EDL In Birmingham Shown Where To Go By Mosque And Residents

First topic message reminder :

The English Defence League (EDL) held a march in Birmingham on Saturday and if one photo has to sum the day up it is definitely this one. 







http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/edl-in-birmingham_uk_58e93ffee4b05413bfe36c87?90c&utm_hp_ref=uk

nicko wrote:Quill, you know nothing about her, don't pretend you do !

Well...quite right.  But I thought I made that clear at the beginning.

She faces her adversaries with a smile. It's hard to keep a smile on one's face amid such rage and hatred.  But a smile says peace.  It says calm and confidence.  It invites friendliness and concern.  How poised she is to go in with but a smile, despite all of that anger and invidiousness.

It brings to mind Mother Teresa, and other amazing women who have managed to turn things around with a singular force of will.  Strength, with forbearance and.clemency.

So you think Mother Teresa was a "good un"? She left patients to die In agony because she said "it brought them nearer to God". She spent fuck all on caring for them. What happened to the millions of dollars she had in the banks? she certainly did not spend it on her "patients" !

The young smiling woman is a well known Muslim shit stirrer at the front of most UAF mobs. Get your facts straight before you spout off.

The leader of the English Defence League (EDL) has attempted to undermine a now-famous picture of him being confronted by a smiling Birmingham woman by accusing her of interrupting a minute’s silence for victims of terror attacks. According to anti-extremist group Hope Not Hate, Ian Crossland responded to a Facebook post of the photo by claiming Saffiyah Khan had disrupted a minute’s silence for terror attack victims, adding “she’s lucky she’s got any teeth left”.












Speaking to the Victoria Derbyshire programme on Monday, she said: “People that know me would vouch for me and tell you that a minute’s silence held by either side, whether it be the EDL or the UAF, I would have happily respected [it].
“But the fact of the matter is, and the video evidence shows it as well, there wasn’t a minute’s silence while I was there.”
Video of the event does in fact show there was a minute’s silence, but Khan’s confusion may well be because EDL members nearby appeared to be talking throughout it.


Including Ian Crossland.








http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ian-crossland-saffiyah-khan-english-defence-league_uk_58eb41f8e4b00de141046e4b

You can skip most of the video to the 29th minute, roughly 20 seconds for the hardly audible call for a minute of silence

How embarrassing for the EDL. Accusing others of speaking through the minutes silence and many of the EDL were speaking through the minute silence.

Cue the excuses over this

Thorin wrote:

Iv'e seen much much worse than this when the islamics are on the streets and you never see them being arrested .
I'm not saying EDL are in any way well behaved but whenever there is a march they are singled out same as the Britain First and they are peaceful but there is always some tosser out to provoke them .

I still say the islamic woman went out of her way to provoke this group .
There was also some members i see trying to keep the group calm .

nicko wrote:So you think Mother Teresa was a "good un"?     She left patients to die In agony because she said "it brought them nearer to God". She spent fuck all on caring for them.  What happened to the millions of dollars she had in the banks?  she certainly did not spend it on her "patients" !

The young smiling woman is a well known Muslim shit stirrer at the front of most UAF mobs.    Get your facts straight before you spout off.    

Okay Nicko.

Lets way up both Saffiyah Khan and Ian Crossland

Or the UAF and the EDL.

The UAF stands against the BNP and the EDL, as they class them as racist and fascist. Though fail to stand against Facist Islamism and left wing extremism.

So its a contradiction in terms

The EDL claim to stand against Sharia and Islamism and claims its an anti-racist and human rights organisation. Though they fail at championing Universal Human Rights, the same as the UAF. The EDL never marches against any left or Right wing extremism, racism etc and centers on Islam. Though generally its supporters are made up of racist louts. Not all, of course, but many. The UAF never marches against Left wing Extremism and Islamism. Many will cast the EDL as Nazi's to normalize and legitimize hating them. The EDL call the UAF traitors and Islamists supporters.

So we see on both sides here, there is extremism with both organisations. That both completely fail at Universal Human Rights and they both fail to tackle all forms of extremism.

So lets get back to both Saffiyah Khan and Ian Crossland

Here is what the former EDL Leader Tommy Robinson had to say on the incident between them.

Tommy Robinson, the EDL’s former leader, tweeted that the picture was embarrassing.

“OK, just had confirmed by a friend who was at EDL demo, this lady was defending a woman in a navy hijab as she said to the papers,” he wrote. “[And] I don’t care how many people don’t like me saying that, the truth is the truth. [And] the picture is embarrassing.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/11/saffiyah-khan-meets-woman-she-defended-at-edl-demo

So she went in to protect someone. Which everyone should applaud, no matter her views.
Ian Crossland, called her an unwashed left wing scrubber, who to him, was lucky she still had her teeth. Which is arguing off that it was lucky, people did not kick her teeth in, just because she stepped into help a Muslim.
Considering the confrontation between them, where she just smiled and he racially abused her. He is clearly claiming there was some restraint on his part. Not to kick in the teeth of woman who came to stand by another Muslim. To then claim she spoke through the minute silence, whilst he and many other EDL did also. Was again embarrassing  for the EDL.


So who is looking the better person, between the two based off this Nicko?

Its a lost cause Thor. Even faced with irrefutable evidence, Nicko.and Tom will still try to wriggle out of admitting  she was the innocent party  defending a Muslim girl being confronted by a hostile gang of EDL thugs.
It is clear where Tom and Nicko's sypathy lies.Perhaps they are closet members?

