I don't think the Welsh/Scots flags were anything to do with what my point was: that the Israeli flags were there solely to provoke. Of course, they could have been real Israelis joining the edl............but I doubt it.
the EDL v the UAF...
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: the EDL v the UAF...
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: the EDL v the UAF...
I think if there was equal condemnation towards whoever it was doing something obnoxious and offensive then people would be happier. When you get some muslim extremists protesting, be it the ones in London outside the Danish embassy or the ones protesting against that Dutch politican when he came to London, then nothing happens. Some people complaining about militant Islam get called thugs, right-wing extremists, and so on. Labour ministers go on TV and vilify them in strong terms. When it is muslims doing it no one cares or says anything and this winds people up.
The muslim protestors outside the Danish embassy and outside the building in London where the Dutch politican was speaking, had some of the most offensive things on their placards that have ever been displayed in a protest of any kind in London's history. No minister, pundit or anyone else, says a thing. Members of, for want of a better term, the indigeous population, complain about something and the wrath of the gods comes down on them from all quarters.
I also don't understand how the media can take the name of this lefty-group and use it in the way they do when reporting. The Unite Against Fascism group are refered to by the TV news as 'anti fascist protestors' - which is basically the media saying that the people they are protesting against are fascists. Is the supposedly impartial media remaining impartial when they are basically calling the other group 'fascists'? I dont think they are.
If someone started an 'any bigotry group' and the group turned up to protest against another group, would the TV news programmes be right to say anti bigotry protestors were demonstrating against such-and-such organisation this afternoon? I dont think so. That would mean the TV media are basically calling the other lot bigots, just like they are basically calling the other group in this instance 'fascists' by saying 'anti fascist protestors were campaigning against the EDL'. They are stepping outside of their remit of impartiality by effectively branding the other group a certain thing. 'Prostestors' should be how the UAF mob should be called. Referring to what they claim they are doing when referring to them in the news report is a subjective thing to do - and it is outside of TV news organisation's rules.
The muslim protestors outside the Danish embassy and outside the building in London where the Dutch politican was speaking, had some of the most offensive things on their placards that have ever been displayed in a protest of any kind in London's history. No minister, pundit or anyone else, says a thing. Members of, for want of a better term, the indigeous population, complain about something and the wrath of the gods comes down on them from all quarters.
I also don't understand how the media can take the name of this lefty-group and use it in the way they do when reporting. The Unite Against Fascism group are refered to by the TV news as 'anti fascist protestors' - which is basically the media saying that the people they are protesting against are fascists. Is the supposedly impartial media remaining impartial when they are basically calling the other group 'fascists'? I dont think they are.
If someone started an 'any bigotry group' and the group turned up to protest against another group, would the TV news programmes be right to say anti bigotry protestors were demonstrating against such-and-such organisation this afternoon? I dont think so. That would mean the TV media are basically calling the other lot bigots, just like they are basically calling the other group in this instance 'fascists' by saying 'anti fascist protestors were campaigning against the EDL'. They are stepping outside of their remit of impartiality by effectively branding the other group a certain thing. 'Prostestors' should be how the UAF mob should be called. Referring to what they claim they are doing when referring to them in the news report is a subjective thing to do - and it is outside of TV news organisation's rules.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Dick
?
You asked
"I also see a Welsh flag there so you reckon they're all English ?
I pointed out that there are Welsh and Scottish versions of the EDL.
That's it!
D
You asked
"I also see a Welsh flag there so you reckon they're all English ?
I pointed out that there are Welsh and Scottish versions of the EDL.
That's it!
D
Re: the EDL v the UAF...
Now that's a surprise. A group going to a demonstration and provoking people,
I believe some groups hold up placards calling for people to be beheaded but apparently that is their right to free speech.
I believe some groups hold up placards calling for people to be beheaded but apparently that is their right to free speech.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Max
"I think if there was equal condemnation towards whoever it was doing something obnoxious and offensive then people would be happier. When you get some muslim extremists protesting, be it the ones in London outside the Danish embassy or the ones protesting against that Dutch politican when he came to London, then nothing happens. Some people complaining about militant Islam get called thugs, right-wing extremists, and so on. Labour ministers go on TV and vilify them in strong terms. When it is muslims doing it no one cares or says anything and this winds people up.
The muslim protestors outside the Danish embassy and outside the building in London where the Dutch politican was speaking, had some of the most offensive things on their placards that have ever been displayed in a protest of any kind in London's history. No minister, pundit or anyone else, says a thing. Members of, for want of a better term, the indigeous population, complain about something and the wrath of the gods comes down on them from all quarters."
This is fourth rate rubbish. Total ignorance masquerading as fact. The following links disprove your comment
"When it is muslims doing it no one cares or says anything and this winds people up."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4682262.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 884941.ece
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... 3215238661
"I also don't understand how the media can take the name of this lefty-group and use it in the way they do when reporting. The Unite Against Fascism group are refered to by the TV news as 'anti fascist protestors' - which is basically the media saying that the people they are protesting against are fascists. Is the supposedly impartial media remaining impartial when they are basically calling the other group 'fascists'? I dont think they are."
