# Should the EDL be banned from marching in Tower Hamlets.



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

The EDL have claimed they will be marching in Tower Hamlets on September. 3rd. They won't be, it's their version of Choudrey announcing a march in Wooten Basset  - a symbol of willingness to fight rather than the actual fight. Should they be allowed to though? Who is fit to say that they can't? Please, say why or why not.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 30, 2011)

They fucking won't because we won't let them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

Forgot my opinion, no the state should not ban the march. It's a bog standard defence that's a bog standard for a reason - it applies. When they ban them, they ban you, they ban us. They ban you from working in public sector jobs. We decide who is banned (ideally like).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> They fucking won't because we won't let them.


 
Never any intention to PT


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 30, 2011)

Well that's what I've been trying to make people understand for many weeks.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 30, 2011)

Not unless its obvious its really going to kick off and the police wouldn't be able to control it.Then they would have no choice ,but,to ban it.


----------



## manny-p (Jul 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The EDL have claimed they will be marching in Tower Hamlets on September. 3rd. They won't be, it's their version of Choudrey announcing a march in Wooten Basset  - a symbol of willingness to fight rather than the actual fight. Should they be allowed to though? Who is fit to say that they can't? Please, say why or why not.



Surprised you didn't include a poll.


----------



## Deareg (Jul 30, 2011)

Bus the bastards right into the middle of tower hamlets, drop them off and then leave the wankers to the mercy of the locals and anti fascists.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 30, 2011)

Banning them will feed their martyr complex. 

Letting them march will give the wannabe jihadis an excuse to act out the illusion of defending their comunities.

Sort of like when people pretend to be up for a fight so long as their mates hold them back its two groups of arses being kept appart by the police.

Let them march, have the pantomime.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

allybaba said:


> Surprised you didn't include a poll.


I meant to, i even included in the the OP, but i forget to tick the bloody box saying i wanted to do one.If a passing mod wants to do it for me the question is/was:

'Should the state ban the EDL from marching in Tower Hamlets?'


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Banning them will feed their martyr complex.
> 
> Letting them march will give the wannabe jihadis an excuse to act out the illusion of defending their comunities.
> 
> ...


 
The jihadis will be swamped in the theatre. They'll not get near.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 30, 2011)

I can add that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I can add that.


 
Cheers FM


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 30, 2011)

Wait, no I can't. Tits. I could merge posts on this thread into a new thread which *did* have a poll.


----------



## dylans (Jul 30, 2011)

No. They shouldn't be banned but communities have the right to defend themselves against an unwanted bunch of violent racists intent on trouble. If they go to Tower Hamlets I hope they get their heads kicked in.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

Ah well. No worries. As it's sat night and no ones around, shall i do it again with a poll and we bin this one? I'm quite interested to see the result.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ah well. No worries. As it's sat night and no ones around, shall i do it again with a poll and we bin this one?


 
Start a new one with a poll and if I can merge posts from this one onto it, I will.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

Roger wilco


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 30, 2011)

http://thenewgamer .com/content/files/images/roger_wilco_1.jpg


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 30, 2011)

Excellent, it worked - not tried that before, it only just occurred to me.

Anyway, back to the point.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

Who does get to decide legally anyway? The home sec? The council?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 30, 2011)

Isn't it the Met who give initial approval or otherwise?


----------



## Deareg (Jul 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who does get to decide legally anyway? The home sec? The council?


 
I think there should be some way of giving the host community a say in whether or not they should be allowed through.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 30, 2011)

I think both the council and the police could effectively ban the march by not agreeing to it happening by not agreeing on march routes/assembly points.  Don't know about the home sec.. 
Previous EDL march in Birmingham was called for the day of Villa vs Birmingham City iirc, presumably because they knew the West Mids police would not agree to it, so they wouldn't have to come back here and have the shit kicked out of them again.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Isn't it the Met who give initial approval or otherwise?


 My understanding is that nothing needs approval, they need approval to qualify for ceratin things though.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 30, 2011)

I think if you're going to march you need police & council approval for the route, but you don't need approval for a static demo

edit: of course not getting (or even seeking) that approval doesn't mean you can't march, but it does allow the EDL to claim they will do something knowing it isn't going to be allowed and then not do it on that excuse


----------



## Deareg (Jul 30, 2011)

BigTom said:


> I think both the council and the police could effectively ban the march by not agreeing to it happening by not agreeing on march routes/assembly points.  Don't know about the home sec..
> Previous EDL march in Birmingham was called for the day of Villa vs Birmingham City iirc, presumably because they knew the West Mids police would not agree to it, so they wouldn't have to come back here and have the shit kicked out of them again.


 
One problem with leaving it entirely in the hands of the state is that they are just as likely to use any legislation against progressive demos, meetings etc.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 30, 2011)

They can't ban a static protest but they can ban the march.

i say let them have it, and i hope 1000's counter demo them and show them they are not wanted.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 30, 2011)

Deareg, I agree completely, I don't think the march should be banned, I don't think you should have to agree routes with the council/police (although I can see the logic for talking to them in terms of road closures, I don't see that it's needed, and I don't think councils/police should be allowed to say no).
But I think the EDL use this to call demos they have no intention of having so that they can look like they are responding to certain things/going places they don't want to.


----------



## Voley (Jul 30, 2011)

No, the state shouldn't ban it, inflammatory as it might be. Very dodgy route to go down. Just as any counter demo/march shouldn't be banned.


----------



## Deareg (Jul 30, 2011)

It is not that I am completely against the state banning these types of marches, just that I would much rather see local people and anti fascists physically stopping them ourselves, but as I said the host community who's lives are going to be disrupted and their well being put at risk should be allowed a large say in what happens and also we cant trust them not to use any banning orders against us too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

Deareg said:


> It is not that I am completely against the state banning these types of marches, just that I would much rather see local people and anti fascists physically stopping them ourselves, but as I said the host community who's lives are going to be disrupted and their well being put at risk should be allowed a large say in what happens and also we cant trust them not to use any banning orders against us too.


 
This is the hard thing - the existing forums for their disapproval is the local state.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 30, 2011)

I can see them getting kettled somewhere miles away, which would be a pity because they need a good fucking kicking.


----------



## Deareg (Jul 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This is the hard thing - the existing forums for their disapproval is the local state.


 
True, I am not claiming to have the answer to that one, I am hoping that someone else will come up with some suggestions as to how that could be worked out but cant really see any other way than involving the state, but I hope to be proved wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

Deareg said:


> True, I am not claiming to have the answer to that one, I am hoping that someone else will come up with some suggestions as to how that could be worked out but cant really see any other way than involving the state, but I hope to be proved wrong.


 Two possible ways (there are many others) - local assemblies about this/other stuff from normal debate about this -  or people arguing from outside that it's a larger problem so other peoples responsibility - _we've taken over._


----------



## Cheeze (Jul 30, 2011)

In principle they should, if they can pick up the tab for policing it then I would let them

You would need a lot of police for that

If they want to turn up without permission and get a few hundred lads marching around Tower Hamlets intimidating locals then it's crime


----------



## Deareg (Jul 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Two possible ways (there are many others) - local assemblies about this/other stuff from normal debate about this -  or people arguing from outside that it's a larger problem so other peoples responsibility - _we've taken over._


 
Wouldn't be against anything that gives people more control over the laws and rules that govern our lives at the moment all we seem to have is the threat of violence.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This is the hard thing - the existing forums for their disapproval is the local state.


And Tower Hamlets local authority is very much of a "_in-crowd_" kind of fiefdom ime.


----------



## Cheeze (Jul 30, 2011)

Surely something like this is one of the occasions when having police and so on is actually a good idea


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

Cheeze said:


> In principle they should, if they can pick up the tab for policing it then I would let them
> 
> You would need a lot of police for that
> 
> If they want to turn up without permission and get a few hundred lads marching around Tower Hamlets intimidating locals then it's crime



Least likely option in all honesty. Misread:  it's crime all right. Least of their probs.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 30, 2011)

no cause some people i know are really looking forward to it and id hate to spoil their day


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2011)

smokedout said:


> no cause some people i know are really looking forward to it and id hate to spoil their day


 
Come on, you could tie this to the press points you've been making (very well) recently.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 30, 2011)

smokedout said:


> no cause some people i know are really looking forward to it and id hate to spoil their day



Looking forward to what?


----------



## Edie (Jul 30, 2011)

No. Cos they should be heard, even if you think they are wrong.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 30, 2011)

Edie said:


> No. Cos they should be heard, even if you think they are wrong.



Indeed.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 31, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Looking forward to what?


 
thats what i said


----------



## cybertect (Jul 31, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Isn't it the Met who give initial approval or otherwise?


 
That was my impression

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_176761




			
				directgov said:
			
		

> Police have many legal powers that can be used to prevent violence or unrest associated with protest. They can, for example, impose limitations on the route of the march, or the location and duration of a rally.
> 
> They will only do that in order to prevent:
> 
> ...



Given the potential nature of an EDL march through Tower Hamlets, they might refuse on grounds 1 or 3 in the list above.




St George's Hall, Cable Street by cybertect, on Flickr


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2011)

Refuse what?



> They can, for example, impose limitations on the route of the march, or the location and duration of a rally.


i.e not stop the thing


----------



## smokedout (Jul 31, 2011)

thanks for the rare endorsement , but im not sure what you mean

i was being flippant, as to the march, i dont think it should be banned for the same boring reasons you gave


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2011)

smokedout said:


> thanks for the rare endorsement , but im not sure what you mean
> 
> i was being flippant, as to the march, i dont think it should be banned for the same boring reasons you gave


 

State policing of opinion, and how it may be expressed.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Forgot my opinion, no the state should not ban the march. It's a bog standard defence that's a bog standard for a reason - it applies. When they ban them, they ban you, they ban us. They ban you from working in public sector jobs. We decide who is banned (ideally like).


 
This.

And, as mentioned before, banning it would feed their martyr complex.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jul 31, 2011)

Have the said published the route they fancy taking?


----------



## krink (Jul 31, 2011)

5t3IIa said:


> Have the said published the route they fancy taking?


 
dealer's gaff, train, weatherspoon's, kettle, weatherspoon's, train, dealer's gaff.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2011)

krink said:


> dealer's gaff, train, weatherspoon's, kettle, weatherspoon's, train, dealer's gaff.


 

West ham?


----------



## audiotech (Jul 31, 2011)

These polls are pointless.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jul 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> West ham?


 
There's that big spoons on the Mile End Road. I think it takes the Anarchist bookfair overspill.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2011)

5t3IIa said:


> There's that big spoons on the Mile End Road. I think it takes the Anarchist bookfair overspill.


 
Not bad that one. Got two bars.