Fuck off you idiot, send me your address and i'll cut out the photo's, FROM THE B,HAM MAIL !and I stated that most EDL ARE EX FOOTBALL THUGS, i'd have nothing to do with them. Your such a left wing Labour supporting cretin, TRY READING AND UNDERSTANDING MY POSTS !

Thorin wrote:The leader of the English Defence League (EDL) has attempted to undermine a now-famous picture of him being confronted by a smiling Birmingham woman by accusing her of interrupting a minute’s silence for victims of terror attacks. According to anti-extremist group Hope Not Hate, Ian Crossland responded to a Facebook post of the photo by claiming Saffiyah Khan had disrupted a minute’s silence for terror attack victims, adding “she’s lucky she’s got any teeth left”.












Speaking to the Victoria Derbyshire programme on Monday, she said: “People that know me would vouch for me and tell you that a minute’s silence held by either side, whether it be the EDL or the UAF, I would have happily respected [it].
“But the fact of the matter is, and the video evidence shows it as well, there wasn’t a minute’s silence while I was there.”
Video of the event does in fact show there was a minute’s silence, but Khan’s confusion may well be because EDL members nearby appeared to be talking throughout it.


Including Ian Crossland.








http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ian-crossland-saffiyah-khan-english-defence-league_uk_58eb41f8e4b00de141046e4b

You can skip most of the video to the 29th minute, roughly 20 seconds for the hardly audible call for a minute of silence

How embarrassing for the EDL. Accusing others of speaking through the minutes silence and many of the EDL were speaking through the minute silence.

Cue the excuses over this

Her smile is leery and challenging the same as her demeanour . She doesn't look innocent .

Nicko,  VoD, Tommy, and their equally odious like-minded cohorts on here...

Those racist neo-nazi scumbags are more than likely card-carrying EDL members themselves..

Those two lowlife trolls certainly do enough apologising for the EDL on here  !

Happy Easter wolfie - be blessed .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote: Happy Easter wolfie - be blessed .

Ignore him vod, the only time he enters threads is to throw insults.
Everyone else can have opposing views and discuss the topic not the posters....its a good thread.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Iv'e seen much much worse than this when the islamics are on the streets and you never see them being arrested .
I'm not saying EDL are in any way well behaved but whenever there is a march they are singled out same as the Britain First and they are peaceful but there is always some tosser out to provoke them .

I still say the islamic woman went out of her way to provoke this group .
There was also some members i see trying to keep the group calm .

By smiling?
You are saying that, whilst Ian racially abused her, her positive smile (which is universally welcoming) provoked the entire EDL? Enough for Ian their leader to publicly post abuse and invoking violence through the insensitivity of some racists over a minutes silence. Of which many of the EDL failed to respect this also. That gives you a clue to the hate by the EDL here.

So the EDL has every right to be critical of bad beliefs and has every right to protest. Though as seen both the UAF and the EDL are selective in regards to what extremism they speak out on.

The UAF stands against the BNP and the EDL, as they class them as racist and fascist. Though fail to stand against Facist Islamism and left wing extremism.

So its a contradiction in terms

The EDL claim to stand against Sharia and Islamism and claims its an anti-racist and human rights organisation. Though they fail at championing Universal Human Rights, the same as the UAF. The EDL never marches against any left or Right wing extremism, racism etc and centers on Islam. Though generally its supporters are made up of racist louts. Not all, of course, but many. The UAF never marches against Left wing Extremism and Islamism. Many will cast the EDL as Nazi's to normalize and legitimize hating them. The EDL call the UAF traitors and Islamists supporters.

So we see on both sides here, there is extremism with both organisations. That both completely fail at Universal Human Rights and they both fail to tackle all forms of extremism.

So you say that the UAF provoke the EDL by counter protesting and it seems the EDL are comparable to extremist Muslims also. Who are insensitive to their religion being challenged, ridiculed etc. Here even though the EDL spoke through the one minute silence. Proving they are led and governed by hate. As none of them shut up and if it was that important to them, they would have shut up. They never did. So if the bases for your argument is on provocation. Don't you think that the EDL protest in Birmingham was provocative? Where instead of a march in London, where the terrorist attack happened. They instead choose Birmingham, for the following guilt by association arguments.

The English Defence League will be demonstrating in Birmingham on 8 April
as our response to the 22 March Westminster jihad attack.
On Thursday 23 March hundreds of police were investigating the attack and
they searched addresses in Birmingham, Wales, Brighton and London. There
have been arrests in Birmingham, the city frequented by Khalid Masood, the
Islamic killer.

In the week before the attack, Birmingham’s Muslim ghettos were identified
by a think tank as disproportionately likely to be hotbeds of violent jihadism.
This is a national issue and we are responding with a national demo.
Until 22 March we had been planning a demonstration in Derby, but that has
been cancelled to enable us to react to this new development. For these
reasons, we have chosen Birmingham rather than Derby for the national
demo; but at short notice a London regional demo will be held on 1st April.
We will be focusing on the jihadi threat in the UK, home-grown terrorism,
returning jihadists, Muslim ghettos, no-go areas and ‘Trojan Horse’ schools.
But we will not - ever - forget or ignore the rape jihad of Muslim men against
English girls.

http://www.englishdefenceleague.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/17_03_24b_BirminghamDemo-MediaAnnouncementFor-8April-2017.pdf

So the march was aimed specifically at Birmingham and Muslims.

