The EDL were contained by a huge cordon of police, which made them pretty difficult to see. There were probably a couple hundred at the very top end – I saw them shepherded onto 2 coaches at the end of the day, so it can’t have been that many. Everyone standing around outside the cordon watching, who I overheard, seemed to think it was the BNP demonstrating, which might be a good thing. Oh, and the EDL can really sing! All that football hooliganism practice. Plus some of them had really nice little EDL jackets. Bless.

The UAF demo was a ragbag mix of socialists, trade unionists, middle class, punks, students and UAF stewards, probably a bit more numerous than the EDL. When the soundsystem was playing, and everyone was just milling around chatting this was a really pretty good demo. It showed an alternative to hate – lots of different types of people having a good time together. As soon as the UAF leaders started haranguing the crowd though, it got lame really quickly.

I wasn’t expecting to hear violence being advocated at this demo – maybe that was just me being naive – but being told we need to “crush” the “scum” with “brutality” is something I was expecting from the EDL more than the counter protest. Dehumanising those with other (albeit abhorrent) views, and urging violence against them in the first instance is kinda EDL. Retaliation is fine, but ‘rough justice’ from the off is just lame. Plus, having looked at both sides, if it came to a fight the UAF would have been the underdog. I think the crowning glory was when it was announced that we were going to march, and then stood for an hour waiting for the EDL to leave before the police allowed any reclaiming of the streets.

Also, the mix of different groups there lent a lack of focus to the demo. I don’t want communism, my trade union is totally useless, I don’t want revolution, I just want the EDL to be shown as a shower of losers. That kinda got lost among the red flags.

Finally, I think both demos should be dedicated to the patron saint of police overtime. 2 Helicopters, loads of horses, 20+ vans, hundreds of officers. The cost, once it comes out, will be huge.

Nothing shocking.

I happen to agree with most of Wilders’ ten point plan, except for banning the Qu’ran.

Yes. He separates the people from the idology.

Really?

4. Encourage voluntary repatriation.

Well…

5. Expel criminal foreigners and criminals with dual nationality, after denationalization, and send them back to their Arab countries.

I…

7. Have every member of a non-Western minority sign a legally binding contract of assimilation.

Can’t…

9. Stop the building of new mosques. As long as no churches or synagogues are allowed to be build in countries like Saudi-Arabia we will not allow one more new mosque in our western countries.

Agree.

(From a dhimmi-tastic source, admittedly).

what do you mean “does not believe in” the Qur’an? do you mean:

1. doesn’t believe it to be divine?
2. doesn’t believe it is a universal message?
3. doesn’t believe it exists?
4. doesn’t believe it is a sacred text to others if not to oneself?

surely if i “believed in” the Qur’an, i’d be a muslim? if i’m not a muslim, surely i don’t “believe in” the Qur’an? you appear to be implying that people who don’t “believe in” the Qur’an are islamophobes, by asserting that an “islamo-sceptic” is a merely “politically correct” synonym – surely an “islamo-sceptic” is someone who is sceptical of the claims of islam, i.e. anyone who isn’t a muslim.

in other words – what on earth are you on about?

b’shalom

bananabrain

Non-racist, anti-immigration, pro removal of illegal immigrants, one-nation-nationalist, anti-big government, anti-multiculturalism, anti-PC moral equivalence and pro-English culture.

Oh, and they’re also Islamo-skeptics;

Islamo-skeptic is a politically correct word for Islamophobic. An Islamo-skeptic is someone who does not believe in the Koran. An Islamophobic is someone who believes that Muslims practising their religion are a menace to our society.

Yes. He separates the people from the idology

Yes, he definitely wants to separate Muslims from their religion by outlawing Islam.

[Geert Wilders is much more ‘on the ball’ in that respect.]

“Could you explain?”

Yes. He separates the people from the idology.

Bollocks. He was but an amusing sidekick to Richard Prior

I’d say it’s rational sceptisism mixed with a misunderstanding of Islam and a failure to separate the people from the ideology.

A misunderstanding of Islam; a failure to separate people from ideology, and a specific accusation aimed, without evidence, at every person in a massive, amorphous demographic. All that packaged up with in aggressive, confrontational rhetoric. As rational, in other words, as Deepak Chopra after one too many hits on a bong.

Geert Wilders is much more ‘on the ball’ in that respect.

Could you explain?

“Rational scepticism or wide-eyed raving? ”

I’d say it’s rational sceptisism mixed with a misunderstanding of Islam and a failure to separate the people from the ideology.

A common failure among non-Muslims.

Geert Wilders is much more ‘on the ball’ in that respect.

Gash is a decent guy. He’ll learn.

Oh, and they’re also Islamo-skeptics; Stephen Gash, spokesman for “Stop the Islamification of Europe”, is an English Democrat.

“Islamo-skeptic” is a neat euphemism, but hardly one that applies to Stephen Gash, who’s written that “some Muslims are more active than others, but all Muslims want sharia law and Islam to rule the world. Moderate Muslims are those who watch non-Muslims being killed, but still say Allah u Akbar when the killing is happening.”

That quote is, of course, from an impeccably liberal source: Family Security Matters.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.4398/pub_detail.asp

Rational scepticism or wide-eyed raving? I know where my money’s placed.

b’shalom

bananabrain

“Perhaps “Reza” would care to troll us with his views on the matter.”

Douglas

“As it seems to have been a toytown joke, and that Reza’s troops – whichever they are – have not come out in numbers…”

If there were any there “troops” that I would’ve supported, they would’ve been the English Democrats. Of all the political parties, they reflect my views best:-

Non-racist, anti-immigration, pro removal of illegal immigrants, one-nation-nationalist, anti-big government, anti-multiculturalism, anti-PC moral equivalence and pro-English culture.

Oh, and they’re also Islamo-skeptics; Stephen Gash, spokesman for “Stop the Islamification of Europe”, is an English Democrat.

And the Mayor of Doncaster is an English Democrat. What a guy!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/07/english-democrats-doncaster-union-flag

It gets better and better.

As Sunny said:

“…but the English Democrats did. The latter were generally a nice bunch of people (at least their spokesperson was).”

Of course they’re a nice bunch of people. They love this country and the people in it.

Unlike you.

that particular link to the Daily Express is piss-poor because is merely a reinforceemnt of everything the Islam4UK wants to achieve and demonisation of Muslims by association to Anjem Choudhary.

1) The entire article is completely dedicated to the Islam4UK demo, which they themselves failed to turn up at. It could almost double as a Islam4UK press release!

2) The Express relates that Islam4UK called of the debate because of threats from right-wing groups. That’s an Anjem Choudhary lie which the Express chose to report without any factual investigation.

3) No mention of any kind is made of the BMSD demos – which would show Express readers that Muslims from the BMSD organised a superb counter-demo – and that was the cause of Anjem’s retreat. Anjem retreated because he knows that reports and photos of his group being chanted down and outnumbered by Muslims would put paid to his lies about the consensus he enjoys from British Muslims.

In short – Andrew is right, the Express is a fucking disgrace.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/137481/-British-soldiers-are-going-to-hell-

There are more supporters of Tunbridge Wells FC than there are:

’salt of the earth white working class with honest concerns’

I’d like to think you knew that