ForumGarden

Two BNP activists arrested over 'pay peanuts, get monkeys' leaflet | Politics | theguardian.com



"if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys” means that if you pay a small amount ("peanuts"), you don’t get very good workers ("monkeys"). “Peanuts” has long been in American slang, meaning “a small amount.” “Monkey” has had several slang meanings, often representing “nonsense.”

Despite the American slang origins of these words, the phrase’s earliest citations in the 1960s and 1870s are mostly from England. the phrase is first cited in print by Leslie Coulthard in 1966.



The Free Dictionary

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

something that you say which means that only stupid people will work for you if you do not pay very much

‘This company is full of incompetents!’ ‘Well, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.’

Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006.

You can't win with the PC police, I've seen people get upset over the word "niggardly."

SnoozeAgain;1432813 wrote: You can't win with the PC police, I've seen people get upset over the word "niggardly." So Clive Jefferson gets arrested for that because his party Is the far right BNP and The Tories, get away with this.

Attached files

Got a question for you Oscar. How many tory MP's does it take to make a complete idiot?

Fracking uproar peer causes further derision with geography revision | Environment | theguardian.com

Will the last tory leaving the north east please turn out the lights.:yh_rotfl

I never thought of Polish folks as a different "Race" but I know my Pollack cousins would have been highly offended by that leaflet.

And can somebody explain to me, what exactly, is a Tory?

oscar;1432814 wrote: So Clive Jefferson gets arrested for that because his party Is the far right BNP and The Tories, get away with this.


Actually, that is not racists.

It does not imply any particular race, or nationality (other than someone, not a UK citizen, who has no proper visa or work permit.)

LarsMac;1432841 wrote:

And can somebody explain to me, what exactly, is a Tory?


It has roots going back hundreds of years but is a basic term for the Conservative Party

From Wikipedia.....

In Britain after 1832 the Tory Party was replaced by the Conservative Party, and "Tory" has become shorthand for a member of the Conservative Party or for the party in general. Many Conservatives still call themselves "Tory" to differentiate themselves from opponents, and the term is common in the media.

...and I don't think the term is in itself racist. Used in a certain connotation it could be construed as such. Racism is as much about the intent of language used and in what context. Despite the fact that these words were said by people who, by definition of their political persuasion, might be racist, its stupid to make such a meal out of it. It's daft, plain and simple.

Snowfire;1432844 wrote: It has roots going back hundreds of years but is a basic term for the Conservative Party

From Wikipedia.....


Thanks.

I only really know the term from its late 18th century American version.

Tories were the Colonists who remained loyal to The Crown during the revolution.

the facts behind the prosecution are that the BNP and other parties were canvassing for a local by-election.

The Labour party not only employed Eastern European leaflet distributors but also British workers.

First of all, the leaflet distributors delivered the leaflets ' Have you voted today ' added with ' call this number for transport to the polling station should you require It ' a whole week early but second, they delivered them to the wrong ward ( District ).where no election was being held.

Hence the BNP leaflet...

Clive Jefferson was bailed last night and faces charges of Inciting racial hatred.

What YOU the tax payer now face, Is Clive entering a plea of Not Guilty and an ensuing week long trial by jury In which he will no doubt be cleared as was Nick Griffin when they tried the same with him.



A few years back, I was having an arguement with a police officer, a Seageant on the telephone. I said, that old saying ' I didn't come up the Thames on a Banana boat you know'.... only for him to explode telling me I was being racist. He said he could send a car round and have me arrested right there. I dared him to do as he said and I would see him In court. I was all ready and tbh a little disappointed I didn't get a day In court. What I did do was print out pages from a history site where It stated that during the Black Death or the plague of England, most of Europe was also In the grip of the Plague. One of the very few countries that was not affected was Holland and the West Indians would only take the banana boats as far as Holland and then the Dutch then brought them up the Thames Into the heart of London and the plague. Due to this, Londoners believed the Dutch to be foolish, risking death and that's one theory as to how the saying originated. Although other theories think ' Dutch Courage' comes from having a drink of alcohol, some theorists believe Dutch Courage also originated from the time of the plague because the Dutch were the only one's brave enough to sail Into London during the plague.