Even though a week before protest, all those arrested from Birmingham for the Westminster Terrorist attack. Have all been released without charge.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/westminster-terror-attack-those-arrested-12830527

No the response to this from Muslims was the following

A British tea party

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/08/english-defence-league-not-welcome-in-birmingham-leaders-say

So the EDL was protesting in a city, through the excuse to go there based off a terrorist attack in London.

Now they have every right to protest, but based on your methodology. Was the planned protest provocative to the people of Birmingham, not just the Muslims?

The Muslim reaction as seen, was to identify as British with a message of peace. And you are  bemoaning a counter protest as provocative? Seriously?

As I say both groups are a joke and do not stand for Universal Human rights or stand against all extremism.
Where people get provoked all the time, when they are passionate about things. The reality is, most people do not get so controlled with hate, to then commit violence. As seen you see from both sides this happen, but the telling part here is Ian's claim "she was lucky she has got any teeth". Like I said, that sort of view, without actually threatening, is believing it should have happened to her. That he believes she was lucky not to have her teeth kicked. All because she stepped into to help a Muslim woman.

To invoke "Provoke" as an excuse for the actions of people is flawed and wrong.

People are responsible for their actions.

Thorin wrote:Fabrication.

The UAF, have every right to counter protest legally.

Article 11 is a qualified right and as such the right to protest and the freedom of association may be limited so long as the limitation:

• is prescribed by law;
  
  
• is necessary and proportionate; and
  
  
• pursues a legitimate aim, namely:
  
  
  
  • the interests of national security or public safety;
    
  • the prevention of disorder or crime;
    
  • the protection of health or morals; or
    
  • the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
    
  
  
  

The requirement to give notice of plans to stage an assembly in advance will not necessarily breach the right to protest as long as notification doesn’t become a hidden obstacle to exercising freedom of assembly.

It seems Tommy is against Freedom of expression, by arguing against the right to counter protest a march.

Now if the UAF kick off, then the EDL should not retaliate, except, they constantly start and do retaliate. The right to protest is enshrined in UK laws around Freedom of expression.

Looks like you don't even read what you post...

And there is an exclusion zone around parliament... the lefties who started protesting there, against the legally organised BNP rally, did not have permission to protest there so should have all been arrested... dozens of them were arrested for violent disorder and they were held on a couple of London red busses!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:Fabrication.

The UAF, have every right to counter protest legally.

Article 11 is a qualified right and as such the right to protest and the freedom of association may be limited so long as the limitation:

• is prescribed by law;
  
  
• is necessary and proportionate; and
  
  
• pursues a legitimate aim, namely:
  
  
  
  • the interests of national security or public safety;
    
  • the prevention of disorder or crime;
    
  • the protection of health or morals; or
    
  • the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
    
  
  
  

The requirement to give notice of plans to stage an assembly in advance will not necessarily breach the right to protest as long as notification doesn’t become a hidden obstacle to exercising freedom of assembly.

It seems Tommy is against Freedom of expression, by arguing against the right to counter protest a march.

Now if the UAF kick off, then the EDL should not retaliate, except, they constantly start and do retaliate. The right to protest is enshrined in UK laws around Freedom of expression.

Looks like you font even read what you post...

PMSL

So the UAF is threat to national security?

So the UAF is threat to general public?

So based on your premise of highlighting violence and countless times the EDL has committed violence. Why is it they are allowed to go ahead with their protests most of the time?

Take your time

So by your belief to deny protests and Freedom of Expression. Your belief that a threat of possible violence by some of a group. Should then render said group banned from any protests. With being that the EDL has a long history of committing violence. Your fear base argument, would render the EDL permanently banned, if the UAF are to be banned also lol. As the UAF have far less violence attributed to them.

Thor, I understand your post, I do not support the EDL, no matter what andy says !Please remember I live in B,ham and have friends who saw what happened,plus the photo's I saw of other demo's when she was there.
You know I have never posted anything remotely racist, indeed I have a Black Grandaughter and Great grandchildren, and my daughter has a brown skinned partner.

nicko wrote:Thor, I understand your post,    I do not support the EDL, no matter what andy says !Please remember I live in B,ham and have friends who saw what happened,plus the photo's I saw of other demo's when she was there.
You know I have never posted anything remotely racist, indeed I have a Black Grandaughter and Great grandchildren, and my daughter has a brown skinned partner.

I know you do not support the EDL Nicko. Plus you are not racist and as seen I ignored Andy's comment.
Like I said the UAF contradict as much as the EDL when it comes to tackling extremism. As I stated earlier.


Now I am open to the possibility she could be a trouble maker at other events, but on this occasions, she only stepped in to assist a female Muslim woman Nicko. I have to take your second hand comments as a possibility, but one far removed from being proven. 

Now as I have stated, both groups contradict and there is extremists on both sides.
If I see something she does wrong, recorded, then I will have no hesitation condemning her.

the interests of national security or public safety;
the prevention of disorder or crime;
the protection of health or morals; or
the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The EDL are still members of the public and their safety is completely compromised by the allowance of the leftie thugs to gather in large numbers and violently attack them...

The violence is 'disorder and crime' and the police have a duty you prevent this... they prevent it by disallowing the leftie thugs permission to gather in protest in such close proximity to the legal edl march...