The above statement is moronic. The group calls themselves Unite Against Fascism group and hence they are anti-fascist protestors by default. What should the press refer to them as Men and Women against Cup Cakes? The EDL are fascists in the frequent use of Nazi salutes at EDL demonstrations would suggest. There are numerous Youtube examples including burning of anti-Nazi flags by EDL members and their reliance on Crusader mythology in terms of defending themselves from the hordes from the East- imagery frequently used by Hitler.
"just like they are basically calling the other group in this instance 'fascists' by saying 'anti fascist protestors were campaigning against the EDL'."
People can get called fascists when they are fascists just as some people get called thick when they are indeed thick. Nazis can get called Nazis when they appear to support Nazi attitudes of race hatred and various paraphenalia such as salutes etc.
D
The muslim protestors outside the Danish embassy and outside the building in London where the Dutch politican was speaking, had some of the most offensive things on their placards that have ever been displayed in a protest of any kind in London's history. No minister, pundit or anyone else, says a thing. Members of, for want of a better term, the indigeous population, complain about something and the wrath of the gods comes down on them from all quarters."
This is fourth rate rubbish. Total ignorance masquerading as fact. The following links disprove your comment
"When it is muslims doing it no one cares or says anything and this winds people up."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4682262.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 884941.ece
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... 3215238661
"I also don't understand how the media can take the name of this lefty-group and use it in the way they do when reporting. The Unite Against Fascism group are refered to by the TV news as 'anti fascist protestors' - which is basically the media saying that the people they are protesting against are fascists. Is the supposedly impartial media remaining impartial when they are basically calling the other group 'fascists'? I dont think they are."
The above statement is moronic. The group calls themselves Unite Against Fascism group and hence they are anti-fascist protestors by default. What should the press refer to them as Men and Women against Cup Cakes? The EDL are fascists in the frequent use of Nazi salutes at EDL demonstrations would suggest. There are numerous Youtube examples including burning of anti-Nazi flags by EDL members and their reliance on Crusader mythology in terms of defending themselves from the hordes from the East- imagery frequently used by Hitler.
"just like they are basically calling the other group in this instance 'fascists' by saying 'anti fascist protestors were campaigning against the EDL'."
People can get called fascists when they are fascists just as some people get called thick when they are indeed thick. Nazis can get called Nazis when they appear to support Nazi attitudes of race hatred and various paraphenalia such as salutes etc.
D
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: the EDL v the UAF...
[quote]I believe some groups hold up placards calling for people to be beheaded but apparently that is their right to free speech.[/quote]
I don't think I've heard anyone on here say that placards calling for murder or 'beheading' people is acceptable and just 'free speech'.
It's quite clear to me that waving Israeli flags has nothing to do with the defence of England/Britain. They were hoping for a Muslim reaction......preferable a violent one, which tells me that it's not just about defending British values but provoking a good old dust-up with some 'pakis'.
Wankers.
I don't think I've heard anyone on here say that placards calling for murder or 'beheading' people is acceptable and just 'free speech'.
It's quite clear to me that waving Israeli flags has nothing to do with the defence of England/Britain. They were hoping for a Muslim reaction......preferable a violent one, which tells me that it's not just about defending British values but provoking a good old dust-up with some 'pakis'.
Wankers.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: the EDL v the UAF...
So holding up a placard calling for people to be beheaded is not provocative ?
Or do you expect the public to just accept it ?
Or do you expect the public to just accept it ?
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Max
I dont agree with that David. It is not for the TV media, who are regulated by Ofcom to be totally impartial, to call anyone anything until that thing has been officially established as being that thing (like by a Court or other public body).
If it is a well known fact that someone has killed someone - caught on CCTV doing it and you can clearly see the face of the man doing it - it is not for the TV media to brand the guy a 'murderer' until an official body has decided it was that. It may have been manslaughter. The television media deciding in what context someone did something, or is doing something, is not for them to do.
It's like when the TV news calls a load of middle-class, living off Benefit, dreadlocked hippies - who turned up to oppose a by-pass being built - "eco warriors", I've always found that one odd aswell. Whatever the person or people is doing has to be established elsewhere and then the TV media can refer to it as that.
If it is a well known fact that someone has killed someone - caught on CCTV doing it and you can clearly see the face of the man doing it - it is not for the TV media to brand the guy a 'murderer' until an official body has decided it was that. It may have been manslaughter. The television media deciding in what context someone did something, or is doing something, is not for them to do.
It's like when the TV news calls a load of middle-class, living off Benefit, dreadlocked hippies - who turned up to oppose a by-pass being built - "eco warriors", I've always found that one odd aswell. Whatever the person or people is doing has to be established elsewhere and then the TV media can refer to it as that.