----------



## Corax (Jul 31, 2011)

No it shouldn't.  If I was in charge I'd put a prohibition on banning things.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> West ham?


 west ham in newham


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not bad that one. Got two bars.


 
and about 2 staff


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who does get to decide legally anyway? The home sec? The council?


ultimately, the home sec has the very final say (i.e. there is no-one who can officially over-ride his 'yay' or 'nay', whereas he can over-rule TH council and ignore dibble 'advice') - in theory, law lords can over-rule the home sec (or any politician) via judicial review, but
a) it can only be on the grounds of the HS's ruling being in clear contravention of existing law such as the HRA
and 
b) JR takes so fucking long, of necessity, that by the time m'lud and his learned friends give us the fruits of their delibverations, everyone will have forgotten what the fuss was about anyway


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> and about 2 staff


Don't over egg it


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Isn't it the Met who give initial approval or otherwise?


You do NOT need anyone's approval to hold a march, rally or any form of demo. You simply have to notify the fuzz that you ARE going to do this.
(give em notice for traffic control etc)
Me, I voted 'no'. Firstly for butchers reasons, second because it is important that *everyone*'s right to peaceful political protest is upheld, *especially* wankers like this lot, but most important of all, them marching will probably do them more harm than good. They'll have a march of a few hundred, they'll be laughed at and seen for the hopeless rabble they are, and if they kick off, they'll be heavily outnumbered, this being TH, and prolly get a shoeing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Don't over egg it


 
there's the traditional five minutes wetherspoons wait there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> You do NOT need anyone's approval to hold a march, rally or any form of demo. You simply have to notify the fuzz that you ARE going to do this.
> (give em notice for traffic control etc)
> Me, I voted 'no'. Firstly for butchers reasons, second because it is important that *everyone*'s right to peaceful political protest is upheld, *especially* wankers like this lot, but most important of all, them marching will probably do them more harm than good. They'll have a march of a few hundred, they'll be laughed at and seen for the hopeless rabble they are, and if they kick off, they'll be heavily ourtnumbered, this being TH, and prolly get a shoeing.


 and a booting


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> West ham?


nope, west ham is in LB Newham, east of stratford, and quite some way from TH.
Note to all; TH is (most of) Bow, stepney, whitechapel, mile end, Death Knell Green, poplar, and the Isle of Drugs


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> and a booting


don't wanna get me hopes up too high!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> nope, west ham is in LB Newham, east of stratford, and quite some way from TH.
> Note to all; TH is (most of) Bow, stepney, whitechapel, mile end, Death Knell Green, poplar, and the Isle of Drugs


 
Wasn't a geographical joke.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

BigTom said:


> I think both the council and the police could effectively ban the march by not agreeing to it happening by not agreeing on march routes/assembly points.  Don't know about the home sec..


They could, but the EDL in that case can go to court, where they will almost certainly win, or ultimately the Home Sec, who'd be hard pressed to find a good legalistic reason to deny them. It's their RIGHT to march, just like it's yours.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wasn't a geographical joke.


sorry, thought you were being serious and didn't know the manor


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 31, 2011)

http://www.met.police.uk/events/forms/3175.pdf

This form does NOT give authority for the event to take place


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> http://www.met.police.uk/events/forms/3175.pdf
> 
> This form does NOT give authority for the event to take place


 What's the thread called bob?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 31, 2011)

This is difficult.

My inner libertarian says that if any organisation - even if they are a bunch of loons / cunts / both - want to have a peaceful demonstration, then they have a right to do it.  I'm not keen on the idea of the state (be that government, police, councils) banning marches because the cause isn't popular.

The Police then have a duty to facilitate any legal march and anyone who tries to stop it, or is violent towards those marching is breaking the law.  That's the same whether it's (for example) fascists trying to stop a black / gay rights march, or anti-fascists trying to stop an EDL march.

On the other hand, are the EDL planning a peaceful demonstration, or are they seeking to intimidate the residents of Tower Hamlets and stir up a lot of shit.  And if so, can this be proved - and i mean that from a legal perspective?

Very similar to Lewisham 1977 (very good website here) - the NF broadly got something of a kicking, but this allowed the press to spin the line that the SWP / anti-fascists in general were "just as bad" because they were violent; or in some cases they spun it that the NF were carrying out a legal right to march, and the others were worse because they attacked the police.

And if this specific march is banned, how many of the EDL will turn up anyway, or have a more spontaneous event some time they aren't expected?

I have a feeling that the state has a choice between two wrong answers.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 31, 2011)

What thread?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> sorry, thought you were being serious and didn't know the manor


 
I know all manors. It's why i'm so respected.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> What thread?



This one.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 31, 2011)

Right, yeah i know im just showing people the form, and as i posted before im sure they can ban a march but not a static protest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Right, yeah i know im just showing people the form, and as i posted before im sure they can ban a march but not a static protest.


 
you may be sure but you're still wrong.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 31, 2011)

The EDL have been banned from marching a few times, most recently in Dewsbury where they were taken off the buses provided by the cops and made to go in a big metal fenced off thing and then put on the same buses and driven out of town.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 31, 2011)

> Static demonstrations in the UK cannot be prevented – assured as a fundamental right of freedom of association in any democracy – but the Home Secretary can be asked to intervene and ban a moving demonstration if there exists just cause to do so.



http://iengage.org.uk/component/con...cretary-is-asked-to-ban-edl-march-in-bradford



> Q: But surely if the Home Secretary bans the EDL march they will still come to Tower Hamlets and hold a static protest, so what is the point?
> 
> It is true that the Home Secretary can only ban a march but not a static protest. However, let’s be clear: a static protest is far preferable to the EDL marching through a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood. At least with a static protest the police can bus the EDL in and out of the area, put them in a remote location away from residential and shopping areas and keep a tight control over them.
> 
> Of course we would prefer the EDL not to come at all, but faced with the law as it is, a static protest is the lesser of two evils.



http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/march-of-hate/why-ban


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

sunny jim said:


> The EDL have been banned from marching a few times, most recently in Dewsbury where they were taken off the buses provided by the cops and made to go in a big metal fenced off thing and then put on the same buses and driven out of town.


 
you're talking bollocks. http://www.dewsburyreporter.co.uk/news/local/dewsbury-news/police_prepare_for_edl_1_3442032 - the edl were going to hold a static protest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

and as regards banning A march, the home secretary does not have that power. s/he can ban ALL marches in an area for a certain amount of time, but no one march can be banned, as in this grauniad news report http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/20/english-defence-league-ban


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 31, 2011)

So one scenario could be the pigs setting up 2 static demo points if they ban all marches that day


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

sunny jim said:


> So one scenario could be the pigs setting up 2 static demo points if they ban all marches that day


 
to reiterate, the police cannot ban marches although they can set conditions on them - how long they can last, where they go, how many people on them and so on. they can also do this for static protests.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 31, 2011)

sunny jim said:


> So one scenario could be the pigs setting up 2 static demo points if they ban all marches that day


 
Yeah, then they would bus the EDL in and out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Yeah, then they would bus the EDL in and out.


 
but that's likely to prove hard in an area with a load of public transport links. people will be arriving at liverpool street, fenchurch street, old street, london bridge and a load of other places.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 31, 2011)

I am sure that a ban might feed their victim complex but so what ? The BNP did very well out of portraying  a majority ie white people, as victims.

I am sure that if their was a local poll/referendum local people would vote for the march to be banned. It says something about how they feel about the EDL but it also says something about what role they think the local state should be doing.But it also says something about how over the  years that the notion of community self activity has changed as well.In the 70s it was only a minority ( that included the maoists) who called for the NF to be banned  as people were confident that they could take on the NF.It seems incredible now that in the 1960s Colin Jordans group were allowed to hold a rally blaming the jews and anti fascsists allowed to totally wreck the rally.

The local council and the police cannot financially afford the cost of either policing a demo ( the cost of the static ones to local authorities and the Police has been massive) nor can they afford politically the accusation that whilst money via PREVENT etc has been spent on extremism within Muslim 'communities' that nothing has been done against extremism in the far right.

Searchlight and Hope Not hates lobbying to have the EDL on the counter terrorism strategy simply makes a ban more likely if hypothetically the EDL had any intention of marching.

Meanwhile the underlying causes of the far right remain untouched by either local or central government and by any of the three main parties. A ban simply allows both the causes to fester and at the same time puts a plaster over community cohesion. From the point of both the local and central state a ban would make sense.

The guardian and its ilk will wrestle with their liberal conscience and decide that their are limits to free speech and that the far right are nasty non guardian readers who won't therefore be offended by the Guardians view.


----------



## elfman (Jul 31, 2011)

sunny jim said:


> The EDL have been banned from marching a few times, most recently in Dewsbury where they were taken off the buses provided by the cops and made to go in a big metal fenced off thing and then put on the same buses and driven out of town.


 
Problem with that was that they were bussed over to Leeds city centre where they just started marching round acting like wankers



Also, because they knew they would be kettled in Dewsbury, most of them had a pre-demo march in Batley too after getting pissed up in the local wetherspoons


----------



## Deareg (Jul 31, 2011)

I am surprised at some posters attitude when it comes to banning or not, this march is more about intimidating the Asian community than it is about expressing political opinions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I am surprised at some posters attitude when it comes to banning or not, this march is more about intimidating the Asian community than it is about expressing political opinions.


 
a lot of the asian community are quite looking forward to giving the edl the thrashing they so richly deserve. would you take that away from them?


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2011)

Asian Youth Gangs?

you are loving this...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

treelover said:


> you are loving this...


 
it isn't mcdonald's you know.


----------



## Deareg (Jul 31, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> a lot of the asian community are quite looking forward to giving the edl the thrashing they so richly deserve. would you take that away from them?


 
Not at all, I only wish I could be there myself, I was thinking in more wider terms, not all Asian communities are as strong as Tower Hamlets, and I am pointing out that these EDL marches have fuckall to do with politics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Not at all, I only wish I could be there myself, I was thinking in more wider terms, not all Asian communities are as strong as Tower Hamlets, and I am pointing out that these EDL marches have fuckall to do with politics.


 in your opinion

however, they have a lot to do with politics. if i was to guess i would say that because you think the edl are stupid they cannot therefore have politics. which would be a load of patronising auld shite and the sort of liberal wank which rather misses the point with what's going on with the edl.


----------



## Deareg (Jul 31, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> in your opinion


 
I don't claim to be offering anything other that my opinion. What then in your opinion are these march's about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I don't claim to be offering anything other that my opinion. What then in your opinion are these march's about?


 
i'm taking issue with your claim that these marches have fuck all to do with politics.


----------



## Deareg (Jul 31, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm taking issue with your claim that these marches have fuck all to do with politics.


 
I accept that I over simplified that point but I have three grand kids running mad around the house while I am trying to type.