The legally held edl march are held in accordance to their right to and freedom to stage legally held marches... their rights and freedoms to do this are not protected when police allow the violent lefties to attack and disrupt the EDL...

All pretty self explanatory really...

PMSL

So Tommy has again argued against the EDL ever being allowed to Protest ever again. Based on the constant threat of violence and crime. When the EDL marches into a town. The safety of the public is paramount and thus by Tommy's reasoning off this. As they have committed violence when there has not even been counter protests. Tommy ends up destroying his own reasoning.

You do realise the Police could stop any Protests by both groups, based on how each have members, that cause trouble. 

So your comical reasoning would render the EDL by far more banned from Protests, based on their long history of violence and criminal activity.

What Tommy is also admitting to and when far more EDL have been arrested for violence, than the UAF. Is that they are insensitive like extremist Muslims and resort to violence. So they cannot refrain from violence.

What Tommy wants is to skew Freedom of expression, by claiming the EDL are scared little bunny rabbits and there is a threat to their safety. So any number of Far Right wing thugs gathering, is a danger to the general public.

So why is it both have been continually allowed to still protest?

Even when there has been clashes?

Because generally, the Police do a very good job of keeping both groups apart.

Great own goal by Tommy

Thorin wrote:The leader of the English Defence League (EDL) has attempted to undermine a now-famous picture of him being confronted by a smiling Birmingham woman by accusing her of interrupting a minute’s silence for victims of terror attacks. According to anti-extremist group Hope Not Hate, Ian Crossland responded to a Facebook post of the photo by claiming Saffiyah Khan had disrupted a minute’s silence for terror attack victims, adding “she’s lucky she’s got any teeth left”.












Speaking to the Victoria Derbyshire programme on Monday, she said: “People that know me would vouch for me and tell you that a minute’s silence held by either side, whether it be the EDL or the UAF, I would have happily respected [it].
“But the fact of the matter is, and the video evidence shows it as well, there wasn’t a minute’s silence while I was there.”
Video of the event does in fact show there was a minute’s silence, but Khan’s confusion may well be because EDL members nearby appeared to be talking throughout it.


Including Ian Crossland.








http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ian-crossland-saffiyah-khan-english-defence-league_uk_58eb41f8e4b00de141046e4b

You can skip most of the video to the 29th minute, roughly 20 seconds for the hardly audible call for a minute of silence

How embarrassing for the EDL. Accusing others of speaking through the minutes silence and many of the EDL were speaking through the minute silence.

Cue the excuses over this

Which one was Ian Crossland? I couldn't see who was talking.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:The leader of the English Defence League (EDL) has attempted to undermine a now-famous picture of him being confronted by a smiling Birmingham woman by accusing her of interrupting a minute’s silence for victims of terror attacks. According to anti-extremist group Hope Not Hate, Ian Crossland responded to a Facebook post of the photo by claiming Saffiyah Khan had disrupted a minute’s silence for terror attack victims, adding “she’s lucky she’s got any teeth left”.












Speaking to the Victoria Derbyshire programme on Monday, she said: “People that know me would vouch for me and tell you that a minute’s silence held by either side, whether it be the EDL or the UAF, I would have happily respected [it].
“But the fact of the matter is, and the video evidence shows it as well, there wasn’t a minute’s silence while I was there.”
Video of the event does in fact show there was a minute’s silence, but Khan’s confusion may well be because EDL members nearby appeared to be talking throughout it.


Including Ian Crossland.








http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ian-crossland-saffiyah-khan-english-defence-league_uk_58eb41f8e4b00de141046e4b

You can skip most of the video to the 29th minute, roughly 20 seconds for the hardly audible call for a minute of silence

How embarrassing for the EDL. Accusing others of speaking through the minutes silence and many of the EDL were speaking through the minute silence.

Cue the excuses over this

Which one was Ian Crossland? I couldn't see who was talking.

Its on the link above Rags from the Huffington Post







http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ian-crossland-saffiyah-khan-english-defence-league_uk_58eb41f8e4b00de141046e4b

I'd never heard of this girl until I read this thread. I am trying to form an opinion of her based on the evidence in front of me.

It might well be that she is a 'troublemaker' for all we know,  but on the photos and vids in THIS thread she is not making any trouble, in fact it's the complete opposite. Her passive happy stance contrasts sharply with his angry abusive words and it won't surprise me if this iconic photo wins award of the year.

Is she some sort of activist?? That does not automatically make her a "troublemaker."  After all the far right people who she reportedly likes to confront are activists too, by definition.

Syl wrote:It wasn't photoshopped.

Oooh the Ozzy presenter  in this vid seems very excited and impressed!  


This is the profile l have formulated in my mind, of this lady.
1. I suspect she probably has a VERY posh accent acquired from attending an exclusive, fee-paying private school. But she has dumbed down her accent in order to broaden her appeal  to the masses.  But she still sounds very cultured and superbly well educated.

2. I'd wager she lives in a 6 bedroom house with her mum and dad who are probably high-flying  city accountants.  Her best feature is her unflappable zenlike calm.

3. She has leadership qualities and she will get many more online followers off this!  A thoroughly modern, charismatic British girl who follows modern dress fashion. Very articulate and bright too.

- that's my profile of her, based on what I've seen.

This thread has been really interesting, not least because its centred round one young woman, who was in the right place at the right time to make a huge international impact with just one image.

