DEGALE WILL DESTROY GROVES EARLY SAY ENZO, NAZ, MCDONNELL!

First topic message reminder :

from the sun
"Naz reckons it will be over in four, Enzo Calzaghe has said it'll be five or six, and I'll be very, very surprised if it ends up going the distance.

"If it does go the full 12, George will end up getting one hell of a beating."

//////////////////////
Have to agree with Jim here, i dont think Groves is a quarter the fighter DeGale is, i refuse to be drawn into the hype of him being Haye's gym-mate, this fight is an 80/20 fight in favour of DeGale, and i will be utterly staggered if the fight goes past 4 rounds, DeGale will destroy him, its an hype fight and not a pick em fight as some have suggested, DeGale is ready for fringe world level fights, being dropped off Anderson and beating Adamu who just beat the terrible Dilks is nothing special in my eyes, and obviously not McDonnell, Naz' or Enzo's

It is actually against the law to say such things AZ and it's clear to everyone that views like that should not be aired in the public domain or would it be acceptable for me to say I think every frenchmen deserves to die for example (not that I do, amazing chefs the french).

The Mighty Atom wrote:It is actually against the law to say such things AZ and it's clear to everyone that views like that should not be aired in the public domain or would it be acceptable for me to say I think every frenchmen deserves to die for example (not that I do, amazing chefs the french).

I dont think it is against the law. If you believe all Frenchmen (except for chefs) should die, then I will defend your right to say so. I dont have to agree with it. I'd rather not live in a dictatorship where views are silenced. So long as it is not incitement to violence, threatening violence or promoting violence, then its all good.

BALTIMORA wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So you think it's acceptable for someone to say that british troops deserve to die comparing them to the SS and provoking mass levels of animosity?

The guy needs to spend a little time in Saudi Arabia or some other such strict muslim country. See how far such behaviour and criticising their government gets him. He's an oik. No more, no less, and personally I think if he doesn't like the UK he should move.

I for one am thankful we live in a country where such views can be aired. If we start comparing ourselves to Saudi then we are losing.

It is well and truly against the law, comes under a) the anti terrorism laws and b) disruption of the peace

I personally think anyone airing such views should oh dear of out the country, if you don't like it don't live here

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So you think it's acceptable for someone to say that british troops deserve to die comparing them to the SS and provoking mass levels of animosity?

The guy needs to spend a little time in Saudi Arabia or some other such strict muslim country. See how far such behaviour and criticising their government gets him. He's an oik. No more, no less, and personally I think if he doesn't like the UK he should move.

I for one am thankful we live in a country where such views can be aired. If we start comparing ourselves to Saudi then we are losing.

I don't care about him airing 'his' views, it's the blind hypocrisy of the man and his cronies that irks me, whether it's their warped take on religion (which is warped enough already) or the way they'll happily accept protection from the police while slating everything about this country.

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So you think it's acceptable for someone to say that british troops deserve to die comparing them to the SS and provoking mass levels of animosity?

The guy needs to spend a little time in Saudi Arabia or some other such strict muslim country. See how far such behaviour and criticising their government gets him. He's an oik. No more, no less, and personally I think if he doesn't like the UK he should move.

I for one am thankful we live in a country where such views can be aired. If we start comparing ourselves to Saudi then we are losing.

Az you come from this from a different angle than a lot of us though. Would you censor the white power movement in America that say death to all blacks, yellows and Jews? These are disgusting people who don't deserve a right to freedom of speech.

The Mighty Atom wrote:It is well and truly against the law, comes under a) the anti terrorism laws and b) disruption of the peace

Unfortunately it does not. Holding a demonstration is not against the law or threatening the peace. What section of the anti terror law did it run contrary to? The facts are that he didn't break any laws and as long as he continues not to break laws, he is and should be entitled to say what he wants.

The Mighty Atom wrote:I personally think anyone airing such views should oh dear of out the country, if you don't like it don't live here

That's your opinion and I respectfully disagree.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So you think it's acceptable for someone to say that british troops deserve to die comparing them to the SS and provoking mass levels of animosity?

