July 14, 2007

BNP man’s death - sub judice no bar to BNP hate campaign

The death of a Stoke-on-Trent BNP activist in what police are describing as a “dispute between neighbours” has been hyped out of all proportion by the BNP and its adherents, despite the paucity of details so far released.

Keith Brown had apparently been involved in a long-standing dispute with his Muslim neighbours, which resulted in an altercation on July 6th. During the fracas, Mr Brown was stabbed and died. A number of people were arrested and later released on police bail, and Habib Khan charged with murder. Khan appeared before North Staffordshire magistrates and was remanded to appear at Stafford Crown Court on Monday July 16.

Beyond stating that Mr Brown’s death came about as the result of a dispute between neighbours, Staffordshire police have released few other details. How the altercation arose and who instigated it is not known - these are facts that will be established at Mr Khan’s trial, and until then - quite properly - any speculation or apportioning of blame is prohibited by the rules of sub judice.

However, the fact of one of their own having allegedly been murdered, and allegedly by a Muslim, has proved more than the BNP and its fanatical following can bear, and the party set out to capitalise on the tragedy of Mr Brown’s death.

Very quickly the BNP website, ignoring the fact that nobody accused of a criminal offence may be presumed to be guilty until a jury finds them so, was talking of a “gang of Muslim thugs” and detailed a number of (unproven) allegations made by Mr Brown against his neighbours, saying:

The months of anguish continued for Keith, abuse, assaults and smashed windows until finally the inevitable but entirely avoidable happed. Last Friday afternoon witnesses saw Keith and his neighbours in yet another flare up. Keith had just returned from picking up his three youngest children from school when he was confronted by a group of Muslim men outside his house. Whilst Keith was remonstrating with these men another Muslim man crept from behind a car and plunged a large knife in his back.

Clearly, the BNP does not require anything so mundane as a trial to establish guilt - but then, fascists have a track-record of never greatly bothering themselves with such fripperies wherever they have gained power.

Whether the allegations and summation of events as given on the BNP website is true or not is neither here nor there. The fact is that they have no business being aired in public when the guilt or innocence of a man charged with murder depends upon him coming before an unbiased jury. No newspaper would dare to publish the version of events appearing on the BNP website without a heavy degree of qualification - such that the reader would be in no doubt that the newspaper was publishing allegations, and not established facts.

Even before the BNP website had published its version of events, the party’s keyboard army of bloggers and forum trolls were hard at work hyping their dead comrade into some kind of hero who had fallen in an undeclared race war - one even managing to compare his death to those of the British soldiers who fell at the Battle of the Somme. Calls for revenge came thick and fast, and for once the mask of respectability was discarded as the open racism and hatred of the average BNP member spewed on to the Internet.

We have no more idea than the average BNP member of exactly what led to the death of Keith Brown. Whether his death had anything to do with his politics, his neighbours’ religion, or really was simply a dispute between neighbours that - regardless of politics, religion or race - escalated into violence, are matters that will be established in a court, and not on the poisonous blogs of BNP members.

We hope that all right-thinking people will agree with us that anybody committing an act of murder, whatever the circumstances, deserves the appropriate punishment - as do those who wilfully ignore the long established principle that a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty, and that to presume guilt and to make public utterances to that effect is a contempt of court proceedings likewise deserving of the appropriate punishment.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Deary deary me, suddenly it's let's wait till all the facts come out before we pass comment - funny how UAF and its hangers on didn't wish to do that in the Cottage case.

The specualtion that went on and on about that on anti racist forums, well really, Now they have the cheek to criticise others for what they themselves also do and have done.

Anonymous said...

Would you say the same about the ALLEGED killers of Stephen Lawrence? Was the Mail wrong to name them? Was that sub judice? Did you complain about that?

Anonymous said...

Did no anti racists speculate prior to Nick Griffin's trial(s) on their forums? Did they not want him to have a fair trial?

Anonymous said...

"nobody accused of a criminal offence may be presumed to be guilty until a jury finds them so"

Your reasoning here is, as usual, absolute nonsense.

It is *only the courts and the law* which should presume one innocent until proven guilty. (The BNP have not said that the man accused doesn't deserve a fair trial -- if they had done, that would obviously be a completely different matter.)

Individuals, and indeed political parties, are entitled to have and express their own opinions.

If you are to argue otherwise, how do you justify the fact that you had no problem claiming, on this blog, that Nick Griffin was guilty of inciting racial hatred before his trial had begun?

Anonymous said...

How many times have you made up and processed false allegations choosing to ignore the facts?

