text: what is the difference between nick griffin and mizanur rahman (uk)? both appeared in court for the same crime - but one was cleared of charges and the other convicted. is this yet another surreal way of how british law deals with sensitive cases, or are the purviewers thereof showing their true colours? both are racists, spouting extreme views and both should have been convicted.  the difference? rahman is an extremist nutter, who talks shite and nobody actually listens to. he is wrong to say what he said and deserved jail, but since no-one took him seriously, he posed no threat and did not incite violence. however, the law deals with his intention, and that was certainly to incite violence. the fact that he didn't succeed is neither here nor there.  griffin is an intelligent manipulator of his group of thugs who hang on his racist words like mad dogs.  the fact that griffin spoke at  a closed meeting is irrelevant. his words were intended to incite crimes of violence and arson against non-whites by his half-witted foot soldiers. he should have been convicted.