The guy needs to spend a little time in Saudi Arabia or some other such strict muslim country. See how far such behaviour and criticising their government gets him. He's an oik. No more, no less, and personally I think if he doesn't like the UK he should move.

I for one am thankful we live in a country where such views can be aired. If we start comparing ourselves to Saudi then we are losing.

I don't care about him airing 'his' views, it's the blind hypocrisy of the man and his cronies that irks me, whether it's their warped take on religion (which is warped enough already) or the way they'll happily accept protection from the police while slating everything about this country.

The problem is that he is using the Nuremberg defence. Soldiers following orders is no defence and it shouldn't be. He is within his rights to refer to soldiers as baby killers and still not be comitting a crime. And he should be protected in saying what he believes with the full protection of the state.

Can he throw a jab (keeping it boxing related).

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:It is well and truly against the law, comes under a) the anti terrorism laws and b) disruption of the peace

Unfortunately it does not. Holding a demonstration is not against the law or threatening the peace. What section of the anti terror law did it run contrary to? The facts are that he didn't break any laws and as long as he continues not to break laws, he is and should be entitled to say what he wants.

Wasn't actually a demonstration though was it and you will find that the legality of a demonstration is determined by its content. It is against the terror laws to air views that advocate the murder of anyone not least the british armed forces.

I'd be pretty damm stupid to go over to Saudi Arabia and start proclaiming that everyone in the country should die nor should I be allowed to do so

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So you think it's acceptable for someone to say that british troops deserve to die comparing them to the SS and provoking mass levels of animosity?

The guy needs to spend a little time in Saudi Arabia or some other such strict muslim country. See how far such behaviour and criticising their government gets him. He's an oik. No more, no less, and personally I think if he doesn't like the UK he should move.

I for one am thankful we live in a country where such views can be aired. If we start comparing ourselves to Saudi then we are losing.

Az you come from this from a different angle than a lot of us though. Would you censor the white power movement in America that say death to all blacks, yellows and Jews? These are disgusting people who don't deserve a right to freedom of speech.

If a racial power movement (any race) says "death to....." then its an obvious crime. Saying "death to Britain, America, Saudi, Japan outer mongolia" is not a crime though because you cannot kill a country even if you can incinerate everyone there. A country is not a living entity.

Saying death to a race is a crime under the recent hate laws and the 1976 race relations act. I believe a few so called imams have fallen foul of this and are doing bird currently.

He's not using the Nuremberg defence though. As for referring to soldiers as baby killers-if it isn't true, then it's slanderous. As far as being protected by the state is concerned he's as entitled as the next person, but he needs to be aware of where he's living.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:It is well and truly against the law, comes under a) the anti terrorism laws and b) disruption of the peace

Unfortunately it does not. Holding a demonstration is not against the law or threatening the peace. What section of the anti terror law did it run contrary to? The facts are that he didn't break any laws and as long as he continues not to break laws, he is and should be entitled to say what he wants.

Wasn't actually a demonstration though was it and you will find that the legality of a demonstration is determined by its content. It is against the terror laws to air views that advocate the murder of anyone not least the british armed forces.

I'd be pretty damm stupid to go over to Saudi Arabia and start proclaiming that everyone in the country should die nor should I be allowed to do so

The only law which could have been broken was holding a public meeting without permission.

He didn;t advocate murder. The first person who was arrested under the anti terror laws was an 87 year old holocaust survivor who criticised and heckled Jack Straw during the labour party confrence.

Its very stupid to advocate and proclaim that everyone should die and you would be arrested for saying that be it in Saudi or here.

You're not going to be protected by the state when it is the state you are slagging off, under no circumstances should it be acceptable to air such views, if he wishes to so elsewhere I couldn't care less. Do it in the country I live, the country my relatives were willing to die to protect not a chance in hell

BALTIMORA wrote:He's not using the Nuremberg defence though. As for referring to soldiers as baby killers-if it isn't true, then it's slanderous. As far as being protected by the state is concerned he's as entitled as the next person, but he needs to be aware of where he's living.