Still think though that they are more about intimidating people than expressing a political viewpoint.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I accept that I over simplified that point but I have three grand kids running mad around the house while I am trying to type.


 
most children are grand


----------



## Deareg (Jul 31, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> most children are grand


 
They have there moments


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> They have there moments


 
but they should be ornaments to the eye and not agony to the ear.


----------



## Deareg (Jul 31, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> but they should be ornaments to the eye and not agony to the ear.


 
You got that right.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 31, 2011)

As I've long stated on these boards and elsewhere, I'm not in favour of banning.
Not just because of "the slippery slope" that creates (if it's the EDL today, will it be students protesting against tuition fees or people with disabilities protesting against the latest attacks on their entitlement to welfare tomorrow?), but also because the "politics" and beliefs of people like Amjit Choudhary and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and their followers need to be shown up, in public, for the malicious, offensive _dreck_ that they are: Shit believed by the ignorant, the intellectually-lazy and the willfully-vicious.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 31, 2011)

dylanredefined said:


> Not unless its obvious its really going to kick off and the police wouldn't be able to control it.Then they would have no choice ,but,to ban it.


 
Banning for generic "public order" reasons is different to banning based on the ideology of the marchers, though.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 31, 2011)

Problem is the EDL are poisonous cunts.
 A lot of people who would want to be involved in fighting then edl are as obnoxious and like the edl will make a lot more noise than locals who just want the edl to fuck off.
   The police can't let the locals and the edl fight it out that's never going to happen.
   shouldn't be banned on ideology grounds.
 Although if it looks like its going to be a major cause of public order then tough


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 31, 2011)

They will need more police than EDL to keep them safe, i would say after last week they might pull 2-3k max.

Will be intresting to see what happens in the next few weeks.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I think there should be some way of giving the host community a say in whether or not they should be allowed through.


 
Ideally I think that's what BA is saying, certainly one i'd agree with. And as for the question in the OP, exactly as ba says and there's the obvious precedent of the Public Order Act, ostensibly brought in to 'stop' Mosley and Co but far more often used against the 'Left/working-class'.


----------



## Deareg (Jul 31, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Ideally I think that's what BA is saying, certainly one i'd agree with. And as for the question in the OP, exactly as ba says and there's the obvious precedent of the Public Order Act, ostensibly brought in to 'stop' Mosley and Co but far more often used against the 'Left/working-class'.


 
That is the main reason why I feel the state should not be allowed to say who gets to demonstrate and who doesn't, but I feel that maybe sometimes that is a better option than people having to endure these bastards coming into areas where not only are they not welcome but they will also instil fear and a sense of isolation into certain people and also the very real possibility of attacks on people and there property.

My first preference would be to allow them in and then kick the shit out of them but as we all know, that is not always an option. 

It is about finding the right balance and I can never see the British state allowing us real democracy to decide ourselves on these type of issues.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> My first preference would be to allow them in and then kick the shit out of them but as we all know, that is not always an option.


it's on the cards though


----------



## Deareg (Jul 31, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> it's on the cards though


 
In this instance but it wont always be so.


----------



## revlon (Jul 31, 2011)

just on a legal technicality, any group must apply for permission to hold a march. You have to apply in writing to the police at least six days in advnace of the proposed march stating - date, time , route and at least one named organiser.

If the police believe that the proposed march will end in "serious public disorder" they can apply to the council for an order prohibiting the march. The council can then gain authority from the secretary of state to impose a ban.

Alternatively the Met police and city of london police can apply directly to the secretary of state granting an order to prohibit the march. The order should be made in writing.

A public assembly (a static demo) needs no permission, authority or approval of the police, the council of the state. The laws that govern processions don't apply to static assemblies.

All this is covered in law - section 11 to section 13 of the public order act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/11

Should the edl be banned from holding a march - no.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

revlon said:


> just on a legal technicality, any group must apply for permission to hold a march. You have to apply in writing to the police at least six days in advnace of the proposed march stating - date, time , route and at least one named organiser.
> 
> If the police believe that the proposed march will end in "serious public disorder" they can apply to the council for an order prohibiting the march. The council can then gain authority from the secretary of state to impose a ban.
> 
> ...


 you're spouting more bollocks on this subject. A march cannot be banned; ALL marches for a certain period can be. so saying that the secretary of state can grant an order to prohibit THE march is a load of old shit: and in the circumstances a dangerous load of old shit. there are NO circumstances in which one procession can be banned while a second, planned for the same area on the same day, can go ahead. if you can't see how this could be dangerous in tower hamlets then you're even dafter than i thought you were.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Not at all, I only wish I could be there myself, I was thinking in more wider terms, not all Asian communities are as strong as Tower Hamlets, and I am pointing out that these EDL marches have fuckall to do with politics.


 
A nonsensical statement. Politics to me includes all the power relations in all human activity. If I were to accept a narrower definition of politics than that, it wouldn't be so narrow as to exclude EDL marches. You're working to some definition of politics that exists in your head and you can't expect others to follow. Not only that, you are justifying a state intervention on the grounds of it being an apolitical intervention - a dangerous thing to do when our political leaders like depoliticising actions themselves. Dismantling the NHS isn't political, it's just an efficiency exercise. Clearing demonstrators from Trafalgar Square isn't political - they weren't even 'real' demonstrators.

Meanwhile, if the state bans the poisonous EDL march, who will shut Oliver Letwin's poisonous fucking mouth? For the sake of consistency if nothing else we should point to one set of people who can and should both fight the EDL and end Oliver Letwin's career: us.


----------



## revlon (Jul 31, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you're spouting more bollocks on this subject. A march cannot be banned; ALL marches for a certain period can be. so saying that the secretary of state can grant an order to prohibit THE march is a load of old shit: and in the circumstances a dangerous load of old shit. there are NO circumstances in which one procession can be banned while a second, planned for the same area on the same day, can go ahead. if you can't see how this could be dangerous in tower hamlets then you're even dafter than i thought you were.


 
 No idea what any of that means, and none of it particularly relates to public order law.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 31, 2011)

likesfish said:


> Problem is the EDL are poisonous cunts.
> A lot of people who would want to be involved in fighting then edl are as obnoxious and like the edl...



If you're talking about UAF, then "fight" isn't quite the right word, although "obnoxious" my be.



> will make a lot more noise than locals who just want the edl to fuck off.
> The police can't let the locals and the edl fight it out that's never going to happen.
> shouldn't be banned on ideology grounds.
> Although if it looks like its going to be a major cause of public order then tough



It's a shame the the bill are unlikely to allow the EDL to receive a kicking, because getting a proper teeth-down-the-throat booting usually sees off the racists for a generation or so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 31, 2011)

revlon said:


> just on a legal technicality, any group must apply for permission to hold a march. You have to apply in writing to the police at least six days in advnace of the proposed march stating - date, time , route and at least one named organiser.
> 
> If the police believe that the proposed march will end in "serious public disorder" they can apply to the council for an order prohibiting the march. The council can then gain authority from the secretary of state to impose a ban.
> 
> Alternatively the Met police and city of london police can apply directly to the secretary of state granting an order to prohibit the march. The order should be made in writing.



Nope, the order that gets applied for is blanket. It bans *any and all marches* within a denominated area, rather than a specific march.

Of course it has the *effect* of banning a specific march if there's only one march scheduled, but that's a by--product rather than a policy.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

revlon said:


> No idea what any of that means, and none of it particularly relates to public order law.


the only conclusion i can draw is that you're very fucking thick.

the act you quote makes it clear a particular march cannot be banned: all marches in an area have to be banned. do you comprehend this?

giving the impression, as you and others do, that ONE march can be banned while ANOTHER can go ahead, could lead to severe problems in tower hamlets if that view is held by a large number of residents and the edl march (and indeed all demonstrations over a certain period) is banned. the volatile situation could lead to a large riot in which locals do not come off best.

that is why it is dangerous.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, the order that gets applied for is blanket. It bans *any and all marches* within a denominated area, rather than a specific march.
> 
> Of course it has the *effect* of banning a specific march if there's only one march scheduled, but that's a by--product rather than a policy.


 and there are TWO marches scheduled for sept 3 in tower hamlets, the uaf demonstration and the edl demonstration.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 31, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you're talking about UAF, then "fight" isn't quite the right word, although "obnoxious" my be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TopCat (Jul 31, 2011)

revlon said:


> No idea what any of that means, and none of it particularly relates to public order law.


 
Would you like bigger font and type to make reading easier?


----------



## Deareg (Jul 31, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> A nonsensical statement. Politics to me includes all the power relations in all human activity. If I were to accept a narrower definition of politics than that, it wouldn't be so narrow as to exclude EDL marches. You're working to some definition of politics that exists in your head and you can't expect others to follow. Not only that, you are justifying a state intervention on the grounds of it being an apolitical intervention - a dangerous thing to do when our political leaders like depoliticising actions themselves. Dismantling the NHS isn't political, it's just an efficiency exercise. Clearing demonstrators from Trafalgar Square isn't political - they weren't even 'real' demonstrators.
> 
> Meanwhile, if the state bans the poisonous EDL march, who will shut Oliver Letwin's poisonous fucking mouth? For the sake of consistency if nothing else we should point to one set of people who can and should both fight the EDL and end Oliver Letwin's career: us.



I don't see how believing that working class people should have as much control as possible over the things that affect our own lives and communities is proving to be so debatable.


----------



## Corax (Jul 31, 2011)

I don't understand how the EDL marches can be claimed to be 'not about politics'.  Wanting to ban the building of mosques, is a political aim.  Wanting to restrict immigration, is a political aim.  Wanting to minimise the sale of halal meat, is a political aim.  It may be politics based on ignorance and racism, but it's still politics.


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2011)

Some of the media (and some eyewitnesses) were reporting there were hundreds supporting Choudarys 'Muslims Against Crusades' on Saturday, is this correct, don't think those numbers can be just wished away or relativised as some on here seem to desire..


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 31, 2011)

Going off the pics i saw on demotix, there was a fair amount of support.


----------



## dylans (Jul 31, 2011)

treelover said:


> Some of the media (and some eyewitnesses) were reporting there were hundreds supporting Choudarys 'Muslims Against Crusades' on Saturday, is this correct, don't think those numbers can be just wished away or relativised as some on here seem to desire..


 
Those numbers can be wished away because they are bollocks. There was about 50 to 70. For a national demonstration!! Clearly this is a major threat to our way of life.





> When I arrived at the time the protest was due to start there were only a couple of people present, and half an hour later when we were assured the event would begin there were still less than twenty, and they were outnumbered both by the press and the police. Clearly it was not a local protest, as there were phone calls from those in other parts of London asking for directions on how to get the the starting place, and by around 1.20 when the march finally started the numbers there were over 50 men, with a few joining later to bring the total to around 70 when I made a careful count. There were no women marchers.



