EDL Rally

[Hoboh]

Another question you have to ask is what exactly is the EDL's aim?

They're not protesting shouting things in Bolton Town Square is a protest against what? Who are they trying to appeal to?

I can only concur that their aim is to create exactly the type of trouble that happened in Bolton.

Well seeing as they're all racist morons, they can't be expected to know any better

The educated unwashed on the other hand, what's their excuse?

Stay away = no trouble = no publicity = no EDL

Job done

I quite agree.

But without the EDL there'd be no "educated unwashed" so really its the EDL that sparks it off.

Being sensible though, I just don't think you can call it a "protest". When you are protesting you usually protest at the person/people/organisation your opposed to.

Not some random town square where nobody gives a shiny shite. What were they doing shouting at the town hall?

I don't really get it.

1. It was a rally not a protest

2. Bolton as someone hinted at has got underlying tensions about the race issues

3. Only a fool could deny that Bolton Council operate a positive discrimination policy, hence the choice of Bolton town hall as a target.

4 If the Anti facisists (who behave worse than facsists by trying to deny free speech) felt so strongly why not organise their own rally on a different day to express their views and save all the bother.

5. A couple of carefully placed heavy machine guns and we could have had the lot of them

So what you're saying is after all the EDL really are just a bunch of racists?
[/b]

A good number of them yes! Also a good number of the Anti facsists wouldn't know Adolf Hittler in full uniform if he was stood at the side of them!
Wipe um both out, save all that money that was upsetting you!
William I am suprised, I would never consider taking my daughter anywhere that might explode like that, it actually was pretty tame, good job by GMP

[William the White]

Another question you have to ask is what exactly is the EDL's aim?

They're not protesting shouting things in Bolton Town Square is a protest against what? Who are they trying to appeal to?

I can only concur that their aim is to create exactly the type of trouble that happened in Bolton.

Well seeing as they're all racist morons, they can't be expected to know any better

The educated unwashed on the other hand, what's their excuse?

Stay away = no trouble = no publicity = no EDL

Job done

I quite agree.

But without the EDL there'd be no "educated unwashed" so really its the EDL that sparks it off.

Being sensible though, I just don't think you can call it a "protest". When you are protesting you usually protest at the person/people/organisation your opposed to.

Not some random town square where nobody gives a shiny shite. What were they doing shouting at the town hall?

I don't really get it.

1. It was a rally not a protest

2. Bolton as someone hinted at has got underlying tensions about the race issues

3. Only a fool could deny that Bolton Council operate a positive discrimination policy, hence the choice of Bolton town hall as a target.

4 If the Anti facisists (who behave worse than facsists by trying to deny free speech) felt so strongly why not organise their own rally on a different day to express their views and save all the bother.

5. A couple of carefully placed heavy machine guns and we could have had the lot of them

On planet hobo almost all questions are answerable by a couple of heavy machine guns...

Pythagoras' theorum - Krupps

Social class mobility in the second government of Margaret Thatcher - Vickers

Twelve times table - oh, that's really hard, a well trained squad with a dozen brightly burnished kalashnikove would soon have it polished, though...

[as]

See what I mean? (As a response to the pithy contribution from AS)

I could ramble on about how I think the EDL are a bunch of nazi's.

Or slate the UAF, for being grotty students.

But I couldn't be bothered, I'll that to the rest of you.

[Prufrock]

This thread is depressing. Wholly.

First of all, many have tried to portray the EDL as a not that bad if a bit thick group purely because their stated aim is to be anti-jihadist, and everyone is that. That has got to be the most paper thin argument I have ever heard in my life, and I'm surprised this thread has got this far without it being deconstructed. The BNP's website says nothing about Holocaust denial, but lots about 'preserving British values'. Now I myself am not sure what that quite means, and I wouldn't say I am personally for it, but there are many who would say they believe in that, yet who would be aghast at the thought of the BNP being elected. Al-Qaeda's main stated aims are the creation of a Palestinian State, and less Western influence in the middle east, both things I personally believe in, does it mean I think Al-Qaeada are OK because I think their stated aims are agreeable? Not on your nelly. The EDL are a vile group with connections to the Far Right and the National Front, a group who have before done marches deliberately in areas of towns where large groups of ethnic minorities live, to intimidate, singing not anti jihadist songs, but awful racist songs in an effort to create fear and resentment.