I have watched a few vids of the rally, and listened to her and others speak about what went on.
I believe VOD and Nicko are probably right that this girl does attend a few edl rallies, probably to heckle, but that's her right in a free speaking country.

She is shown heckling at this one, and she does get caught up in the scuffles....she is not seen to be violent or aggressive herself, and does keep an in control manner...even when she is repeatedly shouting 'Nazi' at some of edl members who didn't show as much restraint as she did.

She was as she said in some video, sat on the grass chilling at first....then eventually she did make her way toward a Muslim woman wearing a scarf who was surrounded by edl men, the woman also seemed to be protected by a police presence, but I believe the girl did exactly what she said she did.......go towards her to show her support.

Thorin wrote:PMSL

So Tommy has again argued against the EDL ever being allowed to Protest ever again. Based on the constant threat of violence and crime. When the EDL marches into a town. The safety of the public is paramount and thus by Tommy's reasoning off this. As they have committed violence when there has not even been counter protests. Tommy ends up destroying his own reasoning.

You do realise the Police could stop any Protests by both groups, based on how each have members, that cause trouble. 

So your comical reasoning would render the EDL by far more banned from Protests, based on their long history of violence and criminal activity.

What Tommy is also admitting to and when far more EDL have been arrested for violence, than the UAF. Is that they are insensitive like extremist Muslims and resort to violence. So they cannot refrain from violence.

What Tommy wants is to skew Freedom of expression, by claiming the EDL are scared little bunny rabbits and there is a threat to their safety. So any number of Far Right wing thugs gathering, is a danger to the general public.

So why is it both have been continually allowed to still protest?

Even when there has been clashes?

Because generally, the Police do a very good job of keeping both groups apart.

Great own goal by Tommy

Only in your deliberately twisted version of reality Didge...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:PMSL

So Tommy has again argued against the EDL ever being allowed to Protest ever again. Based on the constant threat of violence and crime. When the EDL marches into a town. The safety of the public is paramount and thus by Tommy's reasoning off this. As they have committed violence when there has not even been counter protests. Tommy ends up destroying his own reasoning.

You do realise the Police could stop any Protests by both groups, based on how each have members, that cause trouble. 

So your comical reasoning would render the EDL by far more banned from Protests, based on their long history of violence and criminal activity.

What Tommy is also admitting to and when far more EDL have been arrested for violence, than the UAF. Is that they are insensitive like extremist Muslims and resort to violence. So they cannot refrain from violence.

What Tommy wants is to skew Freedom of expression, by claiming the EDL are scared little bunny rabbits and there is a threat to their safety. So any number of Far Right wing thugs gathering, is a danger to the general public.

So why is it both have been continually allowed to still protest?

Even when there has been clashes?

Because generally, the Police do a very good job of keeping both groups apart.

Great own goal by Tommy

Only in your deliberately twisted version of reality Didge...

Wow, is that all you could muster as a reply?

Your post was twisted waffle...

Unworthy of any serious discussion...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Your post was twisted waffle...

Unworthy of any serious discussion...!

So yet more misdirection and excuses for why you cannot counter my reasons.

Hey ho

There is nothing to answer Didge...


The EDL are doing absolutely nothing wrong or against the law by them organising/staging any perfectly legal march/protest... they are exercising their rights/freedoms to do so... and they do them with complete cooperation with the authorities, in complete accordance with the law, and with the express permission of the relevant local authorities etc...


They have the right to carry out their peaceful and legal protest march along the designated and preapproved route without interference or disruption, and without being violently attacked on their preapproved route by anyone... especially not from any large group of thugs who have been given preapproved permission by the authorities to effectively ambush them...!!!


You quoted 'article 11' earlier... Maybe you should try to understand that it is not there to justify the leftie thugs attacking legally held protest marches... it is there to protect the rights and freedoms of people to stage their protests/marches free from attack!!!

The UAF are doing absolutely nothing wrong or against the law by them organising/staging any perfectly legal counter protests... they are exercising their rights/freedoms to do so... and they do them with complete cooperation with the authorities, in complete accordance with the law, and with the express permission of the relevant local authorities etc...


They have the right to carry out their peaceful and legal protest march along the designated and preapproved route without interference or disruption, and without being violently attacked on their preapproved route by anyone... especially not from any large group of thugs who have been given preapproved permission by the authorities to effectively ambush them...!!!

So article 11 is to actually empower the Police to act against marches and protests. Where there is a major risk in regards to public safety. Which means every-time you run a risk based calculation on this and based off the number of times. Members of the EDL have committed acts of violence against the public and vastly had more members arrested for acts of violence. Than the UAF. Would again based on your reasoning, mean that either there is no protests, because the EDL are too insensitive to ridicule and resort to continued violence (basically sharia Police). Or the Police do as they always do and allow both sides to have freedom of expression by allowing both protests to happen. Where then based on how they carry out risk assessments. They would strive to keep both protests apart. As they generally do.

Thanks for the first part, its was hilarious how I only had to change one word to counter that entire post.

It is up to the police to protect the safety and security of the people involved in the primary legally organised and legally held protest march... and for the police to help to facilitate the circumstances around the event to ensure that it is allowed to proceed/happen in a smooth running and organised fashion, free from any outside interference/disruption, and especially free from attack by organised gangs of violent left wing thugs who think they have the right to violently attack anyone else who dares to voice an opinion that they don't agree with...!!!

