tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5680771968888528726.post4738565355503271297..comments2023-11-05T00:38:56.097-07:00Comments on 21st Century British Nationalism: More Retarded PC CoppersDefender of Libertyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16093052197059748663noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5680771968888528726.post-52243498464628477102009-03-25T17:32:00.000-07:002009-03-25T17:32:00.000-07:00Anonymous wrote: "wow, what's with calling people ...Anonymous wrote: <I>"wow, what's with calling people retards because you don't like them or what they have to say?"</I><BR/><BR/>I ask:<BR/><BR/>wow, what's with calling people racists because you don't like them or what they have to say?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5680771968888528726.post-4787996983898864042009-03-25T09:51:00.000-07:002009-03-25T09:51:00.000-07:00sadly the sacked pc publicly denounced the bnp. wh...sadly the sacked pc publicly denounced the bnp. why support this traitor?<BR/>if he had held his head high as I have done, im on the list, then he doesn't deserve the bnp's support.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5680771968888528726.post-566989803293544922009-03-24T17:53:00.000-07:002009-03-24T17:53:00.000-07:00wow, what's with calling people retards because yo...wow, what's with calling people retards because you don't like them or what they have to say?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5680771968888528726.post-7117537756746220632009-03-24T05:56:00.000-07:002009-03-24T05:56:00.000-07:00"The so called 'legal justification' for the dismi...<I>"The so called 'legal justification' for the dismissal they quote is the Race Relations Act 2000, 2001 and 2003 which places a duty on PUBLIC BODIES to fight racism as a public body. That does not mean the duty to fight racism under the act applies ;<BR/><BR/>1) To employees of the public body<BR/><BR/>2) The scope of the duty applies to the actions of individuals outside their place of work"</I><BR/><BR/>Excatly. Obviously there line of reasoning is completely flawed. They are trying to make it stack up that anyone who works for a public body must actively be "fighting racism".<BR/><BR/>Then does it mean that the local council "sanitation engineer" (or dustman to me and you) when he discovers a perceived "racist" item amongst the rubbish of another public body worker, would he therefore be failing in his job and liable to be sacked if he did not report said article to his superiors?<BR/><BR/>Of course not, therefore the reasoning does not stack up. They are trying to dress up what is a witch hunt pure and simple.<BR/><BR/>Nothing has changed from 400 years ago. Did Matthew Hopkins, withcfinder general, simple say, "right lads, she'll do, get her and drown her in that pond just for the sake of it" - no, he dressed up his demented motivations to make them appear more reasonable. Women were selected and persecuted to send a message out, and it his authority was dressed up in legal bullshit and sanctioned by higher powers.<BR/><BR/>What's the difference?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com