I sent him the Information In the post adding that as I went to school, I suggest he did like wise.

I'm confused why he thought "banana boat" was racist. Easier to have a knee jerk reaction, I guess.

The monkey phrase was ill advised and provacative, I wouldn't vote for people that used such poorly judged language in such circumstances.

SnoozeAgain;1432854 wrote: I'm confused why he thought "banana boat" was racist. Easier to have a knee jerk reaction, I guess. He was being a wanker...

A couple of weeks later and after the print out i sent him, I was at a social event with the British Legion and he was there. I just winked at him and laughed.

Bruv;1432856 wrote: The monkey phrase was ill advised and provacative, I wouldn't vote for people that used such poorly judged language in such circumstances. But would you vote fora Party, Labour for example embroiled In expenses scandals and fraud and where 27 Labour Councillors have been convicted for child abuse?

You see the tad of Irony and hypocrisy there?

The BNP leaflet was solely designed at the Ineptness of the Labour party canvassing the wrong ward... Only those who want to see something that was not Intended would be offended.

oscar;1432807 wrote: Two BNP activists arrested over 'pay peanuts, get monkeys' leaflet | Politics | theguardian.com



"if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys” means that if you pay a small amount ("peanuts"), you don’t get very good workers ("monkeys"). “Peanuts” has long been in American slang, meaning “a small amount.” “Monkey” has had several slang meanings, often representing “nonsense.”

Despite the American slang origins of these words, the phrase’s earliest citations in the 1960s and 1870s are mostly from England. the phrase is first cited in print by Leslie Coulthard in 1966.



The Free Dictionary

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

something that you say which means that only stupid people will work for you if you do not pay very much

‘This company is full of incompetents!’ ‘Well, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.’

Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006.


Did this happen because you don't have complete freedom of speech where you are? To be arrested for something like this could not happen here. This is going too far, IMO.

SnoozeAgain;1432813 wrote: You can't win with the PC police, I've seen people get upset over the word "niggardly."


They are upset due to their own ignorance & lack of vocabulary skills. It is, however, an old, out of fashion term, one not really in use.

Bruv;1432856 wrote: The monkey phrase was ill advised and provacative, I wouldn't vote for people that used such poorly judged language in such circumstances.


Not only provocative, and can be seen as a double entendre situation.

AnneBoleyn;1432891 wrote: Not only provocative, and can be seen as a double entendre situation. Guess what Anne ?

I know Clive Jefferson one of the two arrested. :wah:

The defence Is this...

They had no Idea what so ever when they set out with their leaflets ridiculing the Labour Party's mistakes that It was largely a foreign work force employed by the Labour Party to distribute their leaflets.... Thus, the Intention to offend wasn't there.

The BNP do not ring up the Labour Party or any other political party on an election campaign and say ' hey, what nationality are delivering your leaflets?'

I think I'd be more offended if I were a person of color and found out people avoided using the word "monkey" around me because they thought I'd be insulted.

AnneBoleyn;1432888 wrote: They are upset due to their own ignorance & lack of vocabulary skills. It is, however, an old, out of fashion term, one not really in use.


Oh, so we shouldn't use it any more? What's your point?

What next Anne ?

Take the Baa Baa Black Sheep nursery rhyme and re-write It.

Lah Lah non specific coloured non specific farm animal do you have any non specific fleece?

oscar;1432902 wrote: What next Anne ?

Take the Baa Baa Black Sheep nursery rhyme and re-write It.

Lah Lah non specific coloured non specific farm animal do you have any non specific fleece?


But that rhyme has no racist connotations about it. However you say it, it's not offensive and isn't meant to be. " If you pay peanuts...." is a phrase I've used myself. I used it in the manner in which it was intended.

There are however very clear examples of racist rhymes/sayings/expressions that are unacceptable - as far as I'm concerned - that I would argue against the use of. And have.

There is a balance to how we use our language and sometimes a clear intent to how it is used to offend, then hide behind the "political correctness gone wrong"

"Play the white man" may be used in innocence but that doesnt stop it being offensive to someone who is black.

