Douglas Carswell shoved and taunted by anti-austerity protesters

First topic message reminder :

Douglas Carswell, the Ukip MP, said he feared for his life after being surrounded by anti-austerity demonstrators who accused him of being a racist and a fascist.

Wow. Chatting with @DouglasCarswell at St James. And some friends turned up... pic.twitter.com/POVjAwu6Cu
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) May 27, 2015

Dozens of protesters, some of whom were wearing balaclavas, surrounded the MP at St James' Park underground station and chanted "Ukip racist" at him.
Sajid Javid, the Business Secretary, said the attack was "outrageous" and showed "no respect for democracy and freedom of speech".

pic.twitter.com/vpY7BEbg0B
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) May 27, 2015

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11634479/Douglas-Carswell-accosted-by-protestors-chanting-racist.html


The difference between far left and far right supporters?
Nothing, they are both vile and intolerant bigots.

and no matter how much you may not like the REAL truth of it


IF her "friend" had not arse bumped her into the path of the horse....as at 0:25

she would not have been hit.....

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
That was no accident that was intentional assault with a deadly weapon ie the horse

Are you being serious?

Er...yes i am you don`t agree
say that horse was a quad bike or a motorbike would you still disagree ?
and i am pretty sure horse riders have to "drive" with due care and attention and take care when operating the "vehicle"

Not only that the pedestrians had a very loud horn and where using it because riding a horse does not make you deaf and on hearing that horn he would know they where pedestrians in the area and shoud have slowed down ,also he was high up on the horse so had a better view than say a car
and he did not stop after the collision


edit and they was a big blue car .....and how did he know the gate was open to approach it so fast

darknessss wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh right, and yet you still managed to judge the girl.

Yes ..simply because it was a Trail hunt...hence she had NO business there....
and certainly no business to be disrupting.....

she brought it on herself (in moral terms at least ) though the law of course differs....

NO business ?? sorry dude when did we enact that law

darknessss wrote:looks more like deliberate suicide to me...

you need to remember a few things about horses

once you can actually get em going
they dont like stopping

they have less intelligence than a sheep

but they do have a mind(such as it is) of their own


FINALLY>>>>>THEY DONT HAVE BRAKES

Thats why people drive them ...i am not blaming the horse in any way its not the horse making the decisions
i blame the rider

korban dallas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

Yes ..simply because it was a Trail hunt...hence she had NO business there....
and certainly no business to be disrupting.....

she brought it on herself (in moral terms at least ) though the law of course differs....

NO business ?? sorry dude when did we enact that law

since you ask

it is unlawful to interrupt/disrupt anyone going about their lawful business (common law)

she was IN the field  (which is PRIVATE property ) therfore gulty of common trespass (which is  a civil not ciminal offense)
HOWEVER she was intending by her presence to interrup or disrupt some one going about his lawful business

THAT is now the CRIMINAL offence of agravated trespass.

also given the position of the vehicle as we can see from the picture

given that the horse will have been already going at speed (we dont know where it actually came from...could have been out of another field) it may well have been too late to slow down

I dont think, given that the woman was FIRST struck by the flank of the horse (as evidenced on the video) before being stomped on by the rear hooves, that he was aware of the "hit"

Did he deliberately ride her down ...NO  there is no evidence of that (and the video HAS been seriously edited from the first version I saw)

was he aware ...no I dont think so...

he later turned himself in.....

why not stop even if he did know.....I think the fact that SABS are well known for their violence and given the events of a few weeks previoulsly  would have had something to do with that....

until and unless we know where the horse came from and what vison of the situation the rider had we can actually make a full judgement on whether otr not it was even practical to slow down

and the fact remains that these self appointed "monitors" are in the main little more than violent thugs out for aggro...

and that they had NO business being on private lands disrupting a lawful activity.......and unless you can prove their undoubtedly false accusation of "cubbing (false given the time of year this occurred...by gum them cubs must have been incredibly early or equally incredibly late born ones) then they definitely were NOT there for legitimate protest....