He may not be using the nuremberg defence but that is the defence any half arced lawyer would use to defend his right to say what he said. Moreover the govt knows that hence it is hard to criminalise what was said.

Slander is a civil offence. He is entitled to whatever protection the state provides and as you say the state cannot legislate for the actions of one p'd off person who takes serious umbrage against what he said.

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:He's not using the Nuremberg defence though. As for referring to soldiers as baby killers-if it isn't true, then it's slanderous. As far as being protected by the state is concerned he's as entitled as the next person, but he needs to be aware of where he's living.

He may not be using the nuremberg defence but that is the defence any half arced lawyer would use to defend his right to say what he said. Moreover the govt knows that hence it is hard to criminalise what was said.

Slander is a civil offence. He is entitled to whatever protection the state provides and as you say the state cannot legislate for the actions of one p'd off person who takes serious umbrage against what he said.

I doubt a lawyer would use the Nuremberg defence. What he's doing is significantly different to that. Rubbish boxing nickname too.

The Mighty Atom wrote:You're not going to be protected by the state when it is the state you are slagging off, under no circumstances should it be acceptable to air such views, if he wishes to so elsewhere I couldn't care less. Do it in the country I live, the country my relatives were willing to die to protect not a chance in hell

Fortunately we live in a society which permits criticism of it and offers due protection. Anyway, who would want to live in a Stepford wife society where only those who give offerings and fullsome praise are awarded full protection. What you seem to be searching for is something closer to neo fascism with all due respect imo. A society where certain views only are tolerated. Where do you draw the lione.

And more importantly, what has this got to do with boxing!!!???

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:He's not using the Nuremberg defence though. As for referring to soldiers as baby killers-if it isn't true, then it's slanderous. As far as being protected by the state is concerned he's as entitled as the next person, but he needs to be aware of where he's living.

He may not be using the nuremberg defence but that is the defence any half arced lawyer would use to defend his right to say what he said. Moreover the govt knows that hence it is hard to criminalise what was said.

Slander is a civil offence. He is entitled to whatever protection the state provides and as you say the state cannot legislate for the actions of one p'd off person who takes serious umbrage against what he said.

I doubt a lawyer would use the Nuremberg defence. What he's doing is significantly different to that. Rubbish boxing nickname too.

They will not have to use it but the precedent is there. And its a binding precedent.

Funny ring entrances also.

I fail to see the relevance of the Nuremberg defence in all of this.

I draw the line at any views against anyone, neo facism is built upon a dictatorship and has extreme views against certain races of people I do with all due respect do not and find it quite insulting that accusations are levelled my way. I am also pretty sure your opinion would change were it a white man airing views against other races but alas those like Patterson and Frazier are uncle toms for they chose not to increase civil tension.

The Mighty Atom wrote:I draw the line at any views against anyone, neo facism is built upon a dictatorship and has extreme views against certain races of people I do with all due respect do not and find it quite insulting that accusations are levelled my way. I am also pretty sure your opinion would change were it a white man airing views against other races but alas those like Patterson and Frazier are uncle toms for they chose not to increase civil tension.

Nope. My opinion would be the same regardless of who said it. I believe in and support freedom of speach. It is a fundermental human right. I cant recall who said it but I'll paraphrase. "I may disagree with your views, but I'll fight to the death to protect your right to say it".

I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Italiam fascism was not disciminatory against other races. Fascism is a political system in which censorship of alternative opinions runs at its core.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So you think it's acceptable for someone to say that british troops deserve to die comparing them to the SS and provoking mass levels of animosity?

I dont agree with what he says. But I will never agree with censoring him. I hope you see the difference. I didn't agree with the wars, but I dont blame the troops. My dislike is for the politicians who sent them there. But each to their own.

If we start censoring people for having odious views, where do we stop and who decides what is odious?