I have no desire to be politically correct but we just have to be sensible about it and understand WHY things are offensive

Snowfire;1432908 wrote: But that rhyme has no racist connotations about it. However you say it, it's not offensive and isn't meant to be. " If you pay peanuts...." is a phrase I've used myself. I used it in the manner in which it was intended.

There are however very clear examples of racist rhymes/sayings/expressions that are unacceptable - as far as I'm concerned - that I would argue against the use of. And have.

There is a balance to how we use our language and sometimes a clear intent to how it is used to offend, then hide behind the "political correctness gone wrong"

"Play the white man" may be used in innocence but that doesnt stop it being offensive to someone who is black.

I have no desire to be politically correct but we just have to be sensible about it and understand WHY things are offensive


That's mighty white of you. :sneaky:

SnoozeAgain;1432911 wrote: That's mighty white of you. :sneaky:


Thats a loaf of bread over here. Are you saying I'm doughy :p

Hope Snowshoe Isn't off tonight to his ' Master Bedroom '

"Master bedroom" deemed racist, sexist by some - AGBeat

oscar;1432914 wrote: Hope Snowshoe Isn't off tonight to his ' Master Bedroom '

"Master bedroom" deemed racist, sexist by some - AGBeat


That's clearly an example of a phrase that no one was ever offended by (just like all the complaints by Muslims about Christmas that never happened) until some pc nutcase with OCD sat down and examined every phrase in the English language and invented the offence

SnoozeAgain;1432899 wrote: Oh, so we shouldn't use it any more? What's your point?
My point--niggardly is out of fashion so many people don't know the meaning of the word due to their own lack of good vocabulary.

That's my point.

oscar;1432896 wrote: Guess what Anne ?

I know Clive Jefferson one of the two arrested. :wah:

The defence Is this...

They had no Idea what so ever when they set out with their leaflets ridiculing the Labour Party's mistakes that It was largely a foreign work force employed by the Labour Party to distribute their leaflets.... Thus, the Intention to offend wasn't there.

The BNP do not ring up the Labour Party or any other political party on an election campaign and say ' hey, what nationality are delivering your leaflets?'


EVEN IF (& I am definitely NOT saying it was) an attempt to offend IMO, NO Arrest was warranted in this case & the men would never have been arrested in the USA for this. The only thing offensive here, IMO, is the lack of freedom of expression.

oscar;1432902 wrote: What next Anne ?

Take the Baa Baa Black Sheep nursery rhyme and re-write It.

Lah Lah non specific coloured non specific farm animal do you have any non specific fleece?


Hope that's not next. Hope Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn always gets the respect it deserves as a Work of Art. Gone With the Wind, too.

AnneBoleyn;1432920 wrote: EVEN IF (& I am definitely NOT saying it was) an attempt to offend IMO, NO Arrest was warranted in this case & the men would never have been arrested in the USA for this. The only thing offensive here, IMO, is the lack of freedom of expression. I'm no legal expert so I am guessing but to bring about a conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the phrase was used against the Eastern European workers and not the Labour Party. Good luck with that one plod !!!!

oscar;1432926 wrote: I'm no legal expert so I am guessing but to bring about a conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the phrase was used against the Eastern European workers and not the Labour Party. Good luck with that one plod !!!!


IMO, they should be released with all charges dropped, or if they go to trial they should be found not guilty. It's too much, it's way over the top.

OMG... more emerges... and you couldn't make this up...

To cut a long story short...

In May the BNP lodged a serious and formal complaint of Electoral Fraud In Maryport.

The BNP's Wigton office was visited by a police officer looking for BNP Councillor Clive Jefferson and BNP Councillor Dawn Charlton.

Now... what are the chances that the same police officer who went looking for Dawn and Clive would be the same officer who took a formal complaint of theft against a member of the Labour Party who allegedly stole the wreath Nick Griffin laid In Maryport.

To sum up... Dawn and Clive submit a formal complaint of theft of a wreath from a war memorial and 12 hours later, Dawn and Clive are arrested over leaflets that went out over two months ago.