fox breeding season

Red foxes reproduce once a year in spring. Two months prior to oestrus (typically December), the reproductive organs of vixens change shape and size. By the time they enter their oestrus period, their uterine horns double in size, and their ovaries grow 1.5–2 times larger. Sperm formation in males begins in August–September, with the testicles attaining their greatest weight in December–February.[92] The vixen's oestrus period lasts three weeks,[93] during which the dog-foxes mate with the vixens for several days, often in burrows. Copulation is accompanied by a copulatory tie which may last for more than an hour.[93] The copulatory tie occurs when the bulbus glandis at the base of the male fox's penis enlarges.[94] The gestation period lasts 49–58 days.[95] Though foxes are largely monogamous, DNA evidence from one population indicated large levels of polygyny, incest and mixed paternity litters.[93] Subordinate vixens may become pregnant, but usually fail to whelp, or have their kits killed postpartum by either the dominant female or other subordinates.[96]


so they mate in december

2 months gestation

thats end of feb

the cubs are "independant hunting adults" by august i.e at 6 months


so NO the accusation by the sabs of "cubbing" is a bare faced lie

as are most "facts " they rely on.........

The video was filmed in August Victor, says so in the beginning, fox cubs are nearly full grown by then, normally born April/May.

I've seen the full video and it was quite deliberate. Fox hunts are still hunting foxes, loads of evidence, trying to pretend they are hunting to guns, then it turns out there are no guns around. What they are doing is illegal, cruel and utterly disgusting and having seen the full video I have absolutely no doubt he heard the horns and did it on purpose. As for your assertion about 0.25, if you look at the mans feet, he is dodging in a panic, not knowing which was to go to avoid the horse. I hope the bastard on the horse was done for grevious bodily harm.

Foxes In August


Looking more like adults now, the cubs will start their activities around the same time as the adults, most active between dusk and dawn. The latter half of the month gives a clue as to what they are all eating, adults included, as their droppings will be almost purple with the amount of blackberries picked. Fruit plays an important part in the fox’s natural diet. Cubs hunting for voles, mice etc. can be observed early in the morning perfecting the ‘mouse pounce’. Cubs, after an initial play in the play area, will usually depart in two's for a night’s foraging. At any point if the vixen or dog fox detects danger they will give out a sharp bark, which will send the cubs scurrying for cover. When in close proximity to the cubs the warning bark is more of a ruffled cough. So, for anyone who has sat watching cubs, only to see them all disappear when you have tried to muffle a cough will now know it was you who gave them the warning!

http://www.nfws.org.uk/fox-calendar-of-events.html

I've sat in my window in when I was in Colchester and watched a fox family in a small patch of trees opposite, and by August they were having a wonderful time and such a joy to observe.

darknessss wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
NO business ?? sorry dude when did we enact that law

since you ask

it is unlawful to interrupt/disrupt anyone going about their lawful business (common law)

she was IN the field  (which is PRIVATE property ) therfore gulty of common trespass (which is  a civil not ciminal offense)
HOWEVER she was intending by her presence to interrup or disrupt some one going about his lawful business

THAT is now the CRIMINAL offence of agravated trespass.

also given the position of the vehicle as we can see from the picture

given that the horse will have been already going at speed (we dont know where it actually came from...could have been out of another field) it may well have been too late to slow down

I dont think, given that the woman was FIRST struck by the flank of the horse (as evidenced on the video) before being stomped on by the rear hooves, that he was aware of the "hit"

Did he deliberately ride her down ...NO  there is no evidence of that (and the video HAS been seriously edited from the first version I saw)

was he aware ...no I dont think so...

he later turned himself in.....

why not stop even if he did know.....I think the fact that SABS are well known for their violence and given the events of a few weeks previoulsly  would have had something to do with that....

until and unless we know where the horse came from and what vison of the situation the rider had we can actually make a full judgement on whether otr not it was even practical to slow down

and the fact remains that these self appointed "monitors" are in the main little more than violent thugs out for aggro...

and that they had NO business being on private lands disrupting a lawful activity.......and unless you can prove their undoubtedly false accusation of "cubbing (false given the time of year this occurred...by gum them cubs must have been incredibly early or equally incredibly late  born ones) then they definitely were NOT there for legitimate protest....

well i have only seen this one and can only speak to what i see in it and to me it looked intentional he did not even slow down after the impact that he defiantly felt or look back ,he could not have failed to see ether the bright blue car ,the open gate as he galloped through in indicating he could see it was open and by extension the car, the three people

no that was deliberate
it would be like me driving my car at people standing in the same place same thing Imo

she was IN the field  (which is PRIVATE property ) therfore gulty of common trespass (which is  a civil not ciminal offense)

The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise.

