping under-age white girls.

  96. Katy — on 7th November, 2006 at 9:52 pm  

    Nice choice of forum there, Andrew.

    We’re just teeming with white nationalists over here.

    Yes indeedy.

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.