Much more important was the reaction of local people to this idiocy.



> The more general response from Muslims on the street seemed to be summed up by one shopkeeper who came to his shop doorway to ask a colleague of mine what was happening. On being told it was Mr Choudary he shrugged his shoulders and lifted his eyes to heaven. Like most I heard comment, he thought that activities such as this give Muslims a bad name.





> As the march moved onto the square for a final rally there were some minor scuffles in a large crowd of Muslim youth, some of whom I think were objecting to the MAC protest. Police moved in quickly but a few of the young men grabbed cameras or pushed photographers who were trying to photograph what was happening. But the troublemakers quickly evaporated and the rally continued without problems, next to a group of black evangelical Christians preparing to play and sing when they were finished.



http://www.demotix.com/news/772325/muslims-march-sharia-law-zones-uk


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2011)

''The amount of our own sons and daughters who have been affected by the non-Islamic culture is shocking, to the extent the Muslim youth today see no problem in having boyfriends and girlfriends; how common is it we see the youth leaving college together and to see your own daughters/sisters with a foreign man!''

Get on to them anti-fascists!

'foreign man' lol....


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2011)

'Those numbers can be wished away because they are bollocks. There was about 50 to 70. For a national demonstration!! Clearly this is a major threat to our way of life.'


Fair enough on actual numbers, but I can remember B/M and NF marches with those sort of numbers and the response was ferocious, students particularly going mental, MAC aren't as far as I know as violent as say, B/M were, but lets have some consistency...

btw, Choudarys looking old, all that drinking and drugs while at Uni...


----------



## nastybobby (Jul 31, 2011)

From what I've seen of the EDL demos up here in West Yorks, they never actually get to march. They are kettled in a designated area, they kick-off for a while, a few get nicked, the copper-chopper keeps an eye on 'em and they eventually get bored and do one. I think they'll eventually get bored or sick of getting nicked and they'll hopefully fade away after a few more years. IME the numbers at the EDL demos I've seen seem to be falling rather than growing, the Bradford one they were calling the 'big one' last year was anything but!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 31, 2011)

@the_dbh Today we got 800 signatures in Tower Hamlets to support *banning* the EDL's march of hate

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/march-of-hate/activists


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2011)

How many did HNH get for MAC's March Of Hate'


----------



## sihhi (Jul 31, 2011)

treelover said:


> Some of the media (and some eyewitnesses) were reporting there were hundreds supporting Choudarys 'Muslims Against Crusades' on Saturday, is this correct, don't think those numbers can be just wished away or relativised as some on here seem to desire..



Who are these eyewitnesses?

Local media say 50.
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/9165986.WALTHAM_FOREST__Extremists_plan_rival_protests/


> Around 50 members of Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) and Waltham Forest Muslims (WFM) marched for two hours from Leyton Tube station to Walthamstow town square.


Are local media going to lie quite so flagrantly? That would reduce their credibility, given that local readers might have seen the march pass. At a push I'd say 100.

The people invited to the march 


> The Islamic Council of Britain
> The Society of Muslim Lawyers
> The Shariah Court of the UK
> The International Shariah Court
> ...



all the same front group for the Izzadeen/Choudary Islamist grouping 

He admits is aswell:
“Al-Muhajiroun has many organs which are active within society under its leadership. These organs specialize in different fields, such as: the Society of Muslim Lawyers, the Society of Converts to Islam, the Society of Muslim Parents, the London School of Shari’ah, the Shari’ah Court of the UK, the Society of Muslim Students, the Islamic World League, the Muslim Cultural Society and the Party of the Future.”

The police blocked both sides of the road, and kept some far right in a pub other far-right demostrated, plus there were lots of pedestrians on the pavements so it might have looked bigger than it was.

Is this hundreds?






http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/36525



> We didn’t see any in Hoe Street, at the Bakers Arms, or in Lea Bridge Road north of Bakers Arms up to the Whipps Cross round about. On the way up Leyton High Road towards the Noor al Islam mosque  we saw one, at Leyton Green.  That white building behind is now Ladbrokes the bookmakers (gambling – NO!!!)
> 
> We spotted maybe a dozen; not the hundreds and thousands threatened. I know that none were spotted mid-week in Walthamstow market, the shopping mall and the vicinity.



I was in the pedestrianised length of Walthamstow Market last week and didn't see any.

They had 12 posters according to the police:



> Police and the council say they are only aware of 12 of the posters being spotted in the borough.
> Anjem Choudary, who ran the now banned Islam4UK group, has declared he is responsible for the posters which claim that "Islamic rules are enforced" banning music, alcohol, gambling, drug use and prostitution.



http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/9165986.WALTHAM_FOREST__Extremists_plan_rival_protests/

Doing a counter-protest like the English Nationalist Alliance did is about ultimately fairly meaningless 






(No meaningless jokes about the triple-S in oppressive please)

because the UK far-right desperately need more Islamist far-rights and quickly, if they don't emerge soon then Geert Wilders mantra they support "it's five minutes to midnight" starts to sound dumb. 

If you're serious about opposing aspects of Islamic culture domestic violence etc join the struggle to keep women's shelters open. 

You're not going to break apart Islamism and reactionary aspects of Islamic chauvanism by repeating 'there's a problem with Islam, people are too scared to discuss it'. People discuss it Islam the time, on the left, on the centre, on the right, they might talk nonsense about it but they do discuss it.
Get talking to actual young Muslims, try to engage them as actual fellow citizens not as Muslims, however much the EDL claim to be more equal citizens they are unable to see Muslims as fellow citizens suffering cuts because they don't care about cuts. Ask them for advice on how to make anti-cuts action stronger in amongst people from Pakistani Bengali whatever origins. Let's assume that they know more about how to stop cuts than we do. I certainly don't know how to stup cuts and am happy to hear advice from ordinary w/class practising Sunnis. They might also offer something concrete on how to reduce Islamic chauvanism. Now is a good time to do it because it is Ramadan and fast breaking time in the evening might be a good time to offer some food and get talking. Not that all practising Sunnis fast either. Obviously if people start repeating that what people need to do is stop drinking alcohol, start going to church or mosque regularly, have religious schools for all, then the only way is workplace struggle.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 31, 2011)

sihhi said:


> (No meaningless jokes about the triple-S in oppressive please)



lol @ Bill


----------



## sihhi (Jul 31, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'Those numbers can be wished away because they are bollocks. There was about 50 to 70. For a national demonstration!! Clearly this is a major threat to our way of life.'
> 
> Fair enough on actual numbers, but I can remember B/M and NF marches with those sort of numbers and the response was ferocious, students particularly going mental, MAC aren't as far as I know as violent as say, B/M were, but lets have some consistency...
> 
> btw, Choudarys looking old, all that drinking and drugs while at Uni...



What exactly is your strategy? Rounding up all lefties Hackney, Waltham Forest, Haringey to provide a "ferocious" response. How many arrests and then legal cases are acceptable in pursuit of that goal? 30, 50, 100?

You might aswell say the NF aren't as violent as the UDR why weren't there protests against 

It's meaningless  British army regiments are more violent than the BM or MAC - should they be responded to ferociously. 

After all you can argue MAC emerged in its new guise as a result of confronting what it saw as fascism British Middle-East-occupying forces.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I know all manors. It's why i'm so respected.


ermm...yes, absolutely! (blimey, your wit has been even drier and more cryptic than usual on this thread!)


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I am pointing out that these EDL marches have fuckall to do with politics.


what on earth do you mean by that? 
I'd have said the march has quite a lot to do with politics


----------



## Deareg (Jul 31, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> what on earth do you mean by that?
> I'd have said the march has quite a lot to do with politics


 
I have already explained that I was typing with 3 grand kids running riot, I actually meant that they are more to do with intimidation than politics, of the few EDL members that I have met they were not politically motivated, more racist idiots. I think that the EDL are a dangerous movement as they seem to have fooled a number of black and Asians into going along for the ride.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I don't see how believing that working class people should have as much control as possible over the things that affect our own lives and communities is proving to be so debatable.


It isn't, and there is nothing stopping the working class community of TH turning out and giving the EDL neanderthals a right good pasting, however, the EDL still have rights, including the right to express themselves politically.
By - for instance - marching


----------



## Deareg (Jul 31, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> It isn't, and there is nothing stopping the working class community of TH turning out and giving the EDLO neanderthals a right good pasting, however, the EDL still have rights, including the right to express themselves politically.
> By - for instance - marching


 
If the EDL have the right of expression then the communities in whose areas that they wish to march through also have the right not to have to put up with the disruption and threats of violence that these shitheads bring with them. why should any community have to resort to violence and the risk of long terms of imprisonment just because of some racist wankers?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

treelover said:


> Some of the media (and some eyewitnesses) were reporting there were hundreds supporting Choudarys 'Muslims Against Crusades' on Saturday, is this correct, don't think those numbers can be just wished away or relativised as some on here seem to desire..


It's rubbish. dylans and demotix have it right; 50-70 at most. out of curiosity, what with this being my manor, I went and had a crafty butchers at the start of the march. I saw NO-ONE I recognised from our substantial local muslim community, and if anything the march was ignored, in eye-rolling fashion, by the local community.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> If the EDL have the right of expression then the communities in whose areas that they wish to march through also have the right not to have to put up with the disruption and threats of violence that these shitheads bring with them. why should any community have to resort to violence and the risk of long terms of imprisonment just because of some racist wankers?


Because it's _your_ right to march, and therefore the EDL's as well, however abhorrent I find them. and threats of violence can be dealt with within the frame work of the law - self-defence no crime.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I have already explained that I was typing with 3 grand kids running riot, I actually meant that they are more to do with intimidation than politics, of the few EDL members that I have met they were not politically motivated, more racist idiots. I think that the EDL are a dangerous movement as they seem to have fooled a number of black and Asians into going along for the ride.


OK, sorry,fair enough, I see your point. However - racism is an implicitly political concept. poisonous, but political. tbf, I've met EDLers like that too - but I've also met a few with what I'd have to call developed politics. I agree they're dangerous, though.
e2a; don't think you can separate the intimidation from the 'political'. It's philosophically motivated, as it were


----------



## Deareg (Jul 31, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Because it's _your_ right to march, and therefore the EDL's as well, however abhorrent I find them. and threats of violence can be dealt with within the frame work of the law - self-defence no crime.


 
Well it should not be a right, if the EDL want to march then they should stay in areas with like minded people, then they can march until there feet fall off, you have more faith in the law that I do and when any one goes before the judge be they locals or anti fascists you will soon see whether in the eyes of the law self defence is no crime.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

Also, nothing to stop TH people from a counter-demonstration


----------



## Deareg (Jul 31, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Also, nothing to stop TH people froma counter-demonstration


 
I hope that the EDL have the shit kicked out of them if they are foolish enough to try and march through, I don't believe that freedom of expression should extend to large scale intimidation of entire communities.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Well it should not be a right, if the EDL want to march then they should stay in areas with like minded people, then they can march until there feet fall off, you have more faith in the law that I do and when any one goes before the judge be they locals or anti fascists you will soon see whether in the eyes of the law self defence is no crime.