Thorin wrote:The UAF are doing absolutely nothing wrong or against the law by them organising/staging any perfectly legal counter protests... they are exercising their rights/freedoms to do so... and they do them with complete cooperation with the authorities, in complete accordance with the law, and with the express permission of the relevant local authorities etc...


They have the right to carry out their peaceful and legal protest march along the designated and preapproved route without interference or disruption, and without being violently attacked on their preapproved route by anyone... especially not from any large group of thugs who have been given preapproved permission by the authorities to effectively ambush them...!!!

So article 11 is to actually empower the Police to act against marches and protests. Where there is a major risk in regards to public safety. Which means every-time you run a risk based calculation on this and based off the number of times. Members of the EDL have committed acts of violence against the public and vastly had more members arrested for acts of violence. Than the UAF. Would again based on your reasoning, mean that either there is no protests, because the EDL are too insensitive to ridicule and resort to continued violence (basically sharia Police). Or the Police do as they always do and allow both sides to have freedom of expression by allowing both protests to happen. Where then  based on how they carry out risk assessments. They would strive to keep both protests apart. As they generally do.

Thanks for the first part, its was hilarious how I only had to change one word to counter that entire post.

I rest my case

Night

The police have a duty to protect edl when they are carrying out any of their perfectly lawful/legal protest marches...


But the police continually allow large numbers of violent left wing thugs to congregate at locations that are along the preapproved edl protest routes... and then the police don't just do nothing when the violent leftie thugs start attacking the otherwise peaceful and legal edl protest/march... they do nothing while acting all surprised that the violent left wing thugs are being violent left wing thugs... and then the police and the media try to tell the general public that the EDL protest (full of far right hooligans and surrounded by large numbers of police) descended into violence and disorder again and dozens were arrested...

What they don't tell you is that a lawful and legal and preapproved peaceful protest march by the EDL, came under attack by a bunch of violent leftie thugs... and the heavy police numbers around the EDL group were there protecting them from the violent leftie thugs... and almost all those arrested were violent leftie thugs!!!

So Tommy fails to counter me again.

Thorin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Iv'e seen much much worse than this when the islamics are on the streets and you never see them being arrested .
I'm not saying EDL are in any way well behaved but whenever there is a march they are singled out same as the Britain First and they are peaceful but there is always some tosser out to provoke them .

I still say the islamic woman went out of her way to provoke this group .
There was also some members i see trying to keep the group calm .

By smiling?
You are saying that, whilst Ian racially abused her, her positive smile (which is universally welcoming) provoked the entire EDL? Enough for Ian their leader to publicly post abuse and invoking violence through the insensitivity of some racists over a minutes silence. Of which many of the EDL failed to respect this also. That gives you a clue to the hate by the EDL here.

So the EDL has every right to be critical of bad beliefs and has every right to protest. Though as seen both the UAF and the EDL are selective in regards to what extremism they speak out on.

The UAF stands against the BNP and the EDL, as they class them as racist and fascist. Though fail to stand against Facist Islamism and left wing extremism.

So its a contradiction in terms

The EDL claim to stand against Sharia and Islamism and claims its an anti-racist and human rights organisation. Though they fail at championing Universal Human Rights, the same as the UAF. The EDL never marches against any left or Right wing extremism, racism etc and centers on Islam. Though generally its supporters are made up of racist louts. Not all, of course, but many. The UAF never marches against Left wing Extremism and Islamism. Many will cast the EDL as Nazi's to normalize and legitimize hating them. The EDL call the UAF traitors and Islamists supporters.

So we see on both sides here, there is extremism with both organisations. That both completely fail at Universal Human Rights and they both fail to tackle all forms of extremism.

So you say that the UAF provoke the EDL by counter protesting and it seems the EDL are comparable to extremist Muslims also. Who are insensitive to their religion being challenged, ridiculed etc. Here even though the EDL spoke through the one minute silence. Proving they are led and governed by hate. As none of them shut up and if it was that important to them, they would have shut up. They never did. So if the bases for your argument is on provocation. Don't you think that the EDL protest in Birmingham was provocative? Where instead of a march in London, where the terrorist attack happened. They instead choose Birmingham, for the following guilt by association arguments.

The English Defence League will be demonstrating in Birmingham on 8 April
as our response to the 22 March Westminster jihad attack.
On Thursday 23 March hundreds of police were investigating the attack and
they searched addresses in Birmingham, Wales, Brighton and London. There
have been arrests in Birmingham, the city frequented by Khalid Masood, the
Islamic killer.

In the week before the attack, Birmingham’s Muslim ghettos were identified
by a think tank as disproportionately likely to be hotbeds of violent jihadism.
This is a national issue and we are responding with a national demo.
Until 22 March we had been planning a demonstration in Derby, but that has
been cancelled to enable us to react to this new development. For these
reasons, we have chosen Birmingham rather than Derby for the national
demo; but at short notice a London regional demo will be held on 1st April.
We will be focusing on the jihadi threat in the UK, home-grown terrorism,
returning jihadists, Muslim ghettos, no-go areas and ‘Trojan Horse’ schools.
But we will not - ever - forget or ignore the rape jihad of Muslim men against
English girls.

http://www.englishdefenceleague.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/17_03_24b_BirminghamDemo-MediaAnnouncementFor-8April-2017.pdf

So the march was aimed specifically at Birmingham and Muslims.