HOWEVER she was intending by her presence to interrup or disrupt some one going about his lawful business

And peaceful protesting is also lawful business....how long that lasts remains to be seen

According to the video they where going to do something illegal ...is that incorrect

no you havnt seen the full video....

you dont for one min think these people are honest do you?

I mean they said the hunt members obstructed the air ambulance

which was denied absolutely by the air ambulance crew

oh and fox cubs normally born feb mar

so they were NOT cubbing as the liars said

Look sassy i dont doubt that some still hunt illegally

but this lot were disrupting a lawful trail hunt

they stood right where the horses would run ...knowingly
we cant see how the horses approached that point
we do know that the vehicle was so parked as to obstruct the access
thereby forcing the riders to ONE small pathway...

Oh I'd say that was no accident alright....

I'd say it was deliberatly created by someone to cause exactly what happened....

Given also that as posted above there WERE no cubs......

why were they there

as said a trail hunt

they had NO business to be there except to further their hatered of what they suppose to be "toffs"

darknessss wrote:no you havnt seen the full video....

you dont for one min  think these people are honest do you?

I mean they said the hunt members obstructed the air ambulance

which was denied absolutely by the air ambulance crew

oh and fox cubs normally born feb mar

so they were NOT cubbing as the liars said

Look sassy i dont doubt that some still hunt illegally

but this lot were disrupting a lawful trail hunt

they stood right where the horses would run ...knowingly
we cant see how the horses approached that point
we do know that the vehicle was so parked as to obstruct the access
thereby forcing the riders to ONE small pathway...

Oh I'd say that was no accident alright....

I'd say it was deliberatly created by someone to cause exactly what happened....

Take a breath dude .....i am not sassy ? and no i haven`t seen the original i said that but on the face of what i saw in the video posted i simply do not agree

darknessss wrote:Given also that as posted above there WERE no cubs......

why were they there

as said a trail hunt

they had NO business to be there except to further their hatered of what they suppose to be "toffs"

you got a link for the full video ,i think its the killing of foxes they hate more especially with dogs

korban dallas wrote:she was IN the field  (which is PRIVATE property ) therfore gulty of common trespass (which is  a civil not ciminal offense)

The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise.


NOT any private land it actually applies to things like moor land ...not any field you happen to want it to apply to...

HOWEVER she was intending by her presence to interrup or disrupt some one going about his lawful business

And peaceful protesting is also lawful business....how long that lasts remains to be seen

but NOT in the process disrupting OTHERS "lawful business"

According to the video they where going to do something illegal ...is that incorrect

it IS incorrect

they could NOT have been "cubbing" given the time of year

It was what is known as a trail hunt...running the hounds to a prelaid ARTIFICIAL scent

the vide is SAB propaganda through and through...they are NOT the most truthful individuals....

korban dallas wrote:

darknessss wrote:Given also that as posted above there WERE no cubs......

why were they there

as said a trail hunt

they had NO business to be there except to further their hatered of what they suppose to be "toffs"

you got a link for the full video ,i think its the killing of foxes they hate more especially with dogs

I doubt the "full" video now exists...

even the version I originally saw has "disappeared" to be replaced no doubt by this even more heavily edited version

who do you think recorded this??? an independant bystander

korban dallas wrote:

darknessss wrote:no you havnt seen the full video....

you dont for one min  think these people are honest do you?

I mean they said the hunt members obstructed the air ambulance

which was denied absolutely by the air ambulance crew

oh and fox cubs normally born feb mar

so they were NOT cubbing as the liars said

Look sassy i dont doubt that some still hunt illegally

but this lot were disrupting a lawful trail hunt

they stood right where the horses would run ...knowingly
we cant see how the horses approached that point
we do know that the vehicle was so parked as to obstruct the access
thereby forcing the riders to ONE small pathway...

Oh I'd say that was no accident alright....

I'd say it was deliberatly created by someone to cause exactly what happened....

Take a breath dude .....i am not sassy ?  and no i haven`t seen the original i said that but on the face of what i saw in the video posted i simply do not agree  

the reply WAS to sassy korben...she posted a bit further back....

darknessss wrote:

korban dallas wrote:she was IN the field  (which is PRIVATE property ) therfore gulty of common trespass (which is  a civil not ciminal offense)

The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise.


NOT any private land  it actually applies to things like moor land ...not any field you happen to want it to apply to...