Then there is the question of free speech. I'd bloody love for someone to explain how a counter protest is trying to deny anyone free speech. The EDL had a right through free speech to make their protest, the UAF had a right through free speech to make their protest, that's how it works, different sides each airing their views. Some wanted the EDL banned. I understand where they were coming from, but think them wrong. Free speech is not unconditional, you can't just say 'I hate Pakis' and claim 'free speech'. There are conditions regarding inciting racial hatred for instance. However, in a free democracy, I think those conditions should only be applied when absolutely necessary, because, as many have said before, I have faith that when we allow them to speak, the British public will recognise them for the racist fear-merchants they are.

As for the violence, less, please of the I reckon it was all the side I don't agree with. Surely everyone agrees that violence, from either side, is wrong? The difference to me is, anyone on the EDL march is, at best, a bit xenophobic, and at worst a raving racist thug, whereas the UAF at least meant well. But then that's coz I agree with the UAF, others who don't will have other views, if I, a fictional character can grasp that, how hard can it be? This I don't like them they're all students, I don't like them they're all thick skinheads is a tiny bit pointless, and this thread has come to resemble what it would look like if the Sun had a debating team.

[TANGODANCER]

this thread has come to resemble what it would look like if the Sun had a debating team.

Yes, and that's just amongst a dozen or so football supporters on a general banter thread. Might give some indication of how diversified general opinion really is. Extremism in everything never made a good bed-fellow for agreement in anything.

Just my view without taking any sides.

[superjohnmcginlay]

This thread is depressing. Wholly.

First of all, many have tried to portray the EDL as a not that bad if a bit thick group purely because their stated aim is to be anti-jihadist, and everyone is that. That has got to be the most paper thin argument I have ever heard in my life, and I'm surprised this thread has got this far without it being deconstructed. The BNP's website says nothing about Holocaust denial, but lots about 'preserving British values'. Now I myself am not sure what that quite means, and I wouldn't say I am personally for it, but there are many who would say they believe in that, yet who would be aghast at the thought of the BNP being elected. Al-Qaeda's main stated aims are the creation of a Palestinian State, and less Western influence in the middle east, both things I personally believe in, does it mean I think Al-Qaeada are OK because I think their stated aims are agreeable? Not on your nelly. The EDL are a vile group with connections to the Far Right and the National Front, a group who have before done marches deliberately in areas of towns where large groups of ethnic minorities live, to intimidate, singing not anti jihadist songs, but awful racist songs in an effort to create fear and resentment.

Then there is the question of free speech. I'd bloody love for someone to explain how a counter protest is trying to deny anyone free speech. The EDL had a right through free speech to make their protest, the UAF had a right through free speech to make their protest, that's how it works, different sides each airing their views. Some wanted the EDL banned. I understand where they were coming from, but think them wrong. Free speech is not unconditional, you can't just say 'I hate Pakis' and claim 'free speech'. There are conditions regarding inciting racial hatred for instance. However, in a free democracy, I think those conditions should only be applied when absolutely necessary, because, as many have said before, I have faith that when we allow them to speak, the British public will recognise them for the racist fear-merchants they are.

As for the violence, less, please of the I reckon it was all the side I don't agree with. Surely everyone agrees that violence, from either side, is wrong? The difference to me is, anyone on the EDL march is, at best, a bit xenophobic, and at worst a raving racist thug, whereas the UAF at least meant well. But then that's coz I agree with the UAF, others who don't will have other views, if I, a fictional character can grasp that, how hard can it be? This I don't like them they're all students, I don't like them they're all thick skinheads is a tiny bit pointless, and this thread has come to resemble what it would look like if the Sun had a debating team.

All pretty much spot on. With the exception of the bold bit. The evidence from saturday doesn't seem to back this up.

[Prufrock]

This thread is depressing. Wholly.

First of all, many have tried to portray the EDL as a not that bad if a bit thick group purely because their stated aim is to be anti-jihadist, and everyone is that. That has got to be the most paper thin argument I have ever heard in my life, and I'm surprised this thread has got this far without it being deconstructed. The BNP's website says nothing about Holocaust denial, but lots about 'preserving British values'. Now I myself am not sure what that quite means, and I wouldn't say I am personally for it, but there are many who would say they believe in that, yet who would be aghast at the thought of the BNP being elected. Al-Qaeda's main stated aims are the creation of a Palestinian State, and less Western influence in the middle east, both things I personally believe in, does it mean I think Al-Qaeada are OK because I think their stated aims are agreeable? Not on your nelly. The EDL are a vile group with connections to the Far Right and the National Front, a group who have before done marches deliberately in areas of towns where large groups of ethnic minorities live, to intimidate, singing not anti jihadist songs, but awful racist songs in an effort to create fear and resentment.