Oh please don't get me wrong, I have *absolutely no doubt* that the law will be heavily biased against those protesting against or attempting to physically stop the EDL - it always is.
however, all this doesn't affect one rather important point; if the EDL should not have the full rights of political protest and demonstration that everyone else has - then why should you or I?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I don't believe that freedom of expression should extend to large scale intimidation of entire communities.


neither do I, but unfortunately they have a legally rock-solid argument that their march is no more and no less about intimidation than any other march (like for one by, say, the animal welfare league). 
Also, this community (TH) I am confident, cannot and will not be intimidated.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 31, 2011)

If they don't march (or just have a static demo) in TH they'll lose face.

I reckon they can't not go for it now.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I don't see how believing that working class people should have as much control as possible over the things that affect our own lives and communities is proving to be so debatable.


 
Your inability to distinguish between 'working class people having control' and the use of a top-down state apparatus to enforce something you believe to be the wishes of the working class probably renders the continuation of this conversation pointless.


----------



## Deareg (Jul 31, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> Your inability to distinguish between 'working class people having control' and the use of a top-down state apparatus to enforce something you believe to be the wishes of the working class probably renders the continuation of this conversation pointless.


 
You have lost me now. Are you saying that working class people have control?


----------



## likesfish (Jul 31, 2011)

edl is the group for people who want to go hit Muslims but are too scared/stupid to join the army and go to Afghanistan. its politics for morons.
 chourdary is hoping they march so they cause trouble and he can claim he's the answer.
 if chourdary can get more publicity the edl can there is a problem and they are the answer. Its like a feedback loop of stupid


----------



## lazyhack (Aug 1, 2011)

I think the EDL should march through Hackney Wick, I would turn a blind eye.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 1, 2011)

likesfish said:


> edl is the group for people who want to go hit Muslims but are too scared/stupid to join the army and go to Afghanistan.


 
Hmmmn...


----------



## smokedout (Aug 1, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> and if anything the march was ignored, in eye-rolling fashion, by the local community.



which is the correct response, shame a few more people didnt adopt that tactic with the EDL a few years ago


----------



## dylans (Aug 1, 2011)

smokedout said:


> which is the correct response, shame a few more people didnt adopt that tactic with the EDL a few years ago


 
Hard to ignore a gang of thugs marching down your high street bricking your windows and calling your mom a P##i though I would think.


----------



## revlon (Aug 1, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, the order that gets applied for is blanket. It bans *any and all marches* within a denominated area, rather than a specific march.
> 
> Of course it has the *effect* of banning a specific march if there's only one march scheduled, but that's a by--product rather than a policy.


 
you are absolutely right. The process of prohibiting the edl march will affect any and all proposed marches (as far as i am aware, no other group is planning or has applied to hold a public procession on september 3rd). 

But where i do disagree -  for the edl march to be banned they can only use the law as it is formulated to achieve that aim. The police would much prefer to be able to ban marches at their discretion, they cannot, so must use the available law open to them. 

The process remains the same though. Hope not hate cannot ask the home secretary to ban a march. If there is a fear of serious disorder the police may put restrictions on a march, if that isn't enough, apply for a ban. The home secretary's approval is, despite the politicing, formal rubber stamp.



Pickman's model said:


> ....


You on the other hand are just a weirdo.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 1, 2011)

dylans said:


> Hard to ignore a gang of thugs marching down your high street bricking your windows and calling your mom a P##i though I would think.



How many marches have they had btw?


----------



## dylans (Aug 1, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> How many marches have they had btw?


 
In total? About 30 since 2009 I think


----------



## Onket (Aug 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wooten Basset


 
You could at least attempt to get it halfway near to being the correct spelling.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 1, 2011)

dylans said:


> Hard to ignore a gang of thugs marching down your high street bricking your windows and calling your mom a P##i though I would think.


agreed, the two need totally different responses. If they start that shit in TH, they'll get slapped.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 1, 2011)

dylans said:


> In total? About 30 since 2009 I think


 
Marches or static protests?


----------



## dylans (Aug 2, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Marches or static protests?


 
No idea. I presume lots remained static despite their wishes to march because of heavy policing. But some of their most violent events, (such as Dudley when some of them broke through police lines and went on the rampage causing £500.000 of damage), have been static


----------



## smokedout (Aug 2, 2011)

dylans said:


> (such as Dudley when some of them broke through police lines and went on the rampage causing £500.000 of damage), have been static



this isnt actually true is it, they broke a few windows and scratched a couple of cars

the policing bill is what cost £500,000 - http://www.stourbridgenews.co.uk/news/8283497.EDL_protest_bill_tops_half_a_million_pounds/


----------



## FreddyB (Aug 2, 2011)

I hope their march isn't banned. It's what they want.


----------



## dylans (Aug 2, 2011)

smokedout said:


> this isnt actually true is it, they broke a few windows and scratched a couple of cars
> 
> the policing bill is what cost £500,000 - http://www.stourbridgenews.co.uk/news/8283497.EDL_protest_bill_tops_half_a_million_pounds/


 
Fair enough on the bill but it was more than "a few windows" They attacked peoples homes, businesses, cars, Asian people in their cars and even a Hindu Temple



> “Amongst the premises attacked were residential homes around Alexandra Street, cars parked in roads surrounding Stafford Street, restaurants on Wolverhampton Street and the Hindu Temple.



http://www.stourbridgenews.co.uk/news/8283497.EDL_protest_bill_tops_half_a_million_pounds/


----------



## smokedout (Aug 2, 2011)

dylans said:


> Fair enough on the bill but it was more than "a few windows" They attacked peoples homes, businesses, cars, Asian people in their cars and even a Hindu Temple



obviously im not defending it, or acting as an apologist, its just that this constant talking them up has made them into what they are today


----------



## dylans (Aug 2, 2011)

smokedout said:


> obviously im not defending it, or acting as an apologist, its just that this constant talking them up has made them into what they are today


 
The point is that they are a violent mob of thugs who will, if given the opportunity, attack Asian people and their property. For that reason, community organised opposition is a legitimate act of self defence


----------



## smokedout (Aug 2, 2011)

dylans said:


> For that reason, community organised opposition is a legitimate act of self defence



i'm not disputing that, and if they do come to tower hamlets (and its a very big if) they will very likely find that's exactly what happens

they got a hiding in wembley, and that genuinely was community organised opposition, what's happened since then often hasnt been


----------



## dylans (Aug 2, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i'm not disputing that, and if they do come to tower hamlets (and its a very big if) they will very likely find that's exactly what happens
> 
> they got a hiding in wembley, and that genuinely was community organised opposition, what's happened since then often hasnt been


 
I agree and I am no fan of the tedious UAF with their ridiculous "Nazi's out" slogans. (which you are correct to say hypes them into something they are not) I do however, defend the rights of local communities to organise against them. This, above all, is a democratic, empowering act of self defence, something that banning them as the likes of HNH want completely bypasses. On the whole, I think we agree


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2011)

Why _are_ the UAF so crap?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 2, 2011)

Corax said:


> Why _are_ the UAF so crap?


 
Hard one to answer, but my own take is that, as an associate organisation to the SWP, they're kind of pre-destined to be shite. They represent themselves as *the* route of anti-fascism and anti-racism, but like their Swappie contemporaries, they're *usually* more at home shouting slogans than getting their knuckles bruised. Without that innate commitment to resisting fascists by all means necessary, they're never going to be more than a crap talking (or shouting) shop for student revolutionaries.


----------



## dylans (Aug 2, 2011)

Corax said:


> Why _are_ the UAF so crap?


 
I think a lot of it is ideological. They have an incorrect understanding of what the EDL represent and very little concern for understanding the ideological uniqueness of both the EDL and of the new right in general., As a consequence they are locked into an unimaginative and dogmatic time warp of their own making in which it is the 70s all over again in which the battles against the NF are merely being repeated with the UAF  a clone of the ANL. It's a dangerous and wrong headed approach which wrongly characterises the EDL as "Nazis" and substitutes the busing in of activists (and recruiting for the SWP) for genuinely local community action. Frankly it is only on account of the EDL being incompetent and internally incoherent that they are not more of a threat than they are. It's certainly no thanks to the UAF.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 2, 2011)

Banning them will make them martyrs and bring them sympathy.


----------



## past caring (Aug 2, 2011)




----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Banning them will make them martyrs and bring them sympathy.


 
no, killing them and waving their heads on pikes would make them martyrs. but even that wouldn't bring them much sympathy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2011)

Corax said:


> Why _are_ the UAF so crap?


further to previous replies:

1) because they exist to build the party;

2) because they've tried so hard in the past to be all things to all people, so even people like cameron have signed up to them. this limits their freedom for manoeuvre, even if they wanted to be effective.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2011)

Three good answers, thanks.


----------



## revlon (Aug 2, 2011)

Socialist worker comes down on the side of the anti-ban brigade.

_Socialists should never look to the state to deal with fascists.... 

_ 

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=25575


----------



## smokedout (Aug 2, 2011)

revlon said:


> Socialist worker comes down on the side of the anti-ban brigade.
> 
> _Socialists should never look to the state to deal with fascists....
> 
> _


_

as the battle of stalingrad raged a trotskyite sect staged a rock concert in a field several miles away with ms dynamite, billy bragg and tony benn as guest speaker

(this is not a defence of stalin, a ban, or anything, just an image that wouldnt leave my mind alone)_


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2011)

_sting singing on the roof of the barbican_


----------



## smokedout (Aug 2, 2011)

that could work, need to find someone ethnic as a support act though


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2011)

revlon said:


> Socialist worker comes down on the side of the anti-ban brigade.
> 
> _Socialists should never look to the state to deal with fascists....
> 
> ...


 
I know everyone hates them and everything, but I find that to be a statement I can agree with.


----------



## burnleyite (Aug 2, 2011)

Would love it if a comedian came on and did a comedy sketch on the EDL (wouldnt be hard, they are just too funny with some of their antics, especially ray guns) with a huge loudspeaker and everyone instead of holding placards about nazi scum had funny pictures of the EDL. A bit like russell howard (who isnt remotely funny normally but his EDL sketch had me in fits). That would really wind them up, everyone laughing at them and ignoring their stupid chants.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2011)

_Lurk moar..._


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2011)

Corax said:


> I know everyone hates them and everything, but I find that to be a statement I can agree with.


 
Not really one that _they_ can agree with though, given their series of calls for state bans on demos and even banning people from entry to the country because of their views. Almost like it's opportunistically worthwhile to argue this view at this point.

