http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8663681.stm?ls

The words of harry hill only one way to solve this FIGHT

The words of harry hill only one way to solve this FIGHT

 

:clap:

The words of harry hill only one way to solve this FIGHT

 

The best one was Phil Mitchell Vs Mr Blobby

How do you decide if it is justified or not?

 

Violence is never justified. If you have to resort to violence, you've already lost.

 

Why do you think its unacceptable for a reaction from a BNP member but ok for a police officer to enforce being spat at? They both urinate from the same hole.

 

I didn't say that. I said "but that's a policeman". You're the one reading things into what I said.

 

My point is, you said that violence solved nothing. However you are agreeing with people by saying that it is needed in some instances. So why do you condone it if it never solves anything?

 

I'm not saying it is needed. I'm not condoning it. I can think of lots of more horrible things you can do to a child, quite legally, that don't involve violence.

 

It's the same as people who say money isn't everything, but i'd like to see you live without it.

 

Perspective. Relevance. Again. Please compare apples with apples.

Violence is never justified. If you have to resort to violence, you've already lost.

 

Yes thats the attitude that will eventually see the gang culture win and nobody will be able to leave their own homes. The roll over and take it attitude that makes this country so sissy. I say fight fire with fire, unless it actually is fire then you are better off with water.

 

Oh and the policeman thing, I didnt have to 'read into' what you said, it was painfully obvious what you were implying.

i had an army upbringing, when i was bad i was hit, not beaten black and blue, just hit, I'm now 32 with no criminal record, i don't drink or do drugs, i work, i do not steal, i don't gob off to people and i do not instigate fights. I'm pleasant and helpful i also do not lie. i don't cheat on my partner and even hold the door open for old people.

 

Now, i do not class my punishment for being naughty as violence, it was a means to teach me right from wrong, something that it sorely missing from today's youth.

 

And I'm grateful for my parents ability to raise me to be a fine man.

And you'd get done for assault. Quite rightly. Being spat on is not a reasonable defence for punching someone, even if it is common assault.

 

What about prescott punching a guy a couple of years ago for hitting him with an egg? Did he get done with assault?

A question I would like to ask of anyone that blames parents is do you have kids and were you ever one.When I was younger I was a pain nothing to do with my folks I was just anti everything.

When I was younger I was a pain nothing to do with my folks I was just anti everything.

 

I was a pain but I can't say I was anywhere near the level of todays' youth. I was scared of sixth formers.

I have sat and read this thread, and one fundamental flaw to your argument is the fact we are missing the start of the video. we can not tell who the initial instigators were, or what it originated from.

 

If you look closely, and have any talent at all for reading body language, it's obvious that the lads were initially walking towards the BNP to have a discussion (we can only guess why, having not seen any footage before this). As they got closer, BNP bloke started being provocative with is "How many is there of us". That's the real start of it from what can be seen. This prompted the young lad to square up. BNP bloke pushed, physically, first at 8.5 secs.

 

You seem to of only picked up on the fact the kids are Asian and the guy in the suit represents the BNP and worked from there

 

I worked with what can be seen, as above.

 

when that avenue started getting into the realms of racism, you changed your argument to whether its right or wrong to justify retaliation of some one spitting on another person, whilst failing to link the key element in the link of the war on Iraq comment (IE retaliation)

 

I tried to avoid the comments that others made that could be construed as racist. The war on terror (I think you'll find it was) is completely unrelated to the video and should never have even been brought up as a rational point for discussion.

 

i just think your view would be different, had we seen the whole tape, its obvious that something has been edited out to insight hate.

 

The only way the BNP bloke could have come out of that in any kind of "righteous" light, is if the young guys had been shown initiating agro in the seconds before the clip. Judging by the lack of shouting from them and the docile body language up to about 6 secs, I seriously doubt it. I'm not so sure it has been edited the way you suggest.

 

 

Now regardless what is right or indeed wrong, or what political party / race or gender, it is human nature to retaliate or at least contemplate retaliation, especially when ones space is being invaded.