Then there is the question of free speech. I'd bloody love for someone to explain how a counter protest is trying to deny anyone free speech. The EDL had a right through free speech to make their protest, the UAF had a right through free speech to make their protest, that's how it works, different sides each airing their views. Some wanted the EDL banned. I understand where they were coming from, but think them wrong. Free speech is not unconditional, you can't just say 'I hate Pakis' and claim 'free speech'. There are conditions regarding inciting racial hatred for instance. However, in a free democracy, I think those conditions should only be applied when absolutely necessary, because, as many have said before, I have faith that when we allow them to speak, the British public will recognise them for the racist fear-merchants they are.

As for the violence, less, please of the I reckon it was all the side I don't agree with. Surely everyone agrees that violence, from either side, is wrong? The difference to me is, anyone on the EDL march is, at best, a bit xenophobic, and at worst a raving racist thug, whereas the UAF at least meant well. But then that's coz I agree with the UAF, others who don't will have other views, if I, a fictional character can grasp that, how hard can it be? This I don't like them they're all students, I don't like them they're all thick skinheads is a tiny bit pointless, and this thread has come to resemble what it would look like if the Sun had a debating team.

All pretty much spot on. With the exception of the bold bit. The evidence from saturday doesn't seem to back this up.

Aye sorry, I meant of the peaceful ones, folk it seems unfortunately turned up on both sides only looking for trouble.

[CAPSLOCK]

This thread is depressing. Wholly.

First of all, many have tried to portray the EDL as a not that bad if a bit thick group purely because their stated aim is to be anti-jihadist, and everyone is that. That has got to be the most paper thin argument I have ever heard in my life, and I'm surprised this thread has got this far without it being deconstructed. The BNP's website says nothing about Holocaust denial, but lots about 'preserving British values'. Now I myself am not sure what that quite means, and I wouldn't say I am personally for it, but there are many who would say they believe in that, yet who would be aghast at the thought of the BNP being elected. Al-Qaeda's main stated aims are the creation of a Palestinian State, and less Western influence in the middle east, both things I personally believe in, does it mean I think Al-Qaeada are OK because I think their stated aims are agreeable? Not on your nelly. The EDL are a vile group with connections to the Far Right and the National Front, a group who have before done marches deliberately in areas of towns where large groups of ethnic minorities live, to intimidate, singing not anti jihadist songs, but awful racist songs in an effort to create fear and resentment.

Then there is the question of free speech. I'd bloody love for someone to explain how a counter protest is trying to deny anyone free speech. The EDL had a right through free speech to make their protest, the UAF had a right through free speech to make their protest, that's how it works, different sides each airing their views. Some wanted the EDL banned. I understand where they were coming from, but think them wrong. Free speech is not unconditional, you can't just say 'I hate Pakis' and claim 'free speech'. There are conditions regarding inciting racial hatred for instance. However, in a free democracy, I think those conditions should only be applied when absolutely necessary, because, as many have said before, I have faith that when we allow them to speak, the British public will recognise them for the racist fear-merchants they are.

As for the violence, less, please of the I reckon it was all the side I don't agree with. Surely everyone agrees that violence, from either side, is wrong? The difference to me is, anyone on the EDL march is, at best, a bit xenophobic, and at worst a raving racist thug, whereas the UAF at least meant well. But then that's coz I agree with the UAF, others who don't will have other views, if I, a fictional character can grasp that, how hard can it be? This I don't like them they're all students, I don't like them they're all thick skinheads is a tiny bit pointless, and this thread has come to resemble what it would look like if the Sun had a debating team.

Here we go again

Lets mock Sun readers (it'll be Express and Mail, next, won't it)

They get votes, too

Or would you deny them the right to play a part in shaping their country

Or should it only be hand wringing Guardian and Observer readers

[CAPSLOCK]

This thread is depressing. Wholly.