(Will that do?)


----------



## smokedout (Aug 2, 2011)

burnleyite said:


> Would love it if a comedian came on and did a comedy sketch on the EDL (wouldnt be hard, they are just too funny with some of their antics, especially ray guns) with a huge loudspeaker and everyone instead of holding placards about nazi scum had funny pictures of the EDL. A bit like russell howard (who isnt remotely funny normally but his EDL sketch had me in fits). That would really wind them up, everyone laughing at them and ignoring their stupid chants.


 
this is a great idea.  you should join your local UAF branch and push for it.  really push for it, they might seem resistant at first (conservative old bunch that they are) but keep bringing it up.  and dont be put off if they dont get it the first time, just keep bringing it up at meetings.  and try talk to them in the pub about it afterwards as well.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> (Will that do?)


 
Sorry, I don't get that bit?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2011)

Quite surprised at the results of the poll btw.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2011)

Corax said:


> Sorry, I don't get that bit?



I was putting up the bog standard correct reaction and asking an imaginary editor if it would do.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I was putting up the bog standard correct reaction and asking an imaginary editor if it would do.


 
Ah, I getcha.  Very Hislop.

Great stuff guys!


----------



## cantsin (Aug 2, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Banning them will feed their martyr complex.
> 
> Letting them march will give the wannabe jihadis an excuse to act out the illusion of defending their comunities.
> 
> ...



so local youth who dont want the EDL on their streets and are willing to confront them are " jihadi's " and "arses " and it's all a "pantomine " eh ? wtf ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> _sting singing on the roof of the barbican_


 
Every time you write that I end up playing the entirety of "Four lads Who Shook The Wirral", you bastard!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2011)

haha


----------



## lazyhack (Aug 2, 2011)

Are there any non-UAF non-ALARM/Wombles antifascists active in TH worth linking up with? Not in my official capacity, obv.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2011)

lazyhack said:


> Not in my official capacity, obv.


 
hmm.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2011)

lazyhack said:


> Are there any non-UAF non-ALARM/Wombles antifascists active in TH worth linking up with? Not in my official capacity, obv.


 
try some of the gangs


----------



## smokedout (Aug 3, 2011)

lazyhack said:


> Are there any non-UAF non-ALARM/Wombles antifascists active in TH worth linking up with? Not in my official capacity, obv.


 
theres a plan for a comedian to come and do a comedy sketch on the EDL with a huge loudspeaker and everyone instead of holding placards about nazi scum will have funny pictures of the EDL. 

pm burnleyite for details (but keep it under your hat)


----------



## Corax (Aug 3, 2011)

_Shhh._


----------



## lazyhack (Aug 3, 2011)

smokedout said:


> theres a plan for a comedian to come and do a comedy sketch on the EDL with a huge loudspeaker and everyone instead of holding placards about nazi scum will have funny pictures of the EDL.
> 
> pm burnleyite for details (but keep it under your hat)



Almost as good a plan as 'ignore them and they'll go away', someone should suggest 'after them, us!'


----------



## lazyhack (Aug 3, 2011)

Corax said:


> hmm.


 
I've been an antifascist longer than I've been a hack, plus I live in TH. Will find out through other means, bit much asking on public forum. I get it.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 3, 2011)

Corax said:


> I know everyone hates them and everything, but I find that to be a statement I can agree with.


 


> bans are a dangerous idea because they encourage passivity.


  quite a bit of truth in that which i could have tried to have developed in my previous post about people rlying on the state/local council rather than self activity


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Quite surprised at the results of the poll btw.


 
And you thought urban was just for the nasty things in life. 

What are the feelings of Tower Hamlets residents in all this (haven't fully read the thread, this may have been dealt with, for all I know)?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 3, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> And you thought urban was just for the nasty things in life.
> 
> What are the feelings of Tower Hamlets residents in all this (haven't fully read the thread, this may have been dealt with, for all I know)?


I live quite near there, spend a lot of time there, and as far as one can glean, they regard it as a pain in the arse but not worth getting het up over


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I live quite near there, spend a lot of time there, and as far as one can glean, they regard it as a pain in the arse but not worth getting het up over


 
er...

i don't think that's the case, the edl's incursion being one of the major topics of conversation in whitechapel atm


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 3, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> er...
> 
> i don't think that's the case, the edl's incursion being one of the major topics of conversation in whitechapel atm


Really? I'll willingly concede my vantage point on local feelings isn't perfect, but do say more...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Really? I'll willingly concede my vantage point on local feelings isn't perfect, but do say more...


 
i will later. have to go back to work now


----------



## lazyhack (Aug 3, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> er...
> 
> i don't think that's the case, the edl's incursion being one of the major topics of conversation in whitechapel atm



Perhaps in the circles you move in. Living in the area I would say about 95% of people aren't aware the EDL are planning to march there.


----------



## Pinette (Aug 3, 2011)

I think the march should go ahead. They are a bunch of complete idiots anyway.  Let them get on with it. I believe in free speech and freedom to express ones views and if these wankers want to get together and have a wankerish march through the streets of Tower Hamlets then let them wanker.  No-one of reasonable intelligence should be anywhere near them anyway. Please don't pollute yourselves with mounting a protest against filth of this kind. I despise these people with all my heart. Let them just get on with it. Turn your backs to them.  Don't react. Yet.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 3, 2011)

Pinette said:


> I think the march should go ahead. They are a bunch of complete idiots anyway.  Let them get on with it. I believe in free speech and freedom to express ones views and if these wankers want to get together and have a wankerish march through the streets of Tower Hamlets then let them wanker.  No-one of reasonable intelligence should be anywhere near them anyway. Please don't pollute yourselves with mounting a protest against filth of this kind. I despise these people with all my heart. Let them just get on with it. Turn your backs to them.  Don't react. Yet.


I've agreed with all of this, in fact I've said so on this thread, but I doubt whether they'll go ahead and do it


----------



## Corax (Aug 3, 2011)

lazyhack said:


> I've been an antifascist longer than I've been a hack, plus I live in TH. Will find out through other means, bit much asking on public forum. I get it.


 
No offence intended lazyhack, it just read as possibly a bit suss given your recent joining date and profession.  Someone better informed than me may well decide to give you some pointers by pm or something, I don't know.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 4, 2011)

Pinette said:


> I think the march should go ahead. They are a bunch of complete idiots anyway.  Let them get on with it. I believe in free speech and freedom to express ones views and if these wankers want to get together and have a wankerish march through the streets of Tower Hamlets then let them wanker.  *No-one of reasonable intelligence should be anywhere near them anyway*. Please don't pollute yourselves with mounting a protest against filth of this kind. I despise these people with all my heart. Let them just get on with it. Turn your backs to them.  Don't react. Yet.



That is the yard stick is it?

A regular comment on here is the lack of 'education' that leads people to supprt racism and the far right but you are now putting this down to intelligence rather than education?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 4, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> That is the yard stick is it?
> 
> A regular comment on here is the lack of 'education' that leads people to supprt racism and the far right but you are now putting this down to intelligence rather than education?


actually, I missed that statement, which serves me right for skim-reading so shoddily. THAT bit of Pinette's post i certainly don't agree with - writing off and demonising all EDLers as thick hoolies is totally counterproductive, not least because a lot of white w/c people share in E london share some of their concerns, and also doing so is an unfortunate echo of Labours failure to engage with their own core in a productive debate about immigration


----------



## Corax (Aug 4, 2011)

Struck me this morning how silent the mayor of London has been on the issue.  Not that a statement from him would make a blind bit of difference to anything, but I'm curious whether it's a conscious decision (and if so, for what reason), or whether he's just not interested/doesn't think it of sufficient importance.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Aug 4, 2011)

Corax said:


> Struck me this morning how silent the mayor of London has been on the issue.  Not that a statement from him would make a blind bit of difference to anything, but I'm curious whether it's a conscious decision (and if so, for what reason), or whether he's just not interested/doesn't think it of sufficient importance.


 
Seeing as Borrie managed to piss off Tower Hamlets over the re-routing of the London Olympics 2012 marathon event (thus avoiding TH)  - a deal has subsequently been struck, see here for details - he's presumably been ordered by his "people"/Met Plod/Theresa May etc etc to keep his gaffe-prone gob shut on this one...


----------



## treelover (Aug 4, 2011)

'Ill fitting suits, thick, dolies, benefit scroungers', all epiphets used by the liberal left to attack the EDL, BNP, etc...,


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> That is the yard stick is it?
> 
> A regular comment on here is the lack of 'education' that leads people to supprt racism and the far right but you are now putting this down to intelligence rather than education?


 
While I can see why people assume it's down to a lack of education or intelligence (it's the easiest default to fall back on, the "thick/uneducated w/c" trope), it's too easy to do so and ignore the structural issues that might fuel support.

Of course, blaming those people for being thick or uneducated works a lot better for those in power than the more accurate analysis that it's the fault of unemployment, social resources spread too thinly and the thinly-veiled contempt of those same people in power.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> actually, I missed that statement, which serves me right for skim-reading so shoddily. THAT bit of Pinette's post i certainly don't agree with - writing off and demonising all EDLers as thick hoolies is totally counterproductive, not least because a lot of white w/c people share in E london share some of their concerns, and also doing so is an unfortunate echo of Labours failure to engage with their own core in a productive debate about immigration


 
It's not even, in the end, about immigration, though. It's about people getting riled because they *believe* that one sector of the population (in this case, Muslims) are treated favourably in terms of resource allocation, and are allowed to "get away with" stuff based on their religion. Fuel for any xenophobe, and where does it originate? From our mainstream politicians and mainstream media.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'Ill fitting suits, thick, dolies, benefit scroungers', all epiphets used by the liberal left to attack the EDL, BNP, etc...,


 
All been used to attack elements of "the left" too, or have you forgotten the 1980s already?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Aug 4, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'Ill fitting suits, thick, dolies, benefit scroungers', all epiphets used by the liberal left to attack the EDL, BNP, etc...,


 
Also "chavs" "chav scum" "chav scrotes" etc etc etc (because nothing beats attacking bigotry like, er, using bigoted comments in return, eh?  x 1,000)

e2a:  @ViolentPanda - yup, can't forget what you say, too.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not even, in the end, about immigration, though. It's about people getting riled because they *believe* that one sector of the population (in this case, Muslims) are treated favourably in terms of resource allocation, and are allowed to "get away with" stuff based on their religion. Fuel for any xenophobe, and where does it originate? From our mainstream politicians and mainstream media.