HOWEVER she was intending by her presence to interrup or disrupt some one going about his lawful business

And peaceful protesting is also lawful business....how long that lasts remains to be seen

but NOT in the process disrupting OTHERS "lawful business"

According to the video they where going to do something illegal ...is that incorrect

it IS incorrect

they could NOT have been "cubbing" given the time of year

It was  what is known as a trail hunt...running the hounds to a prelaid ARTIFICIAL scent

the vide is SAB propaganda through and through...they are NOT the most truthful individuals....

First of all victor you want to shout at me in big red letters, give me a phone instead

Well I happen to think that the biggest liars are the huntsmen, seen them, watched them, their arrogance is utterly disgusting. They ride over people land without permission, a farm next to my Dad in his previous house in Norfolk had expressly forbidden them on his land, but they rode through it anyway.

Crawley and Horsham Hunt

as i said, I have no respect or support to offer to those who still hunt foxes in this way

but the SABS are deliberately attacking trail hunts in the same way ...lying about the hunt and commiting acts of savagery against the people involved

as in the huntmaster beaten to a pulp with iron bars

its not anti hunt that isnt ...thats just "lets bash who we think are toffs"

sheer thuggery....

and ..lets face it

Those who DO hunt foxes like this are nuts

I mean...the spend all day riding an arse ripping half crazy pile of dog meat.....and at the end of it they may...just possibly catch ONE old decrepit fox....two if they have a "good day"

ME?? I go sit in the field for a few hours, comfortable either in a nice seat up in a tree, or even more comfortable in the landrover, and come back having dispatched 4 or 5 to the great rabbit warren in the sky

result ...one happy sheep farmer and one even happier poulty farmer and a few hundred positively ecstatic ducks

(a few of which might not be so happy with me come september...but hey ho)

korban dallas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

it IS incorrect

they could NOT have been "cubbing" given the time of year

It was  what is known as a trail hunt...running the hounds to a prelaid ARTIFICIAL scent

the vide is SAB propaganda through and through...they are NOT the most truthful individuals....

First of all victor you want to shout at me in big red letters, give me a phone instead

not shouting mate...the red helps seperate comments....I do it to every one.....

Hunts behaving badly (or as some of us would say, as normal)

This is exactly the kind of behaviour I have seen from them

risingsun wrote:Well I happen to think that the biggest liars are the huntsmen, seen them, watched them, their arrogance is utterly disgusting.  They ride over people land without permission, a farm next to my Dad in his previous house in Norfolk had expressly forbidden them on his land, but they rode through it anyway.

the more i look in to this ,the more becomes apparent

the claim that an ambulance was hindered is false

A spokesman for the South West Ambulance trust confirmed that both an air ambulance and a land ambulance attended the scene, and that the woman was stabilised before being transferred to hospital. He said the paramedics attending had made no report of having trouble accessing the location.

And that alone gives me pause what other lies or omission have been made from a obviously bias view point

I make no apology for the fact i don`t like hunting with "dogs" or this clubbing or for sport i thing some of the things are barbaric and feed a darker need

I still say he "the rider" is at fault for the collision, because its not about the hunt strangely enough, although that was the causal reason for the indecent
its about the collision and whose fault it was

and all that proves is that there is bad behaviour on BOTH sides ?

He came along a public road behind us at speed, he didn't issue a warning, he was completely silent, then he hit me and rode off.

Injured hunt saboteur case to be reviewed

The hunt saboteur seriously injured when she was knocked down by a huntsman's horse in Somerset says the impact of her injuries will stay with her forever.

The woman, who wants to be known only as 'Nid' broke seven ribs in the incident which happened during a cubbing meet near Charlton Horethorne last August.

"When ribs are broken you can't splint them, they have to move," she said yesterday. "They have healed in a grossly displaced position. I work in the NHS and it has cost me to have time off work, and I still get problems with shoulder function, because it was my right side and I am right-handed."

The Crown Prosecution Service is conducting a review of its decision not to prosecute the huntsman following the saboteur's appeal. The CPS had said there was "insufficient evidence"

As a result of that decision the Hunt Saboteurs Association released a video of the incident, and launched a campaign for the decision to be reversed. It wants Blackford and Sparkford Vale huntsman Mark Doggrell to be prosecuted for assault.

At a protest over the CPS decision held at the hunt's point to point on Sunday Rupert Nuttall, joint Master of the Blackmore and Sparkford Vale said: "We apologise that an awful accident happened but the due process of the law has been gone through. Mark is innocent, as found by the Crown Prosecution Service."