I'll remember that one, to throw back at you one day

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So you think it's acceptable for someone to say that british troops deserve to die comparing them to the SS and provoking mass levels of animosity?

I dont agree with what he says. But I will never agree with censoring him. I hope you see the difference. I didn't agree with the wars, but I dont blame the troops. My dislike is for the politicians who sent them there. But each to their own.

If we start censoring people for having odious views, where do we stop and who decides what is odious?

I'll remember that one, to throw back at you one day

Ha. As long as it doesn't fall foul of the law. Right now, he didn't break any laws.

azania wrote:I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Az you're to nice and liberal. He doesn't deserve the air he breathes never mind the right to spout his s**t.

Free Speech is Paramount and just because you disagree with what someone says it does not mean the you be censored.

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So you think it's acceptable for someone to say that british troops deserve to die comparing them to the SS and provoking mass levels of animosity?

I dont agree with what he says. But I will never agree with censoring him. I hope you see the difference. I didn't agree with the wars, but I dont blame the troops. My dislike is for the politicians who sent them there. But each to their own.
If we start censoring people for having odious views, where do we stop and who decides what is odious?

I'll remember that one, to throw back at you one day

Ha. As long as it doesn't fall foul of the law. Right now, he didn't break any laws.

He meant with his posts...

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Az you're to nice and liberal. He doesn't deserve the air he breathes never mind the right to spout his s**t.

So you are saying he deserves to die for his views?

What type of person does that make you?

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So you think it's acceptable for someone to say that british troops deserve to die comparing them to the SS and provoking mass levels of animosity?

I dont agree with what he says. But I will never agree with censoring him. I hope you see the difference. I didn't agree with the wars, but I dont blame the troops. My dislike is for the politicians who sent them there. But each to their own.
If we start censoring people for having odious views, where do we stop and who decides what is odious?

I'll remember that one, to throw back at you one day

Ha. As long as it doesn't fall foul of the law. Right now, he didn't break any laws.

He meant with his posts...

I know.

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Az you're to nice and liberal. He doesn't deserve the air he breathes never mind the right to spout his s**t.

So you are saying he deserves to die for his views?

What type of person does that make you?

The man is a racist and a bigot. I hate both and have no time or respect for the kind of people with these views and quite frankly I think the World would be a much better place without them.

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Az you're to nice and liberal. He doesn't deserve the air he breathes never mind the right to spout his s**t.

That may be the case, but I support free speach and freedom of opinion so long as it doesn't incite violence. Leave the violence to the boxers.

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Az you're to nice and liberal. He doesn't deserve the air he breathes never mind the right to spout his s**t.

So you are saying he deserves to die for his views?

What type of person does that make you?

The man is a racist and a bigot. I hate both and have no time or respect for the kind of people with these views and quite frankly I think the World would be a much better place without them.

So you think the state you round people up like that and kill them?

I believe Hitler had a similar idea.

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Az you're to nice and liberal. He doesn't deserve the air he breathes never mind the right to spout his s**t.

So you are saying he deserves to die for his views?

What type of person does that make you?

The man is a racist and a bigot. I hate both and have no time or respect for the kind of people with these views and quite frankly I think the World would be a much better place without them.

I agree with that. But we're not in a perfect world. People have different views and should be tolerated and dare I say respected. Frankly if I met Griffin in a dark alley, my instinct would be to flatten him. Bigots are lower than pond life.

Agreed Griffin is the worst of the lot and should be flogged at sea

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Az you're to nice and liberal. He doesn't deserve the air he breathes never mind the right to spout his s**t.

So you are saying he deserves to die for his views?

What type of person does that make you?

The man is a racist and a bigot. I hate both and have no time or respect for the kind of people with these views and quite frankly I think the World would be a much better place without them.

So you think the state you round people up like that and kill them?

I believe Hitler had a similar idea.

No Hitler rounded them up on a religious and racial basis, similar to what scum like Griffin would do. He is a bigot. TBH if he died I would be quite happy along with the idiots who vote for him.