 

Agreed. But it's not necessarily lawful. And the proclivity for violence can be retrained if one is willing to learn how.

 

As for whether it was right or wrong, i personally think he was well within his right to defend him self from being spat on

 

Had he not been provoking, I doubt he would have been spat on in the first place. I'm still not defending the spitting, btw.

 

you just have to look at the young guys body language and demeanor to know, had he let the spiting go, they would of seen him as weak and a easy target and it would of escalated from there.

 

You lost me there.

 

its this bullying mentality coupled with gang culture and the fact that the justice system is to soft that are helping to destroy this country, just ask tony martin about justice.

 

Perspective. Relevance. Again (different person though).

What about prescott punching a guy a couple of years ago for hitting him with an egg? Did he get done with assault?

 

I can't honestly remember. If I read your subtext correctly, I'm guessing he didn't. Saliva and hard projectiles such as eggs are, I'm guessing, a bit different in law.

An egg doesnt give you TB or some other nasty germs.slap em all thats what I say

Yes thats the attitude that will eventually see the gang culture win and nobody will be able to leave their own homes. The roll over and take it attitude that makes this country so sissy. I say fight fire with fire, unless it actually is fire then you are better off with water.

 

You seem to think I'm left wing. I'm actually right wing. Punish them harder, lawfully, by all means. Personally, I'm up for bread and water in prisons and making them such horrible places that no-one would ever want to return there.

 

Oh and the policeman thing, I didnt have to 'read into' what you said, it was painfully obvious what you were implying.

 

Then you'll have to explain what you think I implied, because what I meant was that a policeman being allowed to arrest someone for spitting at them whilst they're doing their job is perfectly acceptable to me. I wouldn't expect anything less. The rolleyes thing wasn't for the policeman's actions, it was for the lack of expectation that that would happen.

This maybe the answer to next election .Put them all in a boxing ring last man standing wins

I can't honestly remember. If I read your subtext correctly, I'm guessing he didn't. Saliva and hard projectiles such as eggs are, I'm guessing, a bit different in law.

The guy who threw the egg was the one that was arrested.

The clip to lighten the atmosphere a little :thumbup: nice jab for an old man

An egg doesnt give you TB or some other nasty germs.slap em all thats what I say

 

So you think the young lad was trying to give the BNP guy TB, do you? :rolleyes:

 

A pre-meditated attack with a solid projectile (even if comically intended) is completely different to an on-the-spot spit of revulsion in a tense situation, even if it is legally the same assault.

 

An egg could give you salmonella (or so they used to claim) ;)

My last words on this spit on me and will I slap you, egg me I would give you a *****cking for wasting food.

I have just fully caught up with this thread from my last log in allot of interesting discussion and varying opinions on the video, however we do seem to have gone a bit off topic and although the thread is mostly clean at the moment it does seem to have got a couple of peoples back up

 

I have watched it and will only say this i think allot could have happened before that opening seen (as in time element) So please lets keep it on track and at a level of discussion that is not over inflamed for the forum, if not the thread will be locked

 

Chris

Edited May 7, 201015 yr by ck300z
spelling and slight change to text

If you look closely, and have any talent at all for reading body language, it's obvious that the lads were initially walking towards the BNP to have a discussion (we can only guess why, having not seen any footage before this). As they got closer, BNP bloke started being provocative with is "How many is there of us". That's the real start of it from what can be seen. This prompted the young lad to square up. BNP bloke pushed, physically, first at 8.5 secs.

 

The young man with his group marched up to the guy, it wasn't some leisurely stroll, it was a walk of intimidation. the smaller man got that close to the BNP member that the BNP guy out stretched his arm to stop the advance, he didn't push the young man until after that, and mainly to keep his distance.

 

I worked with what can be seen, as above.

 

unfortunately, what can be seen you are taking no real notice of

 

I tried to avoid the comments that others made that could be construed as racist. The war on terror (I think you'll find it was) is completely unrelated to the video and should never have even been brought up as a rational point for discussion.