First of all, many have tried to portray the EDL as a not that bad if a bit thick group purely because their stated aim is to be anti-jihadist, and everyone is that. That has got to be the most paper thin argument I have ever heard in my life, and I'm surprised this thread has got this far without it being deconstructed. The BNP's website says nothing about Holocaust denial, but lots about 'preserving British values'. Now I myself am not sure what that quite means, and I wouldn't say I am personally for it, but there are many who would say they believe in that, yet who would be aghast at the thought of the BNP being elected. Al-Qaeda's main stated aims are the creation of a Palestinian State, and less Western influence in the middle east, both things I personally believe in, does it mean I think Al-Qaeada are OK because I think their stated aims are agreeable? Not on your nelly. The EDL are a vile group with connections to the Far Right and the National Front, a group who have before done marches deliberately in areas of towns where large groups of ethnic minorities live, to intimidate, singing not anti jihadist songs, but awful racist songs in an effort to create fear and resentment.

Then there is the question of free speech. I'd bloody love for someone to explain how a counter protest is trying to deny anyone free speech. The EDL had a right through free speech to make their protest, the UAF had a right through free speech to make their protest, that's how it works, different sides each airing their views. Some wanted the EDL banned. I understand where they were coming from, but think them wrong. Free speech is not unconditional, you can't just say 'I hate Pakis' and claim 'free speech'. There are conditions regarding inciting racial hatred for instance. However, in a free democracy, I think those conditions should only be applied when absolutely necessary, because, as many have said before, I have faith that when we allow them to speak, the British public will recognise them for the racist fear-merchants they are.

As for the violence, less, please of the I reckon it was all the side I don't agree with. Surely everyone agrees that violence, from either side, is wrong? The difference to me is, anyone on the EDL march is, at best, a bit xenophobic, and at worst a raving racist thug, whereas the UAF at least meant well. But then that's coz I agree with the UAF, others who don't will have other views, if I, a fictional character can grasp that, how hard can it be? This I don't like them they're all students, I don't like them they're all thick skinheads is a tiny bit pointless, and this thread has come to resemble what it would look like if the Sun had a debating team.

All pretty much spot on. With the exception of the bold bit. The evidence from saturday doesn't seem to back this up.

Aye sorry, I meant of the peaceful ones, folk it seems unfortunately turned up on both sides only looking for trouble.

The press suggests there were many more thugs who knew how to behave than the 'good' folk

But obviously it's all lies

[Lord Kangana]

You haven't really thought about what you've just written there, have you?

[CAPSLOCK]

You haven't really thought about what you've just written there, have you?

You'd be surprised

[Prufrock]

This thread is depressing. Wholly.

First of all, many have tried to portray the EDL as a not that bad if a bit thick group purely because their stated aim is to be anti-jihadist, and everyone is that. That has got to be the most paper thin argument I have ever heard in my life, and I'm surprised this thread has got this far without it being deconstructed. The BNP's website says nothing about Holocaust denial, but lots about 'preserving British values'. Now I myself am not sure what that quite means, and I wouldn't say I am personally for it, but there are many who would say they believe in that, yet who would be aghast at the thought of the BNP being elected. Al-Qaeda's main stated aims are the creation of a Palestinian State, and less Western influence in the middle east, both things I personally believe in, does it mean I think Al-Qaeada are OK because I think their stated aims are agreeable? Not on your nelly. The EDL are a vile group with connections to the Far Right and the National Front, a group who have before done marches deliberately in areas of towns where large groups of ethnic minorities live, to intimidate, singing not anti jihadist songs, but awful racist songs in an effort to create fear and resentment.

Then there is the question of free speech. I'd bloody love for someone to explain how a counter protest is trying to deny anyone free speech. The EDL had a right through free speech to make their protest, the UAF had a right through free speech to make their protest, that's how it works, different sides each airing their views. Some wanted the EDL banned. I understand where they were coming from, but think them wrong. Free speech is not unconditional, you can't just say 'I hate Pakis' and claim 'free speech'. There are conditions regarding inciting racial hatred for instance. However, in a free democracy, I think those conditions should only be applied when absolutely necessary, because, as many have said before, I have faith that when we allow them to speak, the British public will recognise them for the racist fear-merchants they are.

As for the violence, less, please of the I reckon it was all the side I don't agree with. Surely everyone agrees that violence, from either side, is wrong? The difference to me is, anyone on the EDL march is, at best, a bit xenophobic, and at worst a raving racist thug, whereas the UAF at least meant well. But then that's coz I agree with the UAF, others who don't will have other views, if I, a fictional character can grasp that, how hard can it be? This I don't like them they're all students, I don't like them they're all thick skinheads is a tiny bit pointless, and this thread has come to resemble what it would look like if the Sun had a debating team.