Both have been bailed.

Dawn and Clive

BNP Arrests in Cumbria - YouTube

Just heard the police have charged them both with Inciting racial hatred.

The case will be heard on 4th September.

No less than 24 police officers were sent to arrest Clive and Dawn despite Clive being disabled.

The complaints were lodged by Barbara Canon, Labour election agent for Allerdale and Sir Tony Cunningham, Labour MP for the area.

Not political smear tactics my arrse.

Interesting news just In...

All attempts to ban the EDL from marching through Tower Hamlet's In September seem to have been In vain...

A protest ban isn't the way to stop the racist EDL | Nina Power | Comment is free | The Guardian

After being arrested for attempting a charity walk through Tower Hamlet's a few weeks ago, It appears all charges against Tommy Robinson and Kevin Caroll have been dropped and he Is Indeed allowed to continue with the march In Tower Hamlet's.

Good. Anything else would be ridiculous & undemocratic. People have a right to peaceful protest.

AnneBoleyn;1434146 wrote: Good. Anything else would be ridiculous & undemocratic. People have a right to peaceful protest.


It won't be peaceful though Anne, The EDL will attempt a peaceful march but It will be the UAF who plan a counter-protest that will turn ugly,

That;s the UAF under the banner ' Hope Not Hate' who were today whining on facebook that they have been gagged from errrrrrrrrr attempting to gag The Far Right.

Democracy has ruled at last.

AnneBoleyn;1434146 wrote: Good. Anything else would be ridiculous & undemocratic. People have a right to peaceful protest.


Is it "peaceful protest" when the Orangemen exercise the "democratic right" to march through staunchly Catholic areas or is it incitement to riot?

Listen to them squeal "we wuz attacked" year after year and ask how much it was premeditated.

This falls into the same category.

Bryn Mawr;1434151 wrote: Is it "peaceful protest" when the Orangemen exercise the "democratic right" to march through staunchly Catholic areas or is it incitement to riot?

Listen to them squeal "we wuz attacked" year after year and ask how much it was premeditated.

This falls into the same category. I am not so blind to see, of course, there will always be the odd few who look for some aggro.

I do however believe the tide Is turning, I could sit here half the night loading links to show that the majority of arrests at clashes are the UAF but It'll prove little. Yet, for example, the BNP march through Woolwich recently saw 57 arrests, all UAF and not one single BNP arrest. There Is also a whole host of footage on the web showing the UAF attacking the police and then attempting to blame the EDL or BNP.

I do think, at last, government Is recognising that the actual marches and demo's are not the problem but the counter-protests.

Awww bless em. On and on they whine.

Place more rigorous restrictions on HOPE not hate in an election period, then those faced by the BNP, the National Front or any other political party.

Conclusion

By design or default this Bill will severely restrict the ability of organisations like HOPE not hate to function and combat fascism, racism and other forms of extremism. It is nothing more than a Gagging Bill, limiting democracy, political involvement and criticism. At a time when trust in political parties and politicians is at an all-time low we need to increase involvement and participation in the democratic process rather than limiting it.

The Government is trying to gag HOPE not hate

Now that's democracy

The UAF gagged at last

In short, they whine this will limit the democratic process and critism while they try to limit..... errrrr critism

oscar;1434162 wrote: I am not so blind to see, of course, there will always be the odd few who look for some aggro.

I do however believe the tide Is turning, I could sit here half the night loading links to show that the majority of arrests at clashes are the UAF but It'll prove little. Yet, for example, the BNP march through Woolwich recently saw 57 arrests, all UAF and not one single BNP arrest. There Is also a whole host of footage on the web showing the UAF attacking the police and then attempting to blame the EDL or BNP.

I do think, at last, government Is recognising that the actual marches and demo's are not the problem but the counter-protests.


Of course it would prove little - it's more a reflection of the choices made in policing the march and the situation that creates than in the relative merits of the two sides.