You're blaming the Bnp for sensationalism whilst grasping any opportunity yourself to furthur your own odious agenda.

Your article is sick,twisted and a fucking disgrace.God help us all.

Anonymous said...

No-one has ever been convicted of murdering Stephen Lawrence (and so no-one can ever truly know the motive for his murder) and yet this rather crucial fact has never stopped the liberal left from bleating endlessly about his 'racist' murder.

Funny that isn't it ?

The double-standards of the 'anti-racism' (sic) industry never cease to amaze...

Antifascist said...

'The specualtion that went on and on about that on anti racist forums...'

Which anti-racist forums would these be?

'Was the Mail wrong to name them?'

Yes, why not?

'Did no anti racists speculate prior to Nick Griffin's trial(s) on their forums? Did they not want him to have a fair trial?'

Yes and no, in that order.

'Your reasoning here is, as usual, absolute nonsense. '

So the fundamental reasoning behind the whole British justice system is nonsense - is that what you're saying?

'How many times have you made up and processed false allegations choosing to ignore the facts?'

Never, to my knowledge - and if we print allegations, we state that that is the case very clearly.

'You're blaming the Bnp for sensationalism whilst grasping any opportunity yourself to furthur your own odious agenda.'

Odious agenda? What precisely is this odious agenda?

'Your article is sick,twisted and a fucking disgrace.God help us all.'

You're patently a fucking idiot but maybe you can still manage to explain how the article is sick, twisted or fucking disgraceful.

Anonymous said...

"So the fundamental reasoning behind the whole British justice system is nonsense - is that what you're saying?"

Did you actually read my post? My point is that innocent until proven guilty is exactly the way that *the law* should work.

But that doesn't mean individuals or political parties cannot have and express their own opinions on who they think is guilty or not guilty.

Can't you see what the difference is? The courts must assume people innocent because they have the ability to punish people. The BNP don't need to make the assumption of innocence, as the BNP cannot convict or sentence criminals. It's that simple!

You seem to be advocating a totalitarian state where nobody's allowed to even speculate as to who might have committed a certain crime. You actually believe that the person who wrote the BNP webpage article is deserving of "punishment" (what would the "appropriate" one be?) regardless of whether it turns out that they were telling the truth!

In fact, by taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion -- that everyone must believe one to be innocent until he is proven guilty in a court of law -- nobody could ever even be brought to trial. Clearly, somebody has to make an accusation that a person guilty of a crime before the person has been proven guilty in a court of law!

Anonymous said...

lancaster uaf hits a new low

using the death of a innocent man to attack the bnp and claim there doing it in the intrest of fair journalism


disgracefull

your not just potical wrong but moral corrupt.

rip keith a fallen hero see you in valahalla brave son of odin.

Anonymous said...

You're a sick cunt,The frightening thing is you can't see it.I'm a fucking idiot?I'm not the cunt writing sensationalist stories on the back of a murder.You're a fucking lunatic.

Unknown said...

SimonUK said...

Individuals, and indeed political parties, are entitled to have and express their own opinions.

And when, exactly, did "Individuals, and indeed political parties" become excempted from the law of the land?

You Braindeads talk about "British justice" - what you realy mean is lynch law.

Antifascist said...

'The courts must assume people innocent because they have the ability to punish people. The BNP don't need to make the assumption of innocence, as the BNP cannot convict or sentence criminals.'

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. It simply means that as the BNP cannot convict or sentence, it has carte blanche to assume whatever it likes, accuse anyone it likes (or rather, dislikes) and name anyone it likes for any crime that takes its fancy. That's a nonsense and you know it but I'd love to attend the libel case where that argument was used.

'I'm not the cunt writing sensationalist stories on the back of a murder.'

You obviously haven't noticed so I suppose I'd better point it out to you - the story is a response to a sensationalist load of bullshit that appeared on the BNP website. Got it now?

'rip keith a fallen hero see you in valahalla brave son of odin.'

Fookin' 'ell.

Anonymous said...

ODIN AND THE BNP'S NORSE WORSHIP!!!

Just a wee point about the previous comment about the deceased BNP member and his homage to Norse "god" Odin: -

I take it, from the eulogy, that the "fallen hero" (as yiu describe him), was a Scandinavian-born, Norse Viking and not a traditional English Christian?

That fake BNP Christian minister who used to turn up for Nick Griffin's trial, and his weird religious sect, do they worship the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ or Viking gods of war and destruction??????????????

