It’s a good job we still have some sensible people in the media!

Sponsored Links
If a crime has been committed, and verbal assault can be a crime, what category of crime would you place the verbal assault based on prejudice.
for instance, a woman who murders her husband because he beats her might be considered a crime, but one of self-defence.
whereas a woman who murders her lover because he spurned her might be considered as a crime of passion.
When a burglar steals to fund his drug habit it might be considered as drug fueled crime, or when a drunkard commits a crime it might be considered as an alcohol induced crime.
When someone murders their parent it's called patricide. When someone murders their child or children it's called infanticide.

So when someone commits verbal assault motivated by racial hatred, what category of crime would you allocate it?
 
Sponsored Links
So when someone commits verbal assault ............ what category of crime would you allocate it?
Himmicide? Soz bud couldn't resist.:whistle:
Maybe it might find its way into the wictionary.

Oh no! Elfi won't accept it. The suffix 'cide' is to do with killing. (n)

It would have to be "himisaltus". I think Elfi might accept that one. (y)
 
Good.

From the link:
"The verdicts were delivered on July 28, but for legal reasons can only be reported for the first time today."

May I ask why?

Have I missed the news or is this the first we have heard of the trial?
 
For some unknown reason it was only released today. Must be about protecting the innocent. :cautious:

Sky News
 
Last edited:
So when someone commits verbal assault motivated by racial hatred, what category of crime would you allocate it?

And when you call me a racist/sexist/homophobe based entirely on your ridiculously bad judgement of what constitutes any of those, and can't produce any meaningful evidence to back yourself up despite threatening darkly to. What kind of crime do you call that? worm
 
According to Dorky Lad all media are left wing bias.

You do realise that with your seemingly cunning use of spin & twist, you have just exposed your own political leanings !

If you disagree, you feckless wit'tard, your own politics must be so far left wing that the current media bias really is right wing, in your opinion.

Unless your media of choice is the Daily Mail. In which case you have my sympathies, 'cos then you don't know what you are . . . do you?
 
Good.

From the link:
"The verdicts were delivered on July 28, but for legal reasons can only be reported for the first time today."

May I ask why?

Have I missed the news or is this the first we have heard of the trial?
From the BBC:
"The verdict on the two defendants was delivered on 28 July, but can only be reported now following the conclusion of a separate trial at the Old Bailey of another group of men for a similar offence."

Guess they were linked somehow? Or to protect the jury from press coverage? Anyway, am so pleased to hear this poisonous man has finally been caught out :)
 
Unless your media of choice is
......er, Sky news bud. Said it several times.

Do you think Nick Ferrari has any political leanings or any sentiments towards or against foreign people, Dorky Lad? If you think this guy is a balanced middle laner, then yes I guess I must move the bias bar. I'm not saying he's extreme right wing nor is he impartial or neutral, but he's deffo a true blue on the right hand side of the spectrum.

Ferrari suggests that talk radio comes easier to those who, like him, are to the right of centre politically.
In 2003, the
Broadcasting Standards Commission upheld a complaint against Ferrari, finding that his programme's "active reinforcement of prejudiced views about asylum seekers had exceeded acceptable boundaries for transmission".[1][8] Following this, and at a time of frosty relations between Nick Ferrari and the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, the Mayor wrote to the Managing Director of LBC 97.3 asking what measures had been implemented to ensure the situation would not arise again.

In 2015, Ferrari was investigated by Ofcom after he said on his radio programme that the November 2015 Paris attacks were "a Muslim problem" and told a Muslim caller to "go some place else" if the caller didn't agree with UK foreign policy. Ofcom found Ferrari not in breach of any broadcasting rules, saying "We found the caller was given an opportunity to rebuke Mr Ferrari’s offensive comments, while two other callers also challenged Nick Ferrari in strong terms.

Your humble pie and my apology awaits.....

 
Last edited:
He isn’t forcing anyone to go on his programme or phone him up, so what’s the problem.

I reckon he talks a lot of sense!

Someone has just phoned him about Choudary saying that we should send him to the Arctic Circle and he told him not to be ridiculous, but once he had made him see sense they finished on good terms.
 
He isn’t forcing anyone to go on his programme or phone him up, so what’s the problem.

I reckon he talks a lot of sense!

Someone has just phoned him about Choudary saying that we should send him to the Arctic Circle and he told him not to be ridiculous, but once he had made him see sense they finished on good terms.
I have no problem with Nick Ferrari, I actually think he's a good journalist.

I do however have a problem with the RWR and the incessant bullshoite they spew out on here. Have a look at Dorky Lads' previous remarks about journalism ("Terrorist attacks in London") and the above blarney. Let me know if you have trouble following either thread.(y)

 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Back
Top