I agree, and would add that the tories and labour engage with dog whistle politics over this, with  the Labour grassroots also not engaging with, and challenging that (mistaken) belief.
there's two things that needs to be done to drain this poison; 
1) listen to indigenous w/c class communities' genuinely held (but IMO mistaken) beliefs about muslims/immigrants per se, as part of community activism, at a time when all are feeling under pressure
2) challenge those views on the grounds you can prove they're bollocks.
Infact, this was almost exactly what hodge did, extremely successfully, in Barking in 2010.
Unfortunately, Labour have almost completely turned their backs on that sort of community engagement, and so are letting the right dictate the agenda


----------



## krink (Aug 4, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Unfortunately, Labour have almost completely turned their backs on that sort of community engagement, and so are letting the right dictate the agenda



I would say labour have completely turned their backs on the working class as a whole, so after points 1 and 2 there would need to be a point 3; come up with a political alternative to the bnp et al.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 4, 2011)

krink said:


> I would say labour have completely turned their backs on the working class as a whole


That's actually what i meant - apols if it wasn't clear



> so after points 1 and 2 there would need to be a point 3; come up with a political alternative to the bnp et al


agreed, but fuck knows how a viable alternative will come about, simply because our left are so shite. I mean, technically, the SWP are a 'political alternative to the bnp et al', but who would take them seriously as such?


----------



## krink (Aug 4, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> agreed, but fuck knows how a viable alternative will come about


 
agreed but better people than me need to work that one out!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 4, 2011)

Corax said:


> Struck me this morning how silent the mayor of London has been on the issue.  Not that a statement from him would make a blind bit of difference to anything, but I'm curious whether it's a conscious decision (and if so, for what reason), or whether he's just not interested/doesn't think it of sufficient importance.


Why don't you ask him? http://www.london.gov.uk/contact-us/enquiry-form be interesting to see if he replies, let alone what any such response is....


----------



## Corax (Aug 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> While I can see why people assume it's down to a lack of education or intelligence (it's the easiest default to fall back on, the "thick/uneducated w/c" trope), it's too easy to do so and ignore the structural issues that might fuel support.
> 
> Of course, blaming those people for being thick or uneducated works a lot better for those in power than the more accurate analysis that it's the fault of unemployment, social resources spread too thinly and the thinly-veiled contempt of those same people in power.


 
Your latter words are all true, but I _*do*_ believe that a lack of education is a root cause.  It's not, however, the type of education that's taught in school that's being referred to.  It's a lack of knowledge about the real causes for shitty housing, crap/no jobs, and so on.  Without education on how the system is set up to screw people then they will inevitably look for targets to blame their situation on, and any 'other' is always going to be a hot prospect, especially when elements of the media plant those seeds and nurture them.


----------



## Corax (Aug 4, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Why don't you ask him? http://www.london.gov.uk/contact-us/enquiry-form be interesting to see if he replies, let alone what any such response is....


 
I'd be happy to do so if no one else will, but seeing as I no longer live in London, he'd have a legitimate reason for ignoring my enquiry.  Someone within the 32 boroughs may have a better chance of getting a response, and certainly a more valid reason to complain if they don't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> While I can see why people assume it's down to a lack of education or intelligence (it's the easiest default to fall back on, the "thick/uneducated w/c" trope), it's too easy to do so and ignore the structural issues that might fuel support.
> 
> Of course, blaming those people for being thick or uneducated works a lot better for those in power than the more accurate analysis that it's the fault of unemployment, social resources spread too thinly and the thinly-veiled contempt of those same people in power.


education's what you get in school. but few people stop thinking or learning when they leave school. with the national curriculum the way it is, most things people need or want to know will be learned outside the classroom. and very little of what the edl are interested in is taught in schools - islam may be, but i think you'll find islamism is not on the nc.

and there are a lot of intelligent people among the edl. so i don't see intelligence as a great issue.

what's lacking from a lot of the shit you get from the edl is knowledge. for example they like to cite a very old russian book from the nineteenth century to support their claims (“History of Middle Ages” Professor Nikolay A. Osokin, Textbook (in Russian), Publishing house: Imperial University Printing Office, Kazan, 1888, 771 pp.; Publisher: ACT, Harvest, Moscow, 2008, 672 pp. (reprint)). now, a book published in the middle of fucking nowhere in the nineteenth century is unlikely to be applicable to life in 21st century britain. there's that video of the ignorant edl bloke, the really really ignorant man. it's ignorance more than stupidity or education which characterises the edl. 

all too often people dismiss their opponents as stupid. yet for a load of thick fucks the edl have done a bloody good job of getting one over on supposedly intelligent well educated lefties. the caricature of the edl as knuckledragging thick cunts should be laid to rest because it ignores the fact that a movement made up of at least a sizeable minority with degrees has been unable to thus far outwit them.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> *writing off and demonising all EDLers as thick hoolies is totally counterproductive*, not least because a lot of white w/c people share in E london share some of their concerns, and also doing so is an unfortunate echo of Labours failure to engage with their own core in a productive debate about immigration



True dat, not disagreeing either  in principle or practice. 

But try engaging in even an _attempt_ at constructive debate with tabloid-headline believing** xenophobes? 

**Wanting to believe .... 


The *guarenteed* fail level is enough to send you down the pub and detach yourself completely. 

And enough to keep you *permanently* silent about politics when you're in a workplace *apparantly* filled with a majority of foreigner-hating, benefit claimant-demonising bigots. 

ETA : I do appreciate (re 'apparantly' above) that the '10% theory' (re opinionated loudmouths dominating the conversational ambience in a workplace/pub/etc.) most likely applies here, but the frustration for a newly incoming outsider of not being able to do a *damn thing* about changing a damn thing, espcially if you're actually scared/intimidated at being so completely surrounded -- or seeming to be --by idiot-bigot reactionary tossers, is immense. 

I'm an alien foreigner here myself ... think how weird THAT reads to any Urbanite reading from more 'advanced' places. True though!

(Even switched on public service focussed union types in my workplace keep quiet most of the time too, except on very narrow union-specific issues).


So forgive me _just slightly_ please if my _temptation_ is to write MANY of 'them' off as thick (espec when I'm drunk!  ) because that's certainly what bigots do their _level best_ to sound like in their outbursts. 

In massively mono-cultural areas like mine, anyway.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 5, 2011)

Corax said:


> Your latter words are all true, but I _*do*_ believe that a lack of education is a root cause.  It's not, however, the type of education that's taught in school that's being referred to.  It's a lack of knowledge about the real causes for shitty housing, crap/no jobs, and so on.  Without education on how the system is set up to screw people then they will inevitably look for targets to blame their situation on, and any 'other' is always going to be a hot prospect, especially when elements of the media plant those seeds and nurture them.


or in other words, education that teaches you to question and analyse how things are, societally?


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> or in other words, education that teaches you to question and analyse how things are, societally?


 
I think it's also about how information is received and how it's interpreted. When a strike occurs for example. The facts may be clear, but how it is seen is down to interpretation and value judgements that are made when interpreting it. It could be seen as "oh those selfish strikers causing inconvenience" or it could be seen as "oh those bloody bosses forcing people to strike to defend themselves". In both cases the facts may be the same but the interpretation given to them is based on many other factors, not least of them the underlying assumptions and values through which events are seen. And it is by appealing to and reinforcing these values and assumptions that propaganda takes its strength. 

Likewise, when, for example, unemployment rises, it is by appealing to underlying nationalist assumptions, assumptions of "us and them" that the finger can be pointed to scapegoat groups such as immigrants or black people or Muslims, regardless of the reality behind those assumptions.  This is where class arguments come in because class arguments present the argument in a different way and challenge the ideas of "us and "them". By asking who is this "us" and who is this "them".and by questioning who it is we really have most in common with. The argument that ordinary working class British guy has more in common with a Polish bricklayer than they do with Cameron, for example, can challenge the entire value structure behind nationalist ideas and present a class view which may not have been considered before


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> I think it's also about how information is received and how it's interpreted. When a strike occurs for example. The facts may be clear, but how it is seen is down to interpretation and value judgements that are made when interpreting it. It could be seen as "oh those selfish strikers causing inconvenience" or it could be seen as "oh those bloody bosses forcing people to strike to defend themselves". In both cases the facts may be the same but the interpretation given to them is based on many other factors, not least of them the underlying assumptions and values through which events are seen. And it is by appealing to and reinforcing these values and assumptions that propaganda takes its strength.
> 
> Likewise, when, for example, unemployment rises, it is by appealing to underlying nationalist assumptions, assumptions of "us and them" that the finger can be pointed to scapegoat groups such as immigrants or black people or Muslims, regardless of the reality behind those assumptions.  This is where class arguments come in because class arguments present the argument in a different way and challenge the ideas of "us". The argument that ordinary people have more in common with Polish bricklayers than they do with Cameron, for example, can challenge the entire value structure behind nationalist ideas and present a class view which may not have been considered before


 agree with alll that - would prolly have said something like that if I wasn't so rushed atm! - and ther tragedy is that we have so few willing to go out ther and make those class arguments, and the few that are meant to are REALLy bad at winniong w/c communities over. whenever I see WESPECK or the swappies campaigning round my way my heart sinks.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Aug 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> Likewise, when, for example, unemployment rises, it is by appealing to underlying nationalist assumptions, assumptions of "us and them" that the finger can be pointed to scapegoat groups such as immigrants or black people or Muslims, regardless of the reality behind those assumptions.  This is where class arguments come in because class arguments present the argument in a different way and challenge the ideas of "us". The argument that ordinary people have more in common with Polish bricklayers than they do with Cameron, for example, can challenge the entire value structure behind nationalist ideas and present a class view which may not have been considered before



All apart from the fact that you need to be able to tell them why the Polish bricklayer was allowed into the country in the first place. This is where the left seem to hit, and its no pun intended, a brick wall.

All they see is the Polish brick layer coming into the country and being willing to work for less money. You would assume that the British left would be at the vanguard of opposing this because all it seems to be doing is playing into the hands of big business but instead they seem to be the ones trying to shout down anybody who suggests that perhaps its not in the interests of the British working class to have mass immigration into this country. Makes no sense, especially in any sort of class struggle context.


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> agree with alll that - would prolly have said something like that if I wasn't so rushed atm! - and ther tragedy is that we have so few willing to go out ther and make those class arguments, and the few that are meant to are REALLy bad at winniong w/c communities over. whenever I see WESPECK or the swappies campaigning round my way my heart sinks.


 
I have lots of criticisms of the old Militant but in terms of reaching out to working class communities and speaking a language that was understood, they were very good and as a result they won a lot of respect. They were,  perhaps, the best the left had seen in a long time in fact


----------



## Corax (Aug 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> whenever I see WESPECK or the swappies campaigning round my way my heart sinks.