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Az you're to nice and liberal. He doesn't deserve the air he breathes never mind the right to spout his s**t.

So you are saying he deserves to die for his views?

What type of person does that make you?

The man is a racist and a bigot. I hate both and have no time or respect for the kind of people with these views and quite frankly I think the World would be a much better place without them.

So you think the state you round people up like that and kill them?

I believe Hitler had a similar idea.

No Hitler rounded them up on a religious and racial basis, similar to what scum like Griffin would do. He is a bigot. TBH if he died I would be quite happy along with the idiots who vote for him.

Don't blame the voters, blame the other parties for not providing a preferential alternative.

BALTIMORA wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Az you're to nice and liberal. He doesn't deserve the air he breathes never mind the right to spout his s**t.

So you are saying he deserves to die for his views?

What type of person does that make you?

The man is a racist and a bigot. I hate both and have no time or respect for the kind of people with these views and quite frankly I think the World would be a much better place without them.

So you think the state you round people up like that and kill them?

I believe Hitler had a similar idea.

No Hitler rounded them up on a religious and racial basis, similar to what scum like Griffin would do. He is a bigot. TBH if he died I would be quite happy along with the idiots who vote for him.

Don't blame the voters, blame the other parties for not providing a preferential alternative.

I know what you mean I would rather vote Tory than BNP and I'm from Glasgow you can get hung for voting Tory up here.

I can imagine. I rarely bother at all. No way I'd ever vote Liberal, and the reds & the blues are as bad as one another.

I voted SNP mate they are actually doing what they said they would.

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Az you're to nice and liberal. He doesn't deserve the air he breathes never mind the right to spout his s**t.

So you are saying he deserves to die for his views?

What type of person does that make you?

The man is a racist and a bigot. I hate both and have no time or respect for the kind of people with these views and quite frankly I think the World would be a much better place without them.

So you think the state you round people up like that and kill them?

I believe Hitler had a similar idea.

No Hitler rounded them up on a religious and racial basis, similar to what scum like Griffin would do. He is a bigot. TBH if he died I would be quite happy along with the idiots who vote for him.

So people should killed for their political views now?

You agree in killing people for thinking something and you don't see anything wrong with that?

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Az you're to nice and liberal. He doesn't deserve the air he breathes never mind the right to spout his s**t.

So you are saying he deserves to die for his views?

What type of person does that make you?

The man is a racist and a bigot. I hate both and have no time or respect for the kind of people with these views and quite frankly I think the World would be a much better place without them.

So you think the state you round people up like that and kill them?

I believe Hitler had a similar idea.

No Hitler rounded them up on a religious and racial basis, similar to what scum like Griffin would do. He is a bigot. TBH if he died I would be quite happy along with the idiots who vote for him.

So people should killed for their political views now?

You agree in killing people for thinking something and you don't see anything wrong with that?

I never said I agreed with killing anyone you just have sand in your vagina about the whole Manny news stuff and because it was my idea are trying to have a pop.

I said "TBH if he died I would be quite happy along with the idiots who vote for him" I never advocated killing that is against the law. Everyone dies at some point and that is a fact.

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Az you're to nice and liberal. He doesn't deserve the air he breathes never mind the right to spout his s**t.

So you are saying he deserves to die for his views?

What type of person does that make you?

The man is a racist and a bigot. I hate both and have no time or respect for the kind of people with these views and quite frankly I think the World would be a much better place without them.

So you think the state you round people up like that and kill them?

I believe Hitler had a similar idea.

No Hitler rounded them up on a religious and racial basis, similar to what scum like Griffin would do. He is a bigot. TBH if he died I would be quite happy along with the idiots who vote for him.

So people should killed for their political views now?

You agree in killing people for thinking something and you don't see anything wrong with that?

That's not what he said though is it. Not at all. You should be ashamed of yourself for deliberately twisting his words like that.

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Az you're to nice and liberal. He doesn't deserve the air he breathes never mind the right to spout his s**t.

So you are saying he deserves to die for his views?