Even though a week before protest, all those arrested from Birmingham for the Westminster Terrorist attack. Have all been released without charge.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/westminster-terror-attack-those-arrested-12830527

No the response to this from Muslims was the following

A British tea party

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/08/english-defence-league-not-welcome-in-birmingham-leaders-say

So the EDL was protesting in a city, through the excuse to go there based off a terrorist attack in London.

Now they have every right to protest, but based on your methodology. Was the planned protest provocative to the people of Birmingham, not just the Muslims?

The Muslim reaction as seen, was to identify as British with a message of peace. And you are  bemoaning a counter protest as provocative? Seriously?

As I say both groups are a joke and do not stand for Universal Human rights or stand against all extremism.
Where people get provoked all the time, when they are passionate about things. The reality is, most people do not get so controlled with hate, to then commit violence. As seen you see from both sides this happen, but the telling part here is Ian's claim "she was lucky she has got any teeth". Like I said, that sort of view, without actually threatening, is believing it should have happened to her. That he believes she was lucky not to have her teeth kicked. All because she stepped into to help a Muslim woman.

To invoke "Provoke" as an excuse for the actions of people is flawed and wrong.

People are responsible for their actions.

You see her as a smiling young woman - I see her as a leery trouble causer . Could you tell me something honestly ? This woman wears no islamic head scarf - would you say she was a moslem ?. I just thought she was Asian .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Thorin wrote:

By smiling?
You are saying that, whilst Ian racially abused her, her positive smile (which is universally welcoming) provoked the entire EDL? Enough for Ian their leader to publicly post abuse and invoking violence through the insensitivity of some racists over a minutes silence. Of which many of the EDL failed to respect this also. That gives you a clue to the hate by the EDL here.

So the EDL has every right to be critical of bad beliefs and has every right to protest. Though as seen both the UAF and the EDL are selective in regards to what extremism they speak out on.




So you say that the UAF provoke the EDL by counter protesting and it seems the EDL are comparable to extremist Muslims also. Who are insensitive to their religion being challenged, ridiculed etc. Here even though the EDL spoke through the one minute silence. Proving they are led and governed by hate. As none of them shut up and if it was that important to them, they would have shut up. They never did. So if the bases for your argument is on provocation. Don't you think that the EDL protest in Birmingham was provocative? Where instead of a march in London, where the terrorist attack happened. They instead choose Birmingham, for the following guilt by association arguments.



So the march was aimed specifically at Birmingham and Muslims.

Even though a week before protest, all those arrested from Birmingham for the Westminster Terrorist attack. Have all been released without charge.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/westminster-terror-attack-those-arrested-12830527

No the response to this from Muslims was the following

A British tea party

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/08/english-defence-league-not-welcome-in-birmingham-leaders-say

So the EDL was protesting in a city, through the excuse to go there based off a terrorist attack in London.

Now they have every right to protest, but based on your methodology. Was the planned protest provocative to the people of Birmingham, not just the Muslims?

The Muslim reaction as seen, was to identify as British with a message of peace. And you are  bemoaning a counter protest as provocative? Seriously?

As I say both groups are a joke and do not stand for Universal Human rights or stand against all extremism.
Where people get provoked all the time, when they are passionate about things. The reality is, most people do not get so controlled with hate, to then commit violence. As seen you see from both sides this happen, but the telling part here is Ian's claim "she was lucky she has got any teeth". Like I said, that sort of view, without actually threatening, is believing it should have happened to her. That he believes she was lucky not to have her teeth kicked. All because she stepped into to help a Muslim woman.

To invoke "Provoke" as an excuse for the actions of people is flawed and wrong.

People are responsible for their actions.

You see her as a smiling young woman - I see her as a leery trouble causer . Could you tell me something honestly ? This woman wears no islamic head scarf - would you say she was a moslem ?. I just thought she was Asian .

Eh?

Do you need to wear a Nuns habit to classed as a Christian Dibs?

Of course not

She has stated herself she is Muslim

She like many Muslim women, do not wear the head scarf.

She was born in the UK and thus is English/British with mixed ethnicity (Pakistani and Bosnian)

So you basically ignored all the facts again Dibs and like I said, use an excuse invented out of thin air around her smiling. Which you class as trouble making. In order to defend the EDL

Hey ho

nicko wrote:So you think Mother Teresa was a "good un"?     She left patients to die In agony because she said "it brought them nearer to God". She spent fuck all on caring for them.  What happened to the millions of dollars she had in the banks?  she certainly did not spend it on her "patients" !

Well, you are arguing the example, not the point.  You may vilify Mother Teresa if you wish, I'm gong to stick to the subject.

nicko wrote:The young smiling woman is a well known Muslim shit stirrer at the front of most UAF mobs.    Get your facts straight before you spout off.

You keep repeating your loathing for this beautiful young woman, yet you bring no evidence to us.  "Well known Muslim?"  "Shit stirrer?"  "A front..."?  "Mobs?"  You sound like Trump...a lot of adjectives, but no facts.

I'm just saying she has a unique talent: keeping a smile on her face amidst a sea of anger.  Nicko, look at that picture again and ask yourself, who has the power here?  Clearly Ms. Khan does.  Her demeanor invites calmness and reason into the confrontation...and that can't be bad.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:It wasn't photoshopped.

Oooh the Ozzy presenter  in this vid seems very excited and impressed!  