Again, let's relate it to the Orange marches - if the Catholics object to the Orangemen marching through their estates and the Police chose to defend the right to march then any expression of that objection can be (and is) seen as illegal and leads to arrests. Had the police chosen to ban the march as incitement then the majority of the arrests would have been on the other side.

Having said that, I deplore the use of violence from whichever side it comes but it certainly does not make the BNP into saints.

Bryn Mawr;1434736 wrote: Of course it would prove little - it's more a reflection of the choices made in policing the march and the situation that creates than in the relative merits of the two sides.

Again, let's relate it to the Orange marches - if the Catholics object to the Orangemen marching through their estates and the Police chose to defend the right to march then any expression of that objection can be (and is) seen as illegal and leads to arrests. Had the police chosen to ban the march as incitement then the majority of the arrests would have been on the other side.

Having said that, I deplore the use of violence from whichever side it comes but it certainly does not make the BNP into saints. ahhhh now I can get your point. I see.

The EDL march In Newcastle In March was 7,000 strong admitted the police and just 3 arrests although It's not clear what side the arrests were on.

If as a democratic country we have the right to peaceful protest, then what do we do?

Stop marches on that scale or stop opposition protests that lead to the violence?

oscar;1434763 wrote: ahhhh now I can get your point. I see.

The EDL march In Newcastle In March was 7,000 strong admitted the police and just 3 arrests although It's not clear what side the arrests were on.

If as a democratic country we have the right to peaceful protest, then what do we do?

Stop marches on that scale or stop opposition protests that lead to the violence?


In my book you stop the march when its sole aim is provocation - Oswald Mosley's march through the East End for example.

Bryn Mawr;1434774 wrote: In my book you stop the march when its sole aim is provocation - Oswald Mosley's march through the East End for example.


How and who gets to make that call ?

It's not all cut and dried many times

Bruv;1434782 wrote: How and who gets to make that call ?

It's not all cut and dried many times


I fully realise that, I'm just trying to point out that the raw stats are not cut and dried either.

Bruv;1434782 wrote: How and who gets to make that call ?

It's not all cut and dried many times


Good point.

As I understand It, the police and government can stop a large march If It's deemed to be a threat to National security under the anti-terrorism laws which Is I believe the route Theresa May took when trying to stop the EDL planned march In September through Tower Hamlet's, which has failed.

OK, so let's say the march Is designed to Incite. Who decides It Is to Incite? If the BNP or EDL plan to protest about a new mosque, who decides If It's a legitimate protest or wether there's an alternative agenda?

A protest march against a mosque Is bound to be offensive to Muslims and even some British but Is It Incitive?

oscar;1434789 wrote: Good point.

As I understand It, the police and government can stop a large march If It's deemed to be a threat to National security under the anti-terrorism laws which Is I believe the route Theresa May took when trying to stop the EDL planned march In September through Tower Hamlet's, which has failed.

OK, so let's say the march Is designed to Incite. Who decides It Is to Incite? If the BNP or EDL plan to protest about a new mosque, who decides If It's a legitimate protest or wether there's an alternative agenda?

A protest march against a mosque Is bound to be offensive to Muslims and even some British but Is It Incitive?


That depends on the grounds for the objection and the official routes used to raise them before calling the march. If it's in a predominantly Muslim area and an outsider says "they'll have a Mosque over my dead body" with no legal redress having been sought then it's incitement, if it's the end of a long running and balanced campaign against disputed planning approval then it's fair game.

Bryn Mawr;1434800 wrote: That depends on the grounds for the objection and the official routes used to raise them before calling the march. If it's in a predominantly Muslim area and an outsider says "they'll have a Mosque over my dead body" with no legal redress having been sought then it's incitement, if it's the end of a long running and balanced campaign against disputed planning approval then it's fair game.


As I understand It In this case, It's not just a few banner wavers marching through but just part of a long standing campaign which Includes opposition to planning when It was first proposed. I believe the march Is the culmination of the protest, not the onset.

That's an interesting post. Nice one!!

Today was the EDL march through Tower Hamlet's.

Just heard Tommy has been arrested again apparently for trying to give a speech... no doubt we'll find out more later.

Attached files