 

he was asking you a question to figure out your views on unprovoked retaliation. as not everything is as it seems, just like this video.

 

The only way the BNP bloke could have come out of that in any kind of "righteous" light, is if the young guys had been shown initiating agro in the seconds before the clip. Judging by the lack of shouting from them and the docile body language up to about 6 secs, I seriously doubt it. I'm not so sure it has been edited the way you suggest.

 

If that's what you call docile body language, id love to see your definition of aggressive. the start of the first contact and proceeding verbal exchange, up to the point the young men started crossing the road is clearly missing, there is already been some verbal exchange already due to the video starting with shouting already coming from the BNP member in what is clearly a reply. and when the camera spins to view the lads (at 0.03 seconds in), they have almost finished crossing the road, also, if you listen you can clearly hear the young men answering back as they walk up to the BNP man

 

Agreed. But it's not necessarily lawful. And the proclivity for violence can be retrained if one is willing to learn how.

 

Shame the young lads do not agree, they walked across the road with the demeanour of trying to be a tough guy.

 

Had he not been provoking, I doubt he would have been spat on in the first place. I'm still not defending the spitting, btw.

 

can you point out where it clearly shows him provoking?

in the first 0.03 seconds all i see, is him answering back "there are more of us", which is structured more as a reply than a provocation.

 

You lost me there.

 

Its not hard to comprehend gang mentality.

 

Perspective. Relevance. Again (different person though).

 

You failed to comprehend the significance of the link between my comment on our justice system and the link provided. tony martin case angered allot of people, as it basically said in all intense and purpose, that a criminal had more rights than that of someone protecting their self and property when the law system fails.

cannot be arsed reading through 7 pages but fook me i thought that was funny and the asian lad gets what he deserved.

The young man with his group marched up to the guy, it wasn't some leisurely stroll, it was a walk of intimidation. the smaller man got that close to the BNP member that the BNP guy out stretched his arm to stop the advance, he didn't push the young man until after that, and mainly to keep his distance.

 

If you are intimidated by someone walking like that, you must live in constant fear. There was no need for the BNP guy to initiate physical contact. He could have backed away or waited to see what the young guy would do. Out of fear (rightful to be fearful given the obvious fact that the fist thing we hear in the clip from the BNP guy amounts to little more than "My gang is bigger than your gang"), he pushed. If he hadn't, and had just stood there, he probably just would have been face to face with someone he'd obviously provoked. What other rational explanation is there for the young guy squaring up to him? If you are in a smaller gang you don't go after a bigger gang unless you're very upset. Human nature.

 

unfortunately, what can be seen you are taking no real notice of

 

No, I am. It's you who is letting your assumptions cloud your vision.

 

he was asking you a question to figure out your views on unprovoked retaliation. as not everything is as it seems, just like this video.

 

No, read it again. He was trying to equate my assertion that young people are more likely to try and solve problems with violence to my being against the war on terror (which I'm not - I just don't think that more violence helps).

 

If that's what you call docile body language, id love to see your definition of aggressive. the start of the first contact and proceeding verbal exchange, up to the point the young men started crossing the road is clearly missing, there is already been some verbal exchange already due to the video starting with shouting already coming from the BNP member in what is clearly a reply. and when the camera spins to view the lads (at 0.03 seconds in), they have almost finished crossing the road, also, if you listen you can clearly hear the young men answering back as they walk up to the BNP man

 

You're missing cause and effect. Saying "Uh?", "What you saying?" and "Uh?" whilst walking towards somebody, really quite slowly and with your head tilted, listening for an answer, is not an act of aggression. If it had been you and me there instead of the BNP guy, would you feel threatened by it? Probably not. Would you feel threatened if we'd been spouting some racist crap/provocative "come and have a go" language two seconds before? Probably. Hence the BNP guys feeling the need to stop the "advance" by making the first physical contact.

 

Shame the young lads do not agree, they walked across the road with the demeanour of trying to be a tough guy.

