They’re getting jumpy over in Bifferland. We know that because they’re trying to frighten someone again.
“But who?” We hear you ask.
The answer may surprise you. It’s certainly an ambitious project. This is intimidation on a scale much larger than Britain First, Lionheart (who of course have nothing to do with BF, really) have ever attempted before.
This time Britain First is attempting to intimidate…… everybody.
This seems more than a bit transparent to us. It’s an attempt to frighten people into silence. Britain First and KTI have always tried to dominate social media (because they know it’s the only way they can ever achieve any sort of acceptability). Their support is so small that it can only ever be meaningful when across the whole country. Actually it’s only really meaningful when the numbers across several countries are totalled up.
Their pathetically poor turnout at rallies and demonstrations (only around 150 Biffers arrived in Dudley after a major national push for attendees) shows just how few BF supporters there actually are once you cut through the clickbait and the commercial ‘like farms’.
So, since social media (especially Facebook) is ‘where it’s at’ for the Biffers, they need to try to protect their online image. Hence the need to try to intimidate detractors. But it’s not going to work.
It’s true that internet trolls can be prosecuted. But that’s not the case for people who report crimes or who alert people to the nefarious activities of others. Even in civil cases of defamation (which have the lowest burden of proof) the truth is always a solid defence. If what you say is true it’s not libel. Of course it might be harassment – Britain First know all about that.
Britain First knows all about hate speech too. That’s why their iphone app was removed only days after its launch.
In an amazing feat of irony, Lionheart (one of Britain First’s sister pages but ‘Shhhhhh’, nobody knows it’s really the Biffers) has started posting information about convicted internet trolls. These are the extremely nasty individuals who post obscenities, threats and abuse to other social media users….
This is fair enough. Internet trolls do occasionally get prosecuted and quite rightly so. Abuse happens on social media just as in real life and it can be just as harmful.
What’s not fair enough is the attempt to equate it with blackmail….
What Britain First is attempting to show is that criticism of Britain First (a registered political party that also runs a shop – or should that be the other way around?) equals illegal blackmail. However we can see that the actual offence also involves extortion of moneys etc.
It’s very different from truth-telling – a legal activity that many would argue is actually a civic duty. That’s certainly how we see it here at Exposing Britain First. We’ve told the truth about Britain First to many people in our time. We’ve alerted victims of their fraudulent activities such as the Royal British Legion…
We’ve highlighted the apparent secrecy surrounding money donated to Britain First’s ‘charitable’ endeavours…
We’ve also shown how Britain First take credit for things they didn’t do….
And we’ve exposed the way that they use emotionally charged pictures as clickbait….
And abuse our war heroes for their own profit….
And we’ve had some success…
We think it’s the uncovering of their financially-driven deceptions that worries the Biffers most though…
And the obvious links between Britain First’s laughably inadequate ‘political party’ status and their rather unusual trading activities…
There are rules and laws about fair trade and non-discriminatory practice…
If Britain First continues to break those rules they can’t grumble when people report them to the police, the other businesses they interact with, their victims or the general public via social media. Remember that truth is a very good defence in defamation cases and that blackmail cases tend to involve demands for money, goods or services.
Harrassment is different, of course as Britain First knows only too well. Paul Golding, the head Biffer himself was convicted of harassment over one of his rather silly ‘confrontations’. We would argue, however that asking a registered political party about their actions and policies is a legitimate activity – so long as it doesn’t become repetitive or threatening. We’d also argue that publicising their activities with commentary is a legitimate act of political engagement. Exposing the abusive actions and policies of that registered political party and its members is more than just legitimate, it’s a civic duty in the public interest.