Thetownend.com

Now Sturrock has left.......

what lights?

i know where all the switches are for the floodlights

You can't tell a birds true beauty until she's glanced up into your eyes with her mouthful.

Christmas? Ben could be a good stand in if it's in Old Town.

Billie Piper please.

Oh shit yeah. That's on Thursday isn't it?

It is indeed.  Now he has let down the kids

I'm sure one of the players will stand in.

The kid's will be wetting themselves about Ben Tozer turning the lights on.

Fat selfish cunt

Can we please leave the Management hatred out of General Discussion. I've spent most the afternoon/evening reading it and I've had enough.

No more. Please?

yeah................this is Ben's little haven

Why does it matter, its general because its about christmas lights.

Go ahead and ban me if you want as im quite busy at work and it would help me.

i'm surprised nobody has mentioned this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7113984.stm)  :D

You should leave Griffin alone, I saw you joined that nasty facebook group!!!




(OK Sonic I agree he is a wanker and is a idiot)

If you want to hire me for a quick bit of admin work I'll do it for a flat fee. Which means that the longer I take to do it the better value you get.

It was aimed at Fred not you Ash. I don't mind the topic just can't be arsed with another deluge of general comment and non-substance. At least I do that with more imagination.

Onto soniques post; I hate Nick Griffin, but I also believe in freedom of speech. But it leaves be with a belief crisis due to the apparent number of stupid and easy to influence people out there

To be fair, NIck Griffin doesnt do anything different to the people outside that Finsley Mosque in London, now that is a joke!  It needs to work both ways.

I personally believe that public and private racism sjhould be banned on all levels

yeah, if anyone wants to offer me a job i'm up for negotiations.



i didn't realise people managed to get inside the union. that's a bit shit. i hoped the debate would go ahead but i can't really see why any intelligent person would even attempt to debate or reason with people like griffin or irving.

i only went to try and pull some fit liberal student types.

I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Well I would but I'm a coward.

finsbury, ash. and those extremists aren't invited to take part in debate at a union which has hosted people like mother theresa in the past - by inviting them you've given them a respected platform which they'll just use to make themselves look legitimate.

so it should be one rule for one and one rule for others?! That bull

no that's not what i mean. griffin and irving shouldn't haver their right to freedom of speech withdrawn, nor should the muslim extremists like abu hamza.

but they also shouldn't be given respected platforms to speak at which serves only to legitimatise their views. nor should they be allowed to speak in public without opposition

I'm no BNP supporter but the muslim extremists are not a legitimate political party.

How can the BNP look legitimate because of this? no one knows what was said!  A surely if griffin and chum are talking total bull then the students at one of the worlds most respected uni's should be able to make them look pretty daft.

Oh the irony of using facism to silence facism

I'm with Ash on this one. It was a debate wasn't it?. I'd hope that some brainy oxford liberal types could argue them off the stage. By protesting against their views in particular then surely you're showing fear that they might be right.

nick griffin didn't accept the invite because he was looking forward to debating with others about free speech - the irony being that griffin and the bnp would only extend that right to white brits - but because it was an opportunity for publicity.

"This event is a big breakthrough for our party to spread its message in democratic surroundings."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7111933.stm

anyway, as i said i hoped the debate would go ahead and it would seem that it did, although not as smoothly as planned. by all means let them speak, doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it completely unopposed.

Freedom of speech should be encouraged.  We have laws to stop xenophopic views.  Nick Griffin will always come over as a cock because he is a cock.

indeed. doesn't mean that we can't disagree with those who are using their freedom of speech though!

Isn't that a bit of a bit of an oxymoron? (I might be using the wrong words again). Surely you can't have Freedom of Speech and ban people from having xenophobic views?

do you mean abusing their freedom of speech Sonic?  I still struggle with this - I think people should say what they like but suffer the consequences if the majority hate their views.  But then we fall foul of other laws ... like if Bob Holt stcks the V's up to me cos I'm protesting outside the ground, I should be allowed to kick his bollox off because he's obviously dissed me in a severe and public fashion.

abu hamza abuses the right to freedom of speech. i don't think griffin does. irving treads a dangerous line.

i suppose it'd be like some STFC supporters holding a pro-board demonstration, we'd disagree with them and voice that disagreement but wouldn't try and stop them.

i don't agree with those who wanted to stop the debate tonight. i disagree with the idea of inviting someone like griffin to debate free speech, it seems absurd but nevertheless i wouldn't try to stop it.

I love you bullzeye, but watch it with the current STFC management references. General discussion is my safe haven. If there's nowhere football free then I get confused about which part of the forum I'm on. Then it'll get really messy. Not just in my head, well maybe just in my head. I'm not sure yet.

with you Sonic.  Ben - Oxymoron - juxtaposition of opposites yes it's a contradiction in terms but OK as long as it's within the law.

yes, but then we don't have free speech. Once you've lost a bit of free speech then it make it easier for them to take away more. Soon it'll be 1984 all over again.

I'm all up for reasoned and intelligent debate with Griffin and his BNP scum in a language they can readily understand

http://www.a-weddingday.com/jds/JDSPersonalizedBatLg.jpg

This debate was all about a publicity stunt for some low-rent tosser trying to boost his career in Union politics. Freedom of speech, sure, they shouldn't be supressed by the state, but there's a world of difference between not supressing them and actively giving them a platform in a (wrongly) venerated debating society that (wrongly) commands world attention.

I guess you'd all expect me to have something to say on this so here it is.

I believe entirely in the the right to freedom of speech, but as always with rights come responsibilities, and the one responsibility to gain the right to freedom of speech is to respect that some right for others.

As such while I don't have much truck with policies which seek to deny a platform to racists, or any other reactionary political phlisophy that I find objectionable, I draw the line at fascists, and the most nutjob of religious fanatics.

Basically if everything you say and everything you work for seeks to deny the rights to freedom of expressioin, organisation and movement to others then you've got a bit of a fucking cheek demanding those rights for yourself. So Griffin can fuck right off.

And before the usual suspects wade in with the some tired old "they're a legitimate political party based on a nationalist stance no different to the SNP blah blah blah bollocks....." please take the time to actually read some stuff about them that they didn't write themselves.

Griffin might wear a suit but in just about every public photo of him he's still surrounded by the same gang of bone heads as always. Tony Lecomber, aka "The Mad Bomber" thanks to his convictions for attempting to bombs to left wing groups and campaigns, is still involved with the party.
A lovely man who still has some slightly dodgy ideas about what participating in a democratic political process involves:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20060528/ai_n16432216

Now whilst that might seem like the ramblings of a fantasist, bear in mind the Lecomber has got form for this kind of thing.

They have no interest whatsoever in open democratic political debate. Griffin is desperately trying to cloak them in a veil of respectability, but at their heart the bulk of the active membership are neo-nazi's. Please don't force me to explain what a fucking contradiction that is with an "impassioned defence of free speech".

There's plenty of religious extremists of all varieties that I feel much the same way about. If your express intent is overthrowing democracy and installing some kind of mental theocracy, then for fuck sake don't expect me to be taking to the streets to defend your "democratic rights". You cannot assert your rights to something that you're looking to give up voluntary and take away from everybody else.

That's it I'm done. And I'm too busy to get drawn into a lengthy debate over this bollocks yet again.

Everything I have to say about these bastards is in the above and all the other posts in al the other threads that have gone before.

i dont believe in freedom of speach for them cunts.

That's a much more succinct way of putting it!  :D