All pretty much spot on. With the exception of the bold bit. The evidence from saturday doesn't seem to back this up.

Aye sorry, I meant of the peaceful ones, folk it seems unfortunately turned up on both sides only looking for trouble.

The press suggests there were many more thugs who knew how to behave than the 'good' folk

But obviously it's all lies

Jesus. Wept. As already stated, I am against anyone who went there with the intention of inciting violence, regardless of which banner they claimed to be under. Unless you are claiming everyone who went there to protest against the EDL was just there for the fight, *tries to imagine WtW rushing forward, daughter in tow to dive into a mass brawl, and fails*? Of those not there specifically looking for violence, one group were exercising their right to free speech in a bid to create divisions in our town between ethnic minorities, and another group were exercising their own right of free speech in a bid to persuade people not to be persuaded by this, and to stand together regardless of any cultural differences. When it comes down to it, I know which of those groups of people I feel aligned with, and which opposed to. Others may feel differently, but that is the joy of a democracy. What you appear to have done, is decide there are two distinct, homogenous groups, one of which we must decide to be entirely commendable, one entirely despicable, then focussed on a minority with links to one of those groups, taken issue (rightly) with their actions, extrapolated that to that entire group and come up with a nice black and white conclusion. It's how the Sun works, hence what I said before.

[CAPSLOCK]

See, you're deciding that the EDL are telling porkies and the UAF (and associated hangers on) aren't

Your pre-conceived ideas colour everything you post on the matter

From all the media reports I've seen, only one side was out for a ruck

Maybe the EDL - despite being Sun readers - are too clever for the 'opposition'

[superjohnmcginlay]

This thread is depressing. Wholly.

First of all, many have tried to portray the EDL as a not that bad if a bit thick group purely because their stated aim is to be anti-jihadist, and everyone is that. That has got to be the most paper thin argument I have ever heard in my life, and I'm surprised this thread has got this far without it being deconstructed. The BNP's website says nothing about Holocaust denial, but lots about 'preserving British values'. Now I myself am not sure what that quite means, and I wouldn't say I am personally for it, but there are many who would say they believe in that, yet who would be aghast at the thought of the BNP being elected. Al-Qaeda's main stated aims are the creation of a Palestinian State, and less Western influence in the middle east, both things I personally believe in, does it mean I think Al-Qaeada are OK because I think their stated aims are agreeable? Not on your nelly. The EDL are a vile group with connections to the Far Right and the National Front, a group who have before done marches deliberately in areas of towns where large groups of ethnic minorities live, to intimidate, singing not anti jihadist songs, but awful racist songs in an effort to create fear and resentment.

Then there is the question of free speech. I'd bloody love for someone to explain how a counter protest is trying to deny anyone free speech. The EDL had a right through free speech to make their protest, the UAF had a right through free speech to make their protest, that's how it works, different sides each airing their views. Some wanted the EDL banned. I understand where they were coming from, but think them wrong. Free speech is not unconditional, you can't just say 'I hate Pakis' and claim 'free speech'. There are conditions regarding inciting racial hatred for instance. However, in a free democracy, I think those conditions should only be applied when absolutely necessary, because, as many have said before, I have faith that when we allow them to speak, the British public will recognise them for the racist fear-merchants they are.

As for the violence, less, please of the I reckon it was all the side I don't agree with. Surely everyone agrees that violence, from either side, is wrong? The difference to me is, anyone on the EDL march is, at best, a bit xenophobic, and at worst a raving racist thug, whereas the UAF at least meant well. But then that's coz I agree with the UAF, others who don't will have other views, if I, a fictional character can grasp that, how hard can it be? This I don't like them they're all students, I don't like them they're all thick skinheads is a tiny bit pointless, and this thread has come to resemble what it would look like if the Sun had a debating team.

All pretty much spot on. With the exception of the bold bit. The evidence from saturday doesn't seem to back this up.

Aye sorry, I meant of the peaceful ones, folk it seems unfortunately turned up on both sides only looking for trouble.