This is the profile l have formulated in my mind, of this lady.
1. I suspect she probably has a VERY posh accent acquired from attending an exclusive, fee-paying private school. But she has dumbed down her accent in order to broaden her appeal  to the masses.  But she still sounds very cultured and superbly well educated.

2. I'd wager she lives in a 6 bedroom house with her mum and dad who are probably high-flying  city accountants.  Her best feature is her unflappable zenlike calm.

3. She has leadership qualities and she will get many more online followers off this!  A thoroughly modern, charismatic British girl who follows modern dress fashion. Very articulate and bright too.

- that's my profile of her, based on what I've seen.

Quite good...and I agree.

I particularly like your characterization of her gift: "unflappable zenlike calm". Perfect.

It's all a bit of a fuss though. There were police around so she wasn't in danger. How many people even know who Ian Crossland is anyway?

On this thread so far,  we have seen both VoD and Tommy running mad with their usual scumbag racist, intolerant and bigotted vitriol, apologising for their extremist chums in the EDL while freely slandering strangers, purely on the basis of innocent photo's and videos, and unsubstantiated EDL propaganda...

And not a single whimper from either of the two England-based moderators on here against VoD's or Tommy's regular hatemongering garbage across several threads over recent days  --  despite those mod's being all to ready to criticise me, or Andy, or any other random "lefties" simply for 'calling a spade a spade' !      

If I had said that , Foul would have basemented me for racist language.

Yawn !

Angry Andy wrote:If I had said that , Foul would have basemented me for racist language.

I've reread Wolf's post.  I don't see anything in it calling anyone something racist.  He's calling out some, but it's not itself racist.  It's just an opinion on what they say and how they say it.  We all have that right.

Peace.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

On this thread so far,  we have seen both VoD and Tommy running mad with their usual scumbag racist, intolerant and bigotted vitriol, apologising for their extremist chums in the EDL while freely slandering strangers, purely on the basis of innocent photo's and videos, and unsubstantiated EDL propaganda...

And not a single whimper from either of the two England-based moderators on here against VoD's or Tommy's regular hatemongering garbage across several threads over recent days  --  despite those mod's being all to ready to criticise me, or Andy, or any other random "lefties" simply for 'calling a spade a spade' !      

It's called giving an opinion - not a matter for moderators.

Thorin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

You see her as a smiling young woman - I see her as a leery trouble causer . Could you tell me something honestly ? This woman wears no islamic head scarf - would you say she was a moslem ?. I just thought she was Asian .

Eh?

Do you need to wear a Nuns habit to classed as a Christian Dibs?

Of course not

She has stated herself she is Muslim

She like many Muslim women, do not wear the head scarf.

She was born in the UK and thus is English/British with mixed ethnicity (Pakistani and Bosnian)

So you basically ignored all the facts again Dibs and like I said, use an excuse invented out of thin air around her smiling. Which you class as trouble making. In order to defend the EDL

Hey ho

She said the edl members were pointing at her because she was a mulsem so how could they have known ? Think she might telling fibs .

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

On this thread so far,  we have seen both VoD and Tommy running mad with their usual scumbag racist, intolerant and bigotted vitriol, apologising for their extremist chums in the EDL while freely slandering strangers, purely on the basis of innocent photo's and videos, and unsubstantiated EDL propaganda...

And not a single whimper from either of the two England-based moderators on here against VoD's or Tommy's regular hatemongering garbage across several threads over recent days  --  despite those mod's being all to ready to criticise me, or Andy, or any other random "lefties" simply for 'calling a spade a spade' !      

It's called giving an opinion - not a matter for moderators.

He's just a trouble causer and if anyone is full of hate its wolfie anyone can just browse through his comments to see his hatred . His singling out of certain members is just bullying .

Original Quill wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:If I had said that , Foul would have basemented me for racist language.

I've reread Wolf's post.  I don't see anything in it calling anyone something racist.  He's calling out some, but it's not itself racist.  It's just an opinion on what they say and how they say it.  We all have that right.

Peace.

A spade in the 1960's and 1970's was a really derogatory term for a black man. Coon, wog and nig nog were also terms used by racists and far right such as characters like Alf Garnett.
Thank God they are words that are seldom heard or seen these days.
At least 1 poster , now banned, still uses them on other sites.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Eh?

Do you need to wear a Nuns habit to classed as a Christian Dibs?

Of course not

She has stated herself she is Muslim

She like many Muslim women, do not wear the head scarf.

She was born in the UK and thus is English/British with mixed ethnicity (Pakistani and Bosnian)

So you basically ignored all the facts again Dibs and like I said, use an excuse invented out of thin air around her smiling. Which you class as trouble making. In order to defend the EDL

Hey ho

She said the edl members were pointing at her because she was a mulsem so how could they have known ? Think she might telling fibs .

Well you might want to listen to the recording of the event.

I posted the video

The EDL clearly stereotyped her being Muslim, based on her part Asian ethnicity

I think you are posting up a hell of a lot of excuses for the EDL here.

So whether she was a Muslim or not, this is how generally the EDL views Asians in Britain. As if their all Muslims. Then when they shout to the other Muslim woman involved at the protest and accuse her of not British. (as to many in the EDL only white people can be English or British) When she is if born here. Thus showing how racially motivated and racist some of the EDL minds are.

I mean why else would the EDL members shout at a British Muslim female, (attempting to deny them their birth right to being British) claiming they are not British?