delia for PRIME SINISTER .PART TWO

mr-angry · Post by **mr-angry** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:44 pm

The swatstika has been used for thousands of years, by loads of races
Just like Baldy said.

Jim_in_France · Post by **Jim_in_France** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:10 pm

Jarrow Pete wrote:
Nikki Big Nose wrote:
As for MrA's new signature. I can't see how he could be reprimanded for it if it is a legal party.

....and so was this sherri.....

unoffensive

What has a nazi flag got to do with a BNP rosette?

The same difference with Labour and "New Labour". I.E. Nazi Party....New Nazi Party! Same people with a different flag.

sherri · Post by **sherri** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:36 pm

Maybe you need to re read my post.
Nowhere did I say the symbol might not be offensive to some people.
I said-I don't think mr A could reasonably be banned from this messageboard etc for having it.
Now quite possibly if I knew more about the BNP I might find some of their party politics offensive too. But if it is a legal party, then people are legally allowed to follow it.

I think you will find that the nazi swastika was not illegal in Germany in the 1930's. It may have been offensive to different groups of people, even hated, but in Germany of the 1930's it was quite legal.

In fact it is quite legal in Australia, 2007. I am not saying it is popular. But the nazi party is quite legal here. At one stage many years ago there was a push to ban it but in the end it was thought democracy should allow it.

I believe in Germany the nazi party is now illegal, so using the swastika to push that party on messageboards there would presumably be illegal and would result in a boardie having that signature banned.

The question to me is not what you or anyone else finds offensive, so much as is it legal, does it go against the rules of the messageboard?

Probably about half the time i totally disagree with different posts and the views expressed but that doesn't necessarily mean the people should not be allowed to express them. they are different questions. What is legal, what is offensive, what limits can people go to on a board etc

sherri · Post by **sherri** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:43 pm

As an example, if someone here had the swastika as a signature denoting they were in the nazi party, that could be okay on a message board. It would be a hated symbol for a lot of boardies and they would not agree with the politics, but..
if the person with the swastika made posts outlining how much they hated eg jews and wanted to kill jews and started trying to incite violence, then that would be a breach of messagebaord rules, as I would see it.
So i see the posts and the signature as 2 different things I guess, and the signature, while it is only a badge of a legal party, and no comment, may not be popular but is not illegal, surely.

jarrajock · Post by **jarrajock** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:48 pm

no matter what yo do where yougo to someone isalways going to find something offensive wether it be a sign haircut or the colour of your eyes

Jarrow Pete · Post by **Jarrow Pete** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:50 pm

Jim_in_France wrote:

The same difference with Labour and "New Labour". I.E. Nazi Party....New Nazi Party! Same people with a different flag.

Jim you have more in common with the nazi party with your hatred of the Jews,maybe you should include it in your posts.

Babooshka · Post by **Babooshka** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:59 pm

I remember when Prince Harry wore a swastika on his army outfit to a Fancy Dress party and there was absolute ruckshuns on about it

sherri · Post by **sherri** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:59 pm

My own suspicion about the whole thing with the signature is I think MrA is trying to get a reaction from people and is succeeding. He is a bit of a stirrer.

sherri · Post by **sherri** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:01 pm

Yes of course babooshka. that is because he is part of a royal family that was supposed to have been against the nazis (though we know only some were). They are still not supposed to support the Nazi party. People find it offensive he did that, though of course it was not illegal. Not a good move mind you, if you aim to please the people, but not illegal. Just silly.

It would be a bit like our Liberal prime minister going out wearing a Labor party badge on his lapel. It would cause a riot in the newsrooms.

little_tata · Post by **little_tata** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:15 pm

why should the bigots be allowed to
run my life by telling me what's right and what's wrong.

Because you have the intelligence of an over cooked sprout.

curly · Post by **curly** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:12 am

I have not deleted any threads they are still in place (but locked) my apologies are still there, the outing was about to occur so I acted in what I believed was good faith to take the wind out of the sails of what could turn out to be particularly nasty business. My only regret is that I did not inform Delilahcat in advance of taking my action. I have since had more than one exchange of PM's with her to explain the matter. (Better an irritating spot than a full grown boil, I thought!)

viewtopic.php?t=11085

viewtopic.php?t=11078

I don't get sufficient time to visit all of these boards and was wary of the subject causing heated and unnecessary debate on my board, and to protect Delilahcat further, I locked the threads.

It really is time to think about allowing her to get on with her campaign without this nuisance getting in the way.

I hope people will begin to understand (a) my reasons for acting as I did, and (b) my regrets at not accomplishing the task more professionally by including Delilahcat's wishes.

Jarrow Pete · Post by **Jarrow Pete** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:16 am

Well said Curly, like you say its time to put it to bed and move on.

jimmywizz · Post by **jimmywizz** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:12 pm

yep spot on curly this post has now runs its course and let the cat get on with her new job POST LOCKED