The press suggests there were many more thugs who knew how to behave than the 'good' folk

But obviously it's all lies

Jesus. Wept. As already stated, I am against anyone who went there with the intention of inciting violence, regardless of which banner they claimed to be under. Unless you are claiming everyone who went there to protest against the EDL was just there for the fight, *tries to imagine WtW rushing forward, daughter in tow to dive into a mass brawl, and fails*? Of those not there specifically looking for violence, one group were exercising their right to free speech in a bid to create divisions in our town between ethnic minorities, and another group were exercising their own right of free speech in a bid to persuade people not to be persuaded by this, and to stand together regardless of any cultural differences. When it comes down to it, I know which of those groups of people I feel aligned with, and which opposed to. Others may feel differently, but that is the joy of a democracy. What you appear to have done, is decide there are two distinct, homogenous groups, one of which we must decide to be entirely commendable, one entirely despicable, then focussed on a minority with links to one of those groups, taken issue (rightly) with their actions, extrapolated that to that entire group and come up with a nice black and white conclusion. It's how the Sun works, hence what I said before.

"in a bid to creat divisions in our town" is your and others implication. As far as I am aware their stated aim is raising the issue of militant islam in England. So the UAF are protesting aganst something they think the EDL are about? Or are they protesting against all the hangers on? Or are they just protesting and not really knowing why? It's probably a combination.

It's all a load of confused old bollocks.

[CAPSLOCK]

And at what point would you feel those opposing the EDL were justified in using violence

[Prufrock]

See, you're deciding that the EDL are telling porkies and the UAF (and associated hangers on) aren't

Your pre-conceived ideas colour everything you post on the matter

From all the media reports I've seen, only one side was out for a ruck

Maybe the EDL - despite being Sun readers - are too clever for the 'opposition'

I'm not on about those inciting violence, on either side. The press have stated there was violence from the UAF, WtW has given his own eye witness account of EDL protesters throwing missiles. If you think everyone there on the EDL march was hoping for a nice friendly march, I'd suggest you are being naive. People turned up on both sides looking for violence. I'm not interested in them, as I have stated earlier, they are all, regardless of side, wrong. I'm talking about the people, on both sides, who did turn up for a valid rally/protest. One side, in my view, are trying to spread division, one side, in my view, unity. I support the one promoting unity. That's my view.

[CAPSLOCK]

I was young and naive, once

[Prufrock]

All pretty much spot on. With the exception of the bold bit. The evidence from saturday doesn't seem to back this up.

Aye sorry, I meant of the peaceful ones, folk it seems unfortunately turned up on both sides only looking for trouble.

The press suggests there were many more thugs who knew how to behave than the 'good' folk

But obviously it's all lies

Jesus. Wept. As already stated, I am against anyone who went there with the intention of inciting violence, regardless of which banner they claimed to be under. Unless you are claiming everyone who went there to protest against the EDL was just there for the fight, *tries to imagine WtW rushing forward, daughter in tow to dive into a mass brawl, and fails*? Of those not there specifically looking for violence, one group were exercising their right to free speech in a bid to create divisions in our town between ethnic minorities, and another group were exercising their own right of free speech in a bid to persuade people not to be persuaded by this, and to stand together regardless of any cultural differences. When it comes down to it, I know which of those groups of people I feel aligned with, and which opposed to. Others may feel differently, but that is the joy of a democracy. What you appear to have done, is decide there are two distinct, homogenous groups, one of which we must decide to be entirely commendable, one entirely despicable, then focussed on a minority with links to one of those groups, taken issue (rightly) with their actions, extrapolated that to that entire group and come up with a nice black and white conclusion. It's how the Sun works, hence what I said before.

"in a bid to creat divisions in our town" is your and others implication. As far as I am aware their stated aim is raising the issue of militant islam in England. So the UAF are protesting aganst something they think the EDL are about? Or are they protesting against all the hangers on? Or are they just protesting and not really knowing why? It's probably a combination.

It's all a load of confused old bollocks.

That is my inferral, given what I wrote in the first paragaph. I don't disagree with their stated aim, but I think it is naive to suggest that is all they are doing. They have organised marches in specifically ethnic areas of towns before, shouting islamophobic, not anti-jihad chants. Those against the BNP aren't agaisnt their stated aims, I think we all know the BNP are about more than just promoting British values, that al-qaeda are about more than what they state.

[Prufrock]

And at what point would you feel those opposing the EDL were justified in using violence

If that's directed at me, if we lived in a state which didn't have a free democracy which negated the need for it, since we don't I don't believe those who used violence under the banner of UAF were justified.

[Prufrock]

I was young and naive, once

B*llocks you were