Nid has used her right under the Right to Review scheme, which came in in 2013, to ask the CPS to review and is awaiting its decision.

Yesterday she said: "I feel I have been treated very badly by the CPS. It has given more information to journalists about why they decided not to pursue a prosecution than to me. I have full faith in the police. As far as I am concerned the police were impartial and carried out an investigation. The police rang me on January 29 to inform me that the CPS would not be pursuing it because of "insufficient evidence"."

The CPS issued a press release on February 9: "in response to a number of inquiries", which stated: "In order to authorise charge, the CPS must be satisfied there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that it is in the public interest to prosecute. Having carefully reviewed all the evidence gathered in an investigation by Avon and Somerset police, the CPS reviewing lawyer decided there was insufficient evidence that the incident could have been foreseen, and therefore could not authorise charge.

A spokesman for the CPS said: "We are in communication with the alleged victim and will be in contact with her when we have made a decision."

Read more: http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Injured-hunt-saboteur-case-reviewed/story-26149929-detail/story.html#ixzz3bTWGsN9B
Follow us: @WesternDaily on Twitter | WesternDaily on Facebook

A case could be made that the women (B) NOT hit by the horse . Accidently pushed her friend (A) backwards in to the path of the rider (C)in her attempt to jump out of the way

woman (B ) clearly stepped back on to the right foot of (A)
woman (B) can also be seen with her left arm in front of woman (A`s)Chest attempting to jump forward

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you being serious?

Er...yes i am you don`t agree
say that horse was a quad bike or a motorbike would you still disagree ?
and i am pretty sure horse riders have to "drive" with due care and attention and take care when operating the "vehicle"

Not only that the pedestrians had a very loud horn and where using it because riding a horse does not make you deaf and on hearing that horn he would know they where pedestrians in the area and shoud have slowed down ,also he was high up on the horse so had a better view than say a car
and he did not stop after the collision


edit and they was a big blue car .....and how did he know the gate was open to approach it so fast

Hi Korban.

I just wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or not - it's hard to tell on forums.

I think that he probably didn't deliberately run her down, so in that sense it was an accident. I think he was very reckless though, and he should have been charged with something - I'm just not sure what.

I do agree with you. If I'm out in my car and I see someone on a horse, I slow down and go past slowly out of respect, so people on horses should also take care when they go past people. That man did not do that, and he didn't stop afterward, which was despicable. I hope he felt very bad afterwards - probably not though.

risingsun wrote:
Injured hunt saboteur case to be reviewed

The hunt saboteur seriously injured when she was knocked down by a huntsman's horse in Somerset says the impact of her injuries will stay with her forever.

The woman, who wants to be known only as 'Nid' broke seven ribs in the incident which happened during a cubbing meet near Charlton Horethorne last August.

"When ribs are broken you can't splint them, they have to move," she said yesterday. "They have healed in a grossly displaced position. I work in the NHS and it has cost me to have time off work, and I still get problems with shoulder function, because it was my right side and I am right-handed."

The Crown Prosecution Service is conducting a review of its decision not to prosecute the huntsman following the saboteur's appeal. The CPS had said there was "insufficient evidence"

As a result of that decision the Hunt Saboteurs Association released a video of the incident, and launched a campaign for the decision to be reversed. It wants Blackford and Sparkford Vale huntsman Mark Doggrell to be prosecuted for assault.

At a protest over the CPS decision held at the hunt's point to point on Sunday Rupert Nuttall, joint Master of the Blackmore and Sparkford Vale said: "We apologise that an awful accident happened but the due process of the law has been gone through. Mark is innocent, as found by the Crown Prosecution Service."

Nid has used her right under the Right to Review scheme, which came in in 2013, to ask the CPS to review and is awaiting its decision.

Yesterday she said: "I feel I have been treated very badly by the CPS. It has given more information to journalists about why they decided not to pursue a prosecution than to me. I have full faith in the police. As far as I am concerned the police were impartial and carried out an investigation. The police rang me on January 29 to inform me that the CPS would not be pursuing it because of "insufficient evidence"."

The CPS issued a press release on February 9: "in response to a number of inquiries", which stated: "In order to authorise charge, the CPS must be satisfied there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that it is in the public interest to prosecute. Having carefully reviewed all the evidence gathered in an investigation by Avon and Somerset police, the CPS reviewing lawyer decided there was insufficient evidence that the incident could have been foreseen, and therefore could not authorise charge.