Why do supposedly patriotic BNP racists openly dare to believe in "unBritish" Norse mythology as Adolf Hitler did, when they are not Nazis......

Hear the deafening silence from the British Hitler worshippers, as they keep on insisting they are not Nazis, but make open remarks about paying homage to a long-since forgotten Norse god, whom only white supremacists remember......

These questions need answering by the cagy BNP nazis who prefer posting on here instead of Stormfront. After all, they keep on harking on about Britain being a Christian country, and yet, they worship foreign Pagan gods

----------------------------

Just for the record, folks: - the BNP's dear hero Adolf, perverted Asatru Norse mythology to encorporate anti-Semitism and racial hatred, for their own ends and means. The BNP's obsession about "supposed" Norse mythology is a perversion of the true nature of Viking pagan beliefs, which weren't at all racial in nature, but had been twisted by Hitler's Bavarian cult, for his sick and evil purposes of racial hatred and mass murder.

Anonymous said...

Which other Brave Sons Of Odin will this supposedly Christian (and not neo-pagan neo-nazi) meet in Valhalla?

Adolf Hitler and Goebels?

The BNP's belief in Christianity is a complete and absolute sham like their continuous denials about not being a party of neo-Nazis.

Anonymous said...

So, perhaps you can tell us when you were going to put the murder of Keith Brown on your hatewatch for the week piece?

The point of the BNP's piece is that white on black murders are highlighted, while the reverse is ignored.

No amount of playing the fool, answering the wrong question etc etc can hide the double standards that this weblog supports.

It would have been far better for you to have been one of the first weblogs to acknowlege the murder of Keith Brown and to call for an inquiry police handling of the neighbour dispute prior to the murder.

The allegation that Keith Brown's complaints were dismissed by an Asian woman police officer with the words "we know who he is" should be investigated and shown to be true or false.

If false, then you have a tremendous victory.

If true, then you had better be the first, or at least among them, to denounce such behaviour.

Such 'fascist' behaviour, as in the police denying a citizen protection based on his race and perceived political views.

This is the anti fascist website isn't it?

Or perhaps it is really the anti white, pro distorted history etc etc website?

The issues are clear.

Playing the fool, confusing the issues, writing trite ripostes that are not really relevant - none of these adds to your credibility.

Anonymous said...

"So, perhaps you can tell us when you were going to put the murder of Keith Brown on your hatewatch for the week piece?"
Hatewatch is nothing to do with Lancaster UAF. You've obviously managed not to notice that it's provided by an American organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Anonymous said...

The police have no evidence that this was a racist murder. And yet, the BNP are comparing this to the Stephen Lawrence case, which the police said at the very start was a racist murder.

Neo-Nazis like the Hitler-worshipping BNP twist the truth for their own sick ends and means.

There again, that's no surprise. They deny the Holocaust happened, so they are no bastions of truth and fact.

Anonymous said...

"anti-white"?

The BNP are white supremacist through and through.

They attend conferences in America led by the Ku Klux Klan, and Nick Griffin published a pamphlet full of anti-semitic bullshit called The Mindbenders.

The BNP even oppose mixed race marriages.

No wonder they pay homage to Odin and all that pseudo-Norse crap...

Anonymous said...

"The courts must assume people innocent because they have the ability to punish people. The BNP don't need to make the assumption of innocence, as the BNP cannot convict or sentence criminals."

This chap sounds like he's been to the Lee Barne's School of Law.

Unknown said...

Anonymous wrote: The BNP's belief in Christianity is a complete and absolute sham

Oh, I don't know... the fawning sycophant calling himself Green Arrow had this to say on his blog:

This might sound silly and trite but I actually pray for God to keep Nick Griffin safe because I fear for his life and what his loss would mean to our Country.
I bet I am not the only one either, who prays for him and to worry about his safety.


That's despite the failure of Griffin or BNP HQ to respond to his plaintive requests for info on Griffin, so as to compile what will presumably be the definitive biography of the Great Leader.

Perhaps Mr Fister could help him?

Anonymous said...

Since when were anti fash bothered about sub judice?

Did you hope NG got a fair trial(s).

If the roles were reveresed here and a BNP supporter had knifed his Asian neighbour in the back during a land dispute would you be saying let's wait and see? Cant comment to do so would be sub judice. I suspect Youd love it.

If you were honest that is

Anonymous said...

