What should they have been charged with ?
Discussion
Dunno what they would be charged with but they must be wondering what is going to be thrown at their living room windows tonight...
Seven people from Luton will appear at the town's magistrates' court on September 16 charged with public order offences.
They are Jalal Ahmed, 21, of Cavendish Road, Yousaf Bashir, 29, of Dane Road, Ibrahim Anderson, 32, of Warwick Road West, Jubair Ahmed, 19, of Beech Road, Ziaur Rahman, 33, of Nunnery Lane, Shajjadar Choudhury, 30, of Essex Close and Munim Abdul, 28, of Highbury Road.
Seven people from Luton will appear at the town's magistrates' court on September 16 charged with public order offences.
They are Jalal Ahmed, 21, of Cavendish Road, Yousaf Bashir, 29, of Dane Road, Ibrahim Anderson, 32, of Warwick Road West, Jubair Ahmed, 19, of Beech Road, Ziaur Rahman, 33, of Nunnery Lane, Shajjadar Choudhury, 30, of Essex Close and Munim Abdul, 28, of Highbury Road.
Gedon said:
kenny Chim 4 said:


The for now secular UK?

Has he not noticed the 26 homophobic, misogynistic weasels in pointy hats who actually get to vote on laws in this country, purely on the basis of their belief in a fictional character?
Edited by Gaz. on Monday 24th August 00:54
What should they have been charged with?
Nothing at all.
Freedom of speech must include the freedom to express views not shared by the majority.
If it isn't absolute, it doesn't exist.
If those expressed views affect (or inform) the opinions of others to the detriment of those expressing them, well, they're free to hold and express their views, too.
Nothing at all.
Freedom of speech must include the freedom to express views not shared by the majority.
If it isn't absolute, it doesn't exist.
If those expressed views affect (or inform) the opinions of others to the detriment of those expressing them, well, they're free to hold and express their views, too.
handpaper said:
What should they have been charged with?
Nothing at all.
Freedom of speech must include the freedom to express views not shared by the majority.
If it isn't absolute, it doesn't exist.
If those expressed views affect (or inform) the opinions of others to the detriment of those expressing them, well, they're free to hold and express their views, too.
They attacked women and children shopping in the town centre whilst burning the flag of 'their' country.Nothing at all.
Freedom of speech must include the freedom to express views not shared by the majority.
If it isn't absolute, it doesn't exist.
If those expressed views affect (or inform) the opinions of others to the detriment of those expressing them, well, they're free to hold and express their views, too.
Innocent of any crime were they ?
Slothario said:
handpaper said:
What should they have been charged with?
Nothing at all.
Freedom of speech must include the freedom to express views not shared by the majority.
If it isn't absolute, it doesn't exist.
If those expressed views affect (or inform) the opinions of others to the detriment of those expressing them, well, they're free to hold and express their views, too.
They attacked women and children shopping in the town centre whilst burning the flag of 'their' country.Nothing at all.
Freedom of speech must include the freedom to express views not shared by the majority.
If it isn't absolute, it doesn't exist.
If those expressed views affect (or inform) the opinions of others to the detriment of those expressing them, well, they're free to hold and express their views, too.
Innocent of any crime were they ?
Going on what the article said, they should not have been charged with anything.
XitUp said:
Slothario said:
handpaper said:
What should they have been charged with?
Nothing at all.
Freedom of speech must include the freedom to express views not shared by the majority.
If it isn't absolute, it doesn't exist.
If those expressed views affect (or inform) the opinions of others to the detriment of those expressing them, well, they're free to hold and express their views, too.
They attacked women and children shopping in the town centre whilst burning the flag of 'their' country.Nothing at all.
Freedom of speech must include the freedom to express views not shared by the majority.
If it isn't absolute, it doesn't exist.
If those expressed views affect (or inform) the opinions of others to the detriment of those expressing them, well, they're free to hold and express their views, too.
Innocent of any crime were they ?
Going on what the article said, they should not have been charged with anything.
Why do you suppose the newspapers chose not to report certain facts ?
So apart from one guy on the internet, what else is there to say that women and children were attacked?
When ever I hear "women and children" I immediately assume b
ks. Any stray rocket always hits an orphanage, a missed bomb always hits a school, and it's always women and children that are the victims.
When ever I hear "women and children" I immediately assume b
ks. Any stray rocket always hits an orphanage, a missed bomb always hits a school, and it's always women and children that are the victims.jp1982 said:
Jasandjules said:
Around 100,000 volts?
Seems about fair.For the apologists, you could try going to a muslim country and demonstrating against the jihad terrorists and see how far you get.
XitUp said:
jp1982 said:
Jasandjules said:
Around 100,000 volts?
Seems about fair.For the apologists, you could try going to a muslim country and demonstrating against the jihad terrorists and see how far you get.
jp1982 said:
XitUp said:
jp1982 said:
Jasandjules said:
Around 100,000 volts?
Seems about fair.For the apologists, you could try going to a muslim country and demonstrating against the jihad terrorists and see how far you get.
Slothario said:
XitUp said:
I don't know. Where you there?
Would you care to speculate anyway ? No, but I know people that were. And thats 'were' and not 'where'.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff



