EDL Clashing with the police in London

[tidyman]

People might casually use the term, they're both as bad as each other. But I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting singing rascist songs and hurling a few pint pots at passing Asians is on a par with chopping someone's head off or flying a plane in to a building.

But it isn't a contest. By condemning the EDL, you are not automatically condoning the people they see as their enemy.

There are people on here openly talking about the EDL as some sort of heroes in shining armour who are at least "doing something about it."

By pointing out to these people that they are fucking idiots supporting a group of even stupider fucking idiots is not in any way condoning real terrorists.

I will use the term 'they are both as bad as each other about Islamic fundamentalist and EDL supporters' and here's why.

You (actually, I don't think you are actually saying this), or others making the point, seem to think that the isolated actions of each of them are the only impact that they have. But if that were the case there wouldn't be terrorism and there would be far right 'hate' groups (not just now, but throughout history).

The real issue is what they stand for, who they influence and the issues they create through their actions.

You are right, there is no real comparison regarding the physical acts that they get up to. One 'side' is murder and 'one' is (mostly) 'just' hate at present.

However, I would imagine that Islamic extremists, given that their atrocities are committed by a handful of people, find genuine support amongst a very small percentage of the population (both the general population and the Islamic population). Their acts are so extreme and vicious that it is obviously to all but the extremely disturbed that they are full of hate, misguided and wrong. Their will also be some sympathisers to such causes and they only have to influence one genuine nutter every five years for such acts to continue but there will be relatively few people who don't see them as complete morons and disgusting.

The EDL on the other hand, whilst not committing such terrible acts, have a far more perverse and sickening impact on the general population. For proof of that, see the amount of people on here who are always desperate to pop their head up and talk of them as 'prepared to stand up' or give out crap like 'I don't support them but..............' (then going on to basically say that they think they will be proven to be correct or that they will become a major power).

The EDL is just as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalism in my view because of the influence that it has on, and this sounds arrogant, the thicker members of society. Before you jump all over the arrogance though, you don't have to go far back in history at all to find dozens of examples where gullible idiots have been agitated by disgraceful regimes to 'rise up' against the 'people who are the cause of all their problems' in their society. It's even easier when that taps in to the casual (and not so casual) racism and prejudice that many people hold anyway.

The idiots and those with long standing prejudices are the easiest to influence. But then such language and beliefs become gradually more mainstream and others pop up reflecting the same thing - either through pure exposure to such influence or because they are more emboldened to express dirty little beliefs they would have kept quiet in a normal society. That's how the spread, in the more extreme cases, of a far right culture works. Until, if they get their way, parts of society never previous having any interaction with that point of view see it as gaining prominence and as a 'norm'.

What is more dangerous? The threat of a horrific terrorist act every five years, slaughtering innocents? Or the growth of a national culture where hate and fear and persecution of a section of society is, if not seen as the norm, certainly not seen as anything to be ashamed of by those involved in such.

In terms of body count (at this stage of the development of a far right political culture, anyway), then - no contest - the terrorism wins hands down (although tell that to people in countries where a similar far right 'scapegoatism' has developed a few years further than the seeds of some nobs on a march). In terms of the threat to the every day fabric and tolerance of society and in terms of influencing a country to become like regimes we fought against not so long ago. It's a much tighter call.

Both are huge dangers to what we hold dear in this country and anyone supporting either - even verbally or, in the EDL's case, by proclaiming them to be some sort of 'natural reaction or 'having a point' on the internet - is a fucking disgrace.

Great post. Should probably include the terrorist attacks which have been stopped before they happened in there somewhere though if you're going to be completely impartial. If the police didn't have their fingers on the pulse then we could be talking about attacks every few months rather than every 5 years. The worry is that as more and more Muslims become brainwashed into the ideals of the likes of that hate preacher then the attacks would be even more frequent. We could be seriously talking about another attack today by the sounds of what happened on that plane.

I agree completely with what you are saying with regards to the EDL and how they are taking advantage of a sad situation. But do you think that if the police, government or whoever don't toughen the laws up and stop the places where the extremist stuff is being preached then things wont get any worse in years to come?

As a side issue to the terrorist threat, where do you stand on the recent cases of mass child rape?

I don't like speaking for someone else but I'd hazard an educated guess that he's not in favour of mass child rape.

What a strange question.

 

[True_Blue69]

Anyone seen this interview with the EDL leader?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7c2_1369328816#comment_page=4

To be honest despite clearly being a bit of a thug much of what he says is true. I think the problem with the EDL is that they are all basically hooligans out for a piss up. If they managed to get their points across without acting the way they do people might take more notice.

Okay, I watched all that, and I have a couple of issues with it:

1. He comes up with a lot very dubious statistics to support his point of view, I'd like to know his sources for a few of them. Everything he says seems to be laced with misdirection and I find it hard not to be extremely skeptical, knowing his history. For example he claims right at the start that he received a fine seven times greater than the Muslims received for burning poppies. Well that could be because burning poppies doesn't equate to any actual physical damage whereas rioting and attempting to burn down buildings does. That kind of soundbite can very easily mislead people.

Not to mention his poor grasp of population statistics, 5.6 children per Muslim man does not equate to us being 'overrun' in thirty years time. Even if we assume that a) this statistic is correct, b) it will not change over the thirty years (which it will) and c) that all Muslim children will grow up to be Muslim (I have a friend who has a Muslim father and he isn't Muslim) they would still be a minority. That isn't even factoring in things like death rates, converters out of the religion, the rise in atheist sentiment, emigration etc.

2. He offers no solutions. He goes on a lot about how 'Islam is the enemy', without offering any sort of reasonable and logically consistent way of dealing with the problems in Islam. It seems his only solution at the moment is to protest against them as a religion. What's that going to do? They're not going to wake up in the morning and feel less Muslim because some white middle-Englander told them to. His entire philosophy seems to just be aimed at stirring up tensions and not decreasing them. He says he wants government legislation passed through, well what would that be? He says he wants people arrested despite a lack of evidence for conviction based on them being a terror threat... not over my dead body would I want that (they do enough of it in the US). Throwing innocent people in jail therefore seems his best solution. Great, very convincing.

3. If you were talking to him in a pub just on a one-to-one basis you could be forgiven for thinking he has a few good points, but the fact of the matter is that the group which he leads simply doesn't represent his own views. The EDL are a group of thugs, and they would probably agree with everything he says but at the same time they all harbour much more extremist and racist sentiment than he does as a public figure (and that's saying something). The people below him don't necessarily share his objectives, they just want to start a fight against people of a different creed. That's the truth of it.

So over all, yeah he's probably the most eloquent of a bad bunch but his arguments are generally not believable, not convincing and sometimes plainly abhorrent. Behind the very few decent points he has lie complex issues that we are attempting to deal with already (why aren't the Muslim community doing more? Is Islam an intolerant and oppressive religion?). These are rather separate issues which we debate often but they have no quick-fix easy solutions and rioting certainly won't help.

To be fair he said they only got fined £50, which means he got fined £350. I would imagine that it doesn't take much to get fined £350.

If his figures are correct, and for the debate I am presuming they are unless proven otherwise, 30 years ago Luton had 1 Mosque and 3 or 4,000 Muslims. They now have 26 mosques and 40-50,000 Muslims. Now the population of Luton was 240,000 in 2009, if the numbers were to continue to multiply at that rate then there would be over 500,000 Muslims in Luton. The Times newspaper published an article to say how the Muslim population had rose by 10% and it is stated online that the Muslim population doubled between 2001 and 2011. Im presuming that there are still people like your mate who decided not to follow the religion or people who emigrated but they are the statistics whether it is a good or bad thing.

Sounds as though India has the same concerns as the EDL.... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-a-grave-concern-RSS/articleshow/19011294.cms

The rest of your points I agree with with, just thought I'd stir up debate!<br /><br />-- Fri May 24, 2013 8:08 pm --<br /><br />

I will use the term 'they are both as bad as each other about Islamic fundamentalist and EDL supporters' and here's why.

You (actually, I don't think you are actually saying this), or others making the point, seem to think that the isolated actions of each of them are the only impact that they have. But if that were the case there wouldn't be terrorism and there would be far right 'hate' groups (not just now, but throughout history).

The real issue is what they stand for, who they influence and the issues they create through their actions.

You are right, there is no real comparison regarding the physical acts that they get up to. One 'side' is murder and 'one' is (mostly) 'just' hate at present.

However, I would imagine that Islamic extremists, given that their atrocities are committed by a handful of people, find genuine support amongst a very small percentage of the population (both the general population and the Islamic population). Their acts are so extreme and vicious that it is obviously to all but the extremely disturbed that they are full of hate, misguided and wrong. Their will also be some sympathisers to such causes and they only have to influence one genuine nutter every five years for such acts to continue but there will be relatively few people who don't see them as complete morons and disgusting.

The EDL on the other hand, whilst not committing such terrible acts, have a far more perverse and sickening impact on the general population. For proof of that, see the amount of people on here who are always desperate to pop their head up and talk of them as 'prepared to stand up' or give out crap like 'I don't support them but..............' (then going on to basically say that they think they will be proven to be correct or that they will become a major power).

The EDL is just as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalism in my view because of the influence that it has on, and this sounds arrogant, the thicker members of society. Before you jump all over the arrogance though, you don't have to go far back in history at all to find dozens of examples where gullible idiots have been agitated by disgraceful regimes to 'rise up' against the 'people who are the cause of all their problems' in their society. It's even easier when that taps in to the casual (and not so casual) racism and prejudice that many people hold anyway.

The idiots and those with long standing prejudices are the easiest to influence. But then such language and beliefs become gradually more mainstream and others pop up reflecting the same thing - either through pure exposure to such influence or because they are more emboldened to express dirty little beliefs they would have kept quiet in a normal society. That's how the spread, in the more extreme cases, of a far right culture works. Until, if they get their way, parts of society never previous having any interaction with that point of view see it as gaining prominence and as a 'norm'.

What is more dangerous? The threat of a horrific terrorist act every five years, slaughtering innocents? Or the growth of a national culture where hate and fear and persecution of a section of society is, if not seen as the norm, certainly not seen as anything to be ashamed of by those involved in such.

In terms of body count (at this stage of the development of a far right political culture, anyway), then - no contest - the terrorism wins hands down (although tell that to people in countries where a similar far right 'scapegoatism' has developed a few years further than the seeds of some nobs on a march). In terms of the threat to the every day fabric and tolerance of society and in terms of influencing a country to become like regimes we fought against not so long ago. It's a much tighter call.

Both are huge dangers to what we hold dear in this country and anyone supporting either - even verbally or, in the EDL's case, by proclaiming them to be some sort of 'natural reaction or 'having a point' on the internet - is a fucking disgrace.

Great post. Should probably include the terrorist attacks which have been stopped before they happened in there somewhere though if you're going to be completely impartial. If the police didn't have their fingers on the pulse then we could be talking about attacks every few months rather than every 5 years. The worry is that as more and more Muslims become brainwashed into the ideals of the likes of that hate preacher then the attacks would be even more frequent. We could be seriously talking about another attack today by the sounds of what happened on that plane.

I agree completely with what you are saying with regards to the EDL and how they are taking advantage of a sad situation. But do you think that if the police, government or whoever don't toughen the laws up and stop the places where the extremist stuff is being preached then things wont get any worse in years to come?

As a side issue to the terrorist threat, where do you stand on the recent cases of mass child rape?

I don't like speaking for someone else but I'd hazard an educated guess that he's not in favour of mass child rape.

What a strange question.

Maybe it was worded a bit too bluntly, JMA was only referring to the terrorist attacks that actually happened as the only bad thing. I was just highlighting another set of incidents, which in my opinion stir just as much emotion.

 

[roaminblue]

"There would be over 500000 Muslims"

What? How have you come up with that? And when will there be over 500000?

 

[True_Blue69]

"There would be over 500000 Muslims"

What? How have you come up with that? And when will there be over 500000?

3-4,000 has turned to 40-50,000 in 30 years which has increased by a more than a multiple of 10. If the same increase happens over the next 30 years then that 40-50,000, at a multiple of 10, would turn to 400,000-500,000. Am I missing something here?

 

[tidyman]

Maybe it was worded a bit too bluntly, JMA was only referring to the terrorist attacks that actually happened as the only bad thing. I was just highlighting another set of incidents, which in my opinion stir just as much emotion.

-------------

Child rape certainly does stir emotions.

I'm not sure it has any relevance on a debate about the EDL/ Islam though.

Unless you're suggesting that child rape is some how linked to Islam teachings? In which case I'm all ears.

I suspect it's more to do with the fact that a small percentage of sick fucks convicted for child rape happen to have Muslim as their nominal religion.

I highly doubt that anyone who goes around raping children is really a person of faith. Despite it sometimes appearing like its in the job description for some positions in various churches.

 

[True_Blue69]

Maybe it was worded a bit too bluntly, JMA was only referring to the terrorist attacks that actually happened as the only bad thing. I was just highlighting another set of incidents, which in my opinion stir just as much emotion.

-------------

Child rape certainly does stir emotions.

I'm not sure it has any relevance on a debate about the EDL/ Islam though.

Unless you're suggesting that child rape is some how linked to Islam teachings? In which case I'm all ears.

I suspect it's more to do with the fact that a small percentage of sick fucks convicted for child rape happen to have Muslim as their nominal religion.

I highly doubt that anyone who goes around raping children is really a person of faith. Despite it sometimes appearing like its in the job description for some positions in various churches.

Fair point. Listen, I don't have any particular opinion and dont really know anything about the teaching of Islam, to be honest just thought with it being a current topic it would be good to debate with a few people of different attitudes towards it. It is perceived as in issue within the Muslim community though would you agree that much?

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

"There would be over 500000 Muslims"

What? How have you come up with that? And when will there be over 500000?

3-4,000 has turned to 40-50,000 in 30 years which has increased by a more than a multiple of 10. If the same increase happens over the next 30 years then that 40-50,000, at a multiple of 10, would turn to 400,000-500,000. Am I missing something here?

Yes, this was kind of my point. It's not as simple as just multiplying it as if its going to carry on increasing at that rate, there are so many other variable and constraining factors involved it's pretty daft. Population statistics are extremely complicated, the reason for the huge increase over the last 30 years will not necessarily mean the same increase over the next 30 years. That initial increase by 35-45,000 could have even been because of government policies to attempt to bring more people into Luton. It could have been because of a huge surge in Muslim industry (like the Halal aforementioned) that has now ceased.

If there are 500,000 Muslims in Luton in 30 years time, I will happily come and find you and give you £1,000. But it just won't happen.

I'll give you the one biggest reason it won't happen though, birth rate in Muslim communities will decrease dramatically over the next 30 years. Watch this space. The reason it is so high right now is simply because of first generation immigration from less developed countries, people from those countries are brought up being told to have lots of children because they don't have the provisions to look after the elderly. It isn't necessary over here so it will eventually decrease as it has with virtually every other developed race, nationality and culture on earth.

 

[roaminblue]

"There would be over 500000 Muslims"

What? How have you come up with that? And when will there be over 500000?

3-4,000 has turned to 40-50,000 in 30 years which has increased by a more than a multiple of 10. If the same increase happens over the next 30 years then that 40-50,000, at a multiple of 10, would turn to 400,000-500,000. Am I missing something here?

Ok, so I see where you got your figure from, but I wold wager a heft sum right now that there won't be 500,000 Muslims in Luton in thirty years time.

It doesn't take into account immigration trends (which don't follow linear patterns), it also ignores organic restrictions to population grwoth.

So, doing some quick googling tells me that the population in Luton in 1981 was 163000, and most recent census 2011 was 203000.

The % increase between 81 to 2011 was 26%. If the Muslim population, on its own, increased to 500000, the % increase from 2011 to 2041 would be 246%. Not taking into account any increase to the Christian/Sikh/Hindi/Jewish/pagan population.

It just wouldn't happen I'm afraid

Edit: also, the barries to movement for Pakistanis became easier in the 60's due to the commonwealth. Increased standards of living, wages and freedom of movement accelerated the immigration of Pakistanis to England in the mid to late 20th century. Lutons largest minority community is the Pakistani community, which I'm sure has skewed the figures somewhat

 

[Rascal]

I have just watched Tommy Robinson's being interviewed thingy

And decided im a barking raving mad far right loon


Beware you lefties you are gonna get it

 

[roaminblue]

I have just watched Tommy Robinson's being interviewed thingy

And decided im a barking raving mad far right loon


Beware you lefties you are gonna get it

Barking? I think you mean Mitcham mate