 

That's your assumption again. Look at the video. From the moment we first see the lads (2 secs), the bigger lad takes 11 steps to get to BNP guy and covers approx. 10 yards in 7 seconds. That's about 2.9 miles an hour. Hardly the walking speed of someone wishing to appear tough.

 

can you point out where it clearly shows him provoking?

in the first 0.03 seconds all i see, is him answering back "there are more of us", which is structured more as a reply than a provocation.

 

The first thing he said (that we saw) was "How many is there of us". His body language was clearly saying "We outnumber you - come and have a go". And backed this up with "Don't start giving it large, mate, I tell you." Clearly provocative.

 

Its not hard to comprehend gang mentality.

 

It was hard to comprehend the sentence you wrote, though. Do you want to try explaining it instead of avoiding the point by going off on a tangent about gangs?

 

You failed to comprehend the significance of the link between my comment on our justice system and the link provided. tony martin case angered allot of people, as it basically said in all intense and purpose, that a criminal had more rights than that of someone protecting their self and property when the law system fails.

 

And exactly how is that relevant to a street brawl? Dragging up any old emotive case which is hardly relevant to the topic at hand is not a reasonable way to debate things. It's a different issue. You are trying to equate "I defended my property and the law screwed me" with "I provoked someone and got spat on". It doesn't work.

All I know is my dad is bigger than yours.And if you are going to face off to a group bigger than yours you had better be handy .Youth of today pfffft they seen a bit dim I learnt that at a very young age.

If you are intimidated by someone walking like that, you must live in constant fear. There was no need for the BNP guy to initiate physical contact. He could have backed away or waited to see what the young guy would do. Out of fear (rightful to be fearful given the obvious fact that the fist thing we hear in the clip from the BNP guy amounts to little more than "My gang is bigger than your gang"), he pushed. If he hadn't, and had just stood there, he probably just would have been face to face with someone he'd obviously provoked. What other rational explanation is there for the young guy squaring up to him? If you are in a smaller gang you don't go after a bigger gang unless you're very upset. Human nature.

 

 

 

No, I am. It's you who is letting your assumptions cloud your vision.

 

 

 

No, read it again. He was trying to equate my assertion that young people are more likely to try and solve problems with violence to my being against the war on terror (which I'm not - I just don't think that more violence helps).

 

 

 

You're missing cause and effect. Saying "Uh?", "What you saying?" and "Uh?" whilst walking towards somebody, really quite slowly and with your head tilted, listening for an answer, is not an act of aggression. If it had been you and me there instead of the BNP guy, would you feel threatened by it? Probably not. Would you feel threatened if we'd been spouting some racist crap/provocative "come and have a go" language two seconds before? Probably. Hence the BNP guys feeling the need to stop the "advance" by making the first physical contact.

 

 

 

That's your assumption again. Look at the video. From the moment we first see the lads (2 secs), the bigger lad takes 11 steps to get to BNP guy and covers approx. 10 yards in 7 seconds. That's about 2.9 miles an hour. Hardly the walking speed of someone wishing to appear tough.

 

 

 

The first thing he said (that we saw) was "How many is there of us". His body language was clearly saying "We outnumber you - come and have a go". And backed this up with "Don't start giving it large, mate, I tell you." Clearly provocative.

 

 

 

It was hard to comprehend the sentence you wrote, though. Do you want to try explaining it instead of avoiding the point by going off on a tangent about gangs?

 

 

 

And exactly how is that relevant to a street brawl? Dragging up any old emotive case which is hardly relevant to the topic at hand is not a reasonable way to debate things. It's a different issue. You are trying to equate "I defended my property and the law screwed me" with "I provoked someone and got spat on". It doesn't work.

 

I can see that you have a closed mind on this and regardless of what evidence is given, you will not accept the fact that there is video missing.

 

Until a full length video is available, all anyone is doing is speculating.

 

i could go on counter arguing, but it would get me nowhere , so i will just leave it with this.

 

Pause the video at 0.03 of a second in. as stated there is video missing.

 

I'm am closing this thread due to the fact it can and will get out of hand.