A spokesman for the CPS said: "We are in communication with the alleged victim and will be in contact with her when we have made a decision."

Read more: http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Injured-hunt-saboteur-case-reviewed/story-26149929-detail/story.html#ixzz3bTWGsN9B
Follow us: @WesternDaily on Twitter | WesternDaily on Facebook

That's good news. It seems unfair to me that someone can knock over another person like that, severely injure them, and not have to face charges of some kind.

I'd be interested to see Mark Doggrell's statement because there are reports that he said the woman deliberately jumped in front of him. If he did say that, it disposes of the theory that he didn't know he'd hit her, and it's also blatantly untrue - the video shows that.

As for claims that the person standing next to her pushed her, that's nonsense - they were clearly trying to get away.

It's not relevant that they were in a field - he knew they were there.

well it could all be prevented in the future

by making it law that there must be 10 feet between any protestor and the path or position of their object of protest.....

darknessss wrote:well it could all be prevented in the future

by making it law that there must be 10 feet between any protestor and the path or position of their object of protest.....

It could be prevented by people like him realising that they don't have the right to mow someone down on his horse and gallop off without a second thought.

It's good that he can't move on just yet because the decision of the CPS is being reviewed. Even if it's resolved in his favour, he will have had sleepless nights for a long time. That's good because his victim has probably had a lot those too.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Ben, I have nothing against people protesting.
Here though people turning up with their faces hidden, gives you a clue to the intent of those doing so.
One that clearly is intent on creating trouble. This is then backed up by the fact there was clashes with the Police
No MP no matter their views should be subjected to such intimidation.
Like I say, the far left are no different to the far right.

No, there is a difference. The far left don't cut the throats of the poor to pay down the debt.

The far left want to but the throats of anyone who isn't poor...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

They, as in the idiot right of your benighted country.

UKIP have nothing to do with Tory austerity measures. The man was merely waiting at a bus stop and he was attacked.

While labour had everything to do with needing cuts in spending now as they left office with a yearly total borrowing of £170 billion and rising...


The poor in this country are being more adversely affected by rising costs of living and suppression of wage increases due to too high immigration levels.


We can't keep spending more than we have through borrowing.

darknessss wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Ah, we don't want to talk about this. Let's talk about petty shit like hunting protests. Because we tackle what matters on this forum.

Dont get me started on HIV from intravenous drug use......

of ALL the self inflicted damage this is the nadir...

AND the chances are most of em will be criminals...(else how do they afford their next fix)

oh and DONT try to connect it (as lefties do) with health problems from tobacco....at least NOT here ...anyone who smokes over here MORE than pays the bill for any conceivable bad outcome

The overwhelming vast majority of hiv cases are found in homosexuals and black immigrants.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's the hypocrisy which is the worst thing - the way that some people imply that "left wing" thugs are somehow more virtuous than "right wing" thugs. I always thought that about UAF as well.

UAF and EDL are opposite sides of the same coin, both hate based groups. perhaps if the UAF did not turn up at all EDL rallies then violence would not ensue and vice versa

It is The always the UAF turning up at others legal and peaceful rallys And always UAF causing the violence.

And always almost all of The arrests Are of UAF.

I think we all know where Ben stands, a lefty racist English hating bigot!

Tommy Monk wrote:

darknessss wrote:

Dont get me started on HIV from intravenous drug use......

of ALL the self inflicted damage this is the nadir...

AND the chances are most of em will be criminals...(else how do they afford their next fix)

oh and DONT try to connect it (as lefties do) with health problems from tobacco....at least NOT here ...anyone who smokes over here MORE than pays the bill for any conceivable bad outcome

The overwhelming vast majority of hiv cases are found in homosexuals and black immigrants.

Ok i have to ask where e do you get your information is it based on hear say or you heard it from a friend ? or do you actually check first



Heterosexual sex was responsible for twice as many new HIV cases as injection drug use.

Male-to-male sexual transmission was the source of approximately half of new reported HIV infections.

Approximately one quarter of all new infections occurred in women.

Though blacks bear a disproportionate burden of HIV in the United States, whites and Hispanics accounted for approximately half of all new HIV diagnoses.

http://std.about.com/od/viraldiseases/a/hivoverview.htm

I take that we will also see condemnation for the physical attack on Ed Milliband?