I don't care which side of the debate you are on, the law is the law and the BNP have clearly breached The Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 it is criminal contempt of court to publish anything which creates a real risk that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired. In its article the BNP has given details about the case, presenting them as fact, which have not been released by the police and if a jury member read this article, it could prevent a fair trial. Bona fide journalists are ALL aware of this law, and if newspapers choose to break it, they too must accept the consequences. No one, whatever their beliefs, has the right to publish certain details about a criminal case until they have been put before a jury in a court of law. This law is designed to protect everyone, including BNP members, and if other forums have broken this law, they too deserve to be punished.

The law prevents anyone publishing material that is too extreme or sensationalist about a criminal case until the trial is over and the jury has given its verdict.

I would suggest, rather than insulting each other on forums, those who believe the BNP or anyone else have broken this law report them to the authorities and allow them to take it from there.

Anonymous said...

The BNP would just love to be prosecuted for contempt over the Keith Brown murder.

It would be just as difficult for the media to ignore such a trial as it was for them to ignore the 'Free Speech' trials.

The media's histrionic orgy of caring about the victims of white on black hate crime would then be compared to its indifference to the victims of black on white hate crime.

Convicted or not, the BNP defendants would be seen as martyrs to the truth.

BRING IT ON.

Anonymous said...

"I would suggest, rather than insulting each other on forums, those who believe the BNP or anyone else have broken this law report them to the authorities and allow them to take it from there."

I assume we can, of course, quote you on this ?

Or are you, as I suspect, just another internet gobshite ?

Anonymous said...

More bullshit and distortion from the nazi trolls.

The Kriss Donald case WAS A RACIST MURDER, and received maximum coverage on the BBC news, especially in Scotland, so this is just untrue.

That was a noted as a hate crime, and the criminals were locked up as Asian racists. I saw it on the news myself.

There is no way, however that the BNP man's death can be called a hate crime until the police announce it as one.

One does not know the motive, so stop jumping the gun, nazi trolls, please.

The BNP's racist policies (only white people can belong to the BNP), etc, do not make the neo-nazi organisation a valid commentator about race.

The BNP remarking about race crime is like Peter Sucliffe talking about women's rights. C'mon, folks...... Many of you deny the Holocaust ever happened, and some of you celebrate Adolf Hitler's birthday.

Hitler was the biggest racist of all time!

Anonymous said...

Some idiot said...
"Anonymous said...
"I would suggest, rather than insulting each other on forums, those who believe the BNP or anyone else have broken this law report them to the authorities and allow them to take it from there."

I assume we can, of course, quote you on this ?

Or are you, as I suspect, just another internet gobshite ?"

What are you talking about? I am simply informing the forum about one of the laws of this land. If you don't believe me then please feel free to look up the act in question and find out for yourself. This is one of the problems with the internet, people seem to believe they can say what they want, regardless of the law. Everyone harps on about freedom of speech all the time but yet knows nothing about all the laws which limit that right - defamation for example. Everyone is quick to point the finger at newspapers and other genuine media outlets and yet journalists have to pass exams in the law. I doubt very much that the "BNP news team" behind the article which provoked this debate in the first place have any qualifications in media law. It is not Lancaster UAF (of which I have nothing to do with) who have suddenly decided people should wait until the facts come out before people pass comment. THAT IS THE LAW - you can't pick and choose which laws you obey depending on the race of the victim!

Anonymous said...

I'm heartened that the murder is receiving attention outside of a little local paper.
That's the whole purpose of blogging after all, to get news out that the MSM can't or won't touch?
It suits the policies of both Left and Right as more young people read the internet than they do newspapers.
Scotland would never have heard of this killing if not for the internet, but its a topic discussed in most Glasgow pubs. Its topical coming on the murder of Kris Donald and the latest attempt on Glasgow airport.
Traditionally the BNP have not really made inroads in Scotland though they got more votes in May than they ever did.
The perception that UAF only cares about immigrants and Islam is very strong at the moment and that these "anti racist" organisations exist purely to stoke up hatred against evil white people who dont want to live in a country where foreigners call the shots aided by the Hard Left.
As a bit of a fence sitter myself its becoming obvious that the BNP is both hated and feared by people much higher up than a few internet warriors. One has to wonder why that is, if its just a few Hitler worshipping fruitcakes as the media suggest?
It tends to drive the thinking person straight to their site to discover they really look pretty ordinary if patriotic people.

Anonymous said...

Are all Muslims extremists?
Are all BNP members Nazis?

It's unfair to label people such.

I'm a member of the BNP; just an average middle class professional from down south, never been in trouble with the police, never put a foot wrong. And I feel deeply (and I mean deeply) insulted and hurt when someone calls me a racist or a Nazi. It's just not on.