What type of person does that make you?

The man is a racist and a bigot. I hate both and have no time or respect for the kind of people with these views and quite frankly I think the World would be a much better place without them.

So you think the state you round people up like that and kill them?

I believe Hitler had a similar idea.

No Hitler rounded them up on a religious and racial basis, similar to what scum like Griffin would do. He is a bigot. TBH if he died I would be quite happy along with the idiots who vote for him.

So people should killed for their political views now?

You agree in killing people for thinking something and you don't see anything wrong with that?

I never said I agreed with killing anyone you just have sand in your vagina about the whole Manny news stuff and because it was my idea are trying to have a pop.

I said "TBH if he died I would be quite happy along with the idiots who vote for him" I never advocated killing that is against the law. Everyone dies at some point and that is a fact.

I just find your views distastful, rejoicing in the deaths of others purely on there views.

But I respect your right to think it and say it and won't rejoice in your premature death simply because I disagree with what you are saying.

Why is Kev gonna die a premature death, D4? Something you're not letting on?

BALTIMORA wrote:Why is Kev gonna die a premature death, D4? Something you're not letting on?

He is from Glasgow

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Why is Kev gonna die a premature death, D4? Something you're not letting on?

He is from Glasgow

Why not have a dig at blacks, homosexuals or disabled folk next?

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Why is Kev gonna die a premature death, D4? Something you're not letting on?

He is from Glasgow

Why not have a dig at blacks, homosexuals or disabled folk next?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/11/10110338/4

and found that premature deaths in Glasgow were over 30% higher, with the excess mortality found across men and women,

The guy needs to spend a little time in Saudi Arabia or some other such strict muslim country. See how far such behaviour and criticising their government gets him. He's an oik. No more, no less, and personally I think if he doesn't like the UK he should move.
.............................
What baffles me is he didnt spout the garbage when he held the british title, was the final straw last week when on his youtube channel he was paying tribute to bin liner, and saying that our women wouldnt get raped if they wore a postbox that burka thing, sick, sick, sick kid he is

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:I may disagree with the BNP, SWP or whoever, but I'll defend the right of Nick Griffin to say what he believes.

Az you're to nice and liberal. He doesn't deserve the air he breathes never mind the right to spout his s**t.

So you are saying he deserves to die for his views?

What type of person does that make you?

The man is a racist and a bigot. I hate both and have no time or respect for the kind of people with these views and quite frankly I think the World would be a much better place without them.

So you think the state you round people up like that and kill them?

I believe Hitler had a similar idea.

No Hitler rounded them up on a religious and racial basis, similar to what scum like Griffin would do. He is a bigot. TBH if he died I would be quite happy along with the idiots who vote for him.

So people should killed for their political views now?

You agree in killing people for thinking something and you don't see anything wrong with that?

I never said I agreed with killing anyone you just have sand in your vagina about the whole Manny news stuff and because it was my idea are trying to have a pop.

I said "TBH if he died I would be quite happy along with the idiots who vote for him" I never advocated killing that is against the law. Everyone dies at some point and that is a fact.

I just find your views distastful, rejoicing in the deaths of others purely on there views.

But I respect your right to think it and say it and won't rejoice in your premature death simply because I disagree with what you are saying.

The World rejoiced when Hitler died, most of the World was happy to see Bin Laden dead as well, Sadam Hussein was the same. These are people who hate other people for their religion/race the World would be a better place without them. I said nothing about rejoicing I just said I would be quite happ if Griffin and his foolowers died I wouldn't have a party. What am I going to die of prematurely oh Mystic one? The fact I'm from Glasgow would suggest drug overdose or alchohol related organ failure but I don't drink much and drugs are bad m'kay.

d4 your a do-gooding idiot, its because of people like you why brainwashed idiots like Small can say and do as they please, if we all had the do-gooding attitude of most people in government the country would be ruined within 2 or 3 years, i agree with a lot of what the BNP say/do, and NO im not racist, i have many friends from multi backgrounds