Ed Miliband punched and shoved by protesters as he walks to car

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-punched-shoved-protesters-5409428

So for those who have condened the attack on Carswell please feel free to do the same for this one.

I condemn the attacks on Carswell and Miliband.

So tommy, you pipe up with some 'fact' about HIV cases, whether true or not doesn't matter- what is the actual point you are trying to make by stating this?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

UKIP have nothing to do with Tory austerity measures. The man was merely waiting at a bus stop and he was attacked.

Didn't UKIP want to privatize the NHS? Before, of course, they wanted to protect it

the people who privatised the largest section of the NHS, around 5% were the labour party. the coalition added another 1% to that figure in 5 years. Apparently the left prefer patients to suffer rather than get treated free at the point of contact. Perhaps instead of simmering in your bile fuelled juices you should learn a bit about the country you profess to hate so much.

If you lived in china the chinese would be milking you.

What a load of crap you come out with. Here, read the real facts about Tory privatisation.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/paul-evans/nhs-privatisation-soars-500-in-last-year-finds-indepth-new-study

This comes from the figures released by the NHS Foundation.

You may get away with that sort of nonsense on your own gaff but you will be seriously challenged on this one.

Think the chart on the link says it all:

In UK, hiv is overwhelmingly homosexuals and black immigrants.



I read a story in the London standard the other day where it said that millions of £ are being spent on an advertising campaign for hiv awareness but although the two major groups affected were homosexuals and black immigrants, the ad campaign was not allowed to highlight these facts in the name of awareness for purely preventive reasons because it was deemed to be discriminatory and not politically correct... ie, same pc box ticking nonsense that makes police in a high black male crime area stop and search old Chinese women in the name of equality...!!!



And risingscum... your chart does not say it all, at all... it only says 'new' contracts awarded and only goes back to 2010...


Maybe you can show us a chart from 1997...!?

Or maybe even better, show a chart that shows all govt contracts awarded to private companies since 97, including dodgy PFI deals labour signed off to the tune of £300billion for £50billion worth of hospitals...


Although I doubt that...

korban dallas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


The overwhelming vast majority of hiv cases are found in homosexuals and black immigrants.

Ok i have to ask where e do you get your information is it based on hear say or you heard it from a friend ? or do you actually check first



Heterosexual sex was responsible for twice as many new HIV cases as injection drug use.

fits with what I said earlier...

"The overwhelming vast majority of hiv cases are found in homosexuals and black immigrants."



Male-to-male sexual transmission was the source of approximately half of new reported HIV infections.


again totally confirming what I said earlier... homosexuals men make up a tiny minority of the population, maybe as little as 0.5% but account for half of all new cases!

Approximately one quarter of all new infections occurred in women.

mostly either black women or other non black women infected by black men... tiny proportion through drug needles or prostitution. So again confirming what I said.



Though blacks bear a disproportionate burden of HIV in the United States, whites and Hispanics accounted for approximately half of all new HIV diagnoses.

again confirming what I said... blacks only being 14% of US population but accounting for "approximately half" of new cases, (probably meaning considerably over half "approx" than under half... another example of misleading leftie "facts"...

With the intentional fudge of grouping whites and Hispanics together so as to misrepresent the reality further...


And forgetting to mention that the overwhelming vast majority of those are also the homosexuals!!!



Again confirming exactly what I posted earlier!!!

http://std.about.com/od/viraldiseases/a/hivoverview.htm

Another example of the lefties concerted efforts to hide the truth...


Blacks and homosexuals are the overwhelming vast majority of hiv/aids carriers both here in UK and in US!!!



Why are the lefties so intent on hiding the facts on this...!?


Obviously the image of blacks and homosexuals is more important to them than the transmission of a deadly disease to others while totally preventable... and especially preventable for huge numbers of people, if only the lefties could be bothered enough to be honest about where the real risks were coming from!!!



Or maybe the lefties think that the spreading around of hiv/aids to everyone is 'all in the name of equality'...!?

The fuck are you going on about, Tommy? I was almost to the point of giving you credit for some wisdom, but you just keep up with your silly talk.

I honestly think conservatives, for the better part, have no idea what happens when their preferred policies are actually enacted. You all need to get out in the real world and see what life is really like for most people.

You've basically just repeated yourself in a long winded fashion tommy.

Can you tell me how it is particularly helpful to highlight to HIV as a 'black and gay' issue, and not something that affects anyone else?

Why are you all so sacred of telling the truth!?