 
I keep being drawn to the idea of a leftist 'patriot' group.  The EDL claim to be against islamic extremism.  I don't think many on the left are all that keen on it either.  The idea of being a 'patriot' seems to appeal to a lot of people, and the idea of hijacking that sentiment to get some proper education across in some way is tempting.  I don't know whether it would be workable, and it also feels slightly... sneaky - but just shouting antifash slogans at them and calling them nazis doesn't seem to have had much success, maybe co-opting somehow them is a better way to go.

Probably a stupid idea, I dunno.


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

Stoat Boy said:


> All apart from the fact that you need to be able to tell them why the Polish bricklayer was allowed into the country in the first place. This is where the left seem to hit, and its no pun intended, a brick wall.
> 
> All they see is the Polish brick layer coming into the country and being willing to work for less money. You would assume that the British left would be at the vanguard of opposing this because all it seems to be doing is playing into the hands of big business but instead they seem to be the ones trying to shout down anybody who suggests that perhaps its not in the interests of the British working class to have mass immigration into this country. Makes no sense, especially in any sort of class struggle context.


 
The working class have a common interest in uniting globally to fight for decent pay and conditions for all. Nationalism, dividing workers according to arbitrary geographical locations only serves to divide workers. Challenging the myths behind immigration is more important than pandering to them. Chief amongst these myths is the idea that immigrant workers drive down wages. This is nonsense for the simple reason that companies that wish to operate low wage businesses are also capable of relocating. Thus if there were no low wage immigrant workers to choose from here, those businesses that seek low paid workers would simply relocate to locations where cheap labour is available. The key here then is not to blame immigrants for working for low wages but to fight for decent pay for all and to take that fight globally.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Aug 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> The working class have a common interest in uniting globally to fight for decent pay and conditions for all. Nationalism, dividing workers according to arbitrary geographical locations only serves to divide workers. Challenging the myths behind immigration is more important than pandering to them. Chief amongst these myths is the idea that immigrant workers drive down wages. This is nonsense for the simple reason that companies that wish to operate low wage businesses are also capable of relocating. Thus if there were no low wage immigrant workers to choose from here, those businesses that seek low paid workers would simply relocate to locations where cheap labour is available. The key here then is not to blame immigrants for working for low wages but to fight for decent pay for all and to take that fight globally.





Enjoy the political wilderness then. Because that BS aint being bought by anybody.


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

Stoat Boy said:


> Enjoy the political wilderness then. Because that BS aint being bought by anybody.


 
You may call it BS but you can offer nothing to counter it and that's because most of the crap written about immigration is based on myth.

 Far from being a burden on this country, immigration is essential. The UK birthrate (1.64 the lowest since records began) which means that immigration, especially skilled immigration, is essential simply to keep the working age population stable. Without immigration the NHS for example would grind to a halt.

A third of all doctors gained their qualifications abroad.

A quarter of all nurses were born abroad. (half in london)

A fifth of all elderly carers were born abroad.


study after study has shown the myths around immigration to be totally without foundation. For example a study by the low pay commission found in the period of 1997 and 2005



> we find evidence of overall positive wage effects of immigration over the period of study



http://www.lowpay.gov.uk/lowpay/research/pdf/t0Z96GJX.pdf

But of course, you are not actually interested in the facts are you?


----------



## Stoat Boy (Aug 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> You may call it BS but you can offer nothing to counter it and that's because most of the crap written about immigration is based on myth.
> 
> Far from being a burden on this country, immigration is essential. The UK birthrate (1.64 the lowest since records began) which means that immigration, especially skilled immigration, is essential simply to keep the working age population stable. Without immigration the NHS for example would grind to a halt.
> 
> ...



Aint me you have got to convince. I love immigration. Benefited from it immensely. But the point is that I am not in competition with any immigrants for employment. And I aint ever going to support or vote for anybody or thing from the left. 

But why not ask the questions about why the NHS needs to employ so many foreign people. For me is just an example of how poor our own educational system is that we are not producing enough people with these skills. Thats the real tragedy of this country in that nobody is willing to really face up to the true reasons as to why we need mass immigration. 

Both the left and the right in this country are guilty of selling the indiginous working class population down the river. The right do it for short term profits and the left do it for bullshit notions of a global class struggle. 

Those most in favour of mass immigration strike me as the ones being the least affected by it on a day to day basis. Shame on all of us for that.


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

There are as many people who migrate as who imigrate to the UK. In addition, outside of the EU, it is actually incredibly difficult to immigrate to the UK. Unless you are skilled, have at least a masters or a lot of money, you aint coming here. Despite what the mail says, marriage is no longer an automatic right and there are stringent financial hurdles to pass before your wife or husband can gain citizenship. The myth of mass immigration to the UK is just that, a myth. with emigration taken into account the number of migrants has been relatively stable.

 But the real point is that this is the 21st Century, modern information and transport has made the world a smaller place and the fact that people can traverse the globe and seek a better life elsewhere is not only a good thing but it is inevitable. People will always come and go,  economies become combined, cultures merge. To oppose this is simply utopian and literally reactionary, because it is attempting to hold back something that is inevitable and positive.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2011)

Stoat Boy said:


> All apart from the fact that you need to be able to tell them why the Polish bricklayer was allowed into the country in the first place. This is where the left seem to hit, and its no pun intended, a brick wall.
> 
> All they see is the Polish brick layer coming into the country and being willing to work for less money. You would assume that the British left would be at the vanguard of opposing this because all it seems to be doing is playing into the hands of big business but instead they seem to be the ones trying to shout down anybody who suggests that perhaps its not in the interests of the British working class to have mass immigration into this country. Makes no sense, especially in any sort of class struggle context.


 
Hah, like it wasn't a Tory government that signed up to the principle that allows workers from other EU member-states to work in any EU member state, and like they weren't looking to engage in exactly the sort of exploitation that you're _faux_ boohooing about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> The working class have a common interest in uniting globally to fight for decent pay and conditions for all. Nationalism, dividing workers according to arbitrary geographical locations only serves to divide workers. Challenging the myths behind immigration is more important than pandering to them. Chief amongst these myths is the idea that immigrant workers drive down wages. This is nonsense for the simple reason that companies that wish to operate low wage businesses are also capable of relocating. Thus if there were no low wage immigrant workers to choose from here, those businesses that seek low paid workers would simply relocate to locations where cheap labour is available. The key here then is not to blame immigrants for working for low wages but to fight for decent pay for all and to take that fight globally.


 
The whole "low wages" issue is a bit of a phantom anyway. It's very short-term (generally lasts a couple of years before equalisation kicks in) and is dependent on a constantly replenished labour-pool. Labour, however, is like any other resource: It tends to go to "the highest bidder". Currently, that's Germany, whose economy isn't staggering like that of the UK.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 5, 2011)

Stoat Boy said:


> Aint me you have got to convince. I love immigration. Benefited from it immensely. But the point is that I am not in competition with any immigrants for employment. And I aint ever going to support or vote for anybody or thing from the left.
> 
> But why not ask the questions about why the NHS needs to employ so many foreign people. For me is just an example of how poor our own educational system is that we are not producing enough people with these skills. Thats the real tragedy of this country in that nobody is willing to really face up to the true reasons as to why we need mass immigration.
> 
> ...


 
wrt the nhs, we are training people here, just then not providing enough job opportunities, or paying them enough to work in the area they trained. Surely this must be one reason for shortage of midwives in London and the South East.


----------



## treelover (Aug 5, 2011)

'Thus if there were no low wage immigrant workers to choose from here, those businesses that seek low paid workers would simply relocate to locations where cheap labour is available. The key here then is not to blame immigrants for working for low wages but to fight for decent pay for all and to take that fight globally.' 


But that isn't happening is it, not here, not in Poland, etc, in fact the lefts next big push is Cable St 2!, its like the left in the 80's and disarmament, its 'pie in the sky', meanwhile reality beckons

actually the neo-liberal IPPR publishes data as does the globalisation fanatic and Blairite Phillipe Legrain which backs your argument up, good sources...


----------



## treelover (Aug 5, 2011)

'Far from being a burden on this country, immigration is essential. The UK birthrate (1.64 the lowest since records began) which means that immigration, especially skilled immigration, is essential simply to keep the working age population stable. Without immigration the NHS for example would grind to a halt.'


and who will look after the immigrants when they get old, its a giant Ponzi scheme and its baffling that the left supports it..

its incredible that the rationales you put forward are eaxactly the same as the CBI, Digby Jones, why should a marxist like you care about growth etc,


----------



## Edie (Aug 5, 2011)

Fuckit there is absolutely no point arguing this here where you actually think people give a flying fuck about international class identity lol


----------



## treelover (Aug 5, 2011)

I'd like to ask Dylans when was the last time he attended a mass conference with workers from Central Europe who pledged solidarity with Uk workers, i think i will be a long time waiting, its all abstractions with people like him,


----------



## Edie (Aug 5, 2011)

It's bullshit is what it is. The left just go lalala ignorance, uneducated, idiots, thick etc.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> Fuckit there is absolutely no point arguing this here where you actually think *people give a flying fuck about international class identity *lol



Some do some don't. Numerous times over the past years workers have gone on strike or demanded change over apartheid, Vietnam, Nicaragua. In the 1990's there was strikes and demos worldwide in support of the locked out Liverpool dovkers so actually some people, in organised Labour, DO give a flying fuck and have demostrated it.
However as the TU movement over here has retreated on near every issue, except glib lip-service top international issues, the idea of offensive w/c action against attacks in this country, let alone elsewhere, has diminished massively.


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

treelover said:


> I'd like to ask Dylans when was the last time he attended a mass conference with workers from Central Europe who pledged solidarity with Uk workers, i think i will be a long time waiting, its all abstractions with people like him,


 
I would like to ask you what exactly are your objections to immigration?  We know the low wages, immigrants take the jobs/benefits/houses line is bollocks, so why not just be honest, tell us what we all know. That you just don't like foreigners especially brown ones from Pakistan.


----------



## treelover (Aug 5, 2011)

don't hold it back, will you, actually I don't agree with your assertions or your facts..

you live in a fantasy land where there are no problems and you are always correct


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

treelover said:


> don't hold it back, will you, actually I don't agre with your assertions or your facts..


 
Of course  you don't. because you are an EDL sympathising racist cunt


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> I would like to ask you what exactly are your objections to immigration?  We know the low wages, immigrants take the jobs/benefits/houses line is bollocks, so why not just be honest, tell us what we all know. That you just don't like foreigners especially brown ones from Pakistan.


 
You're out of order there.


----------



## treelover (Aug 5, 2011)

Dylans is what is worse with the left, couldn't care less what he says


----------



## treelover (Aug 5, 2011)

tbh, thinking of taking a break form the boards for a while I reckon, p/p anyway, I can't really get my points across due to cognitive issues, just been posting up issues, imo, very important ones, but can't really enter the fray, numbers going down as well..


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> I have lots of criticisms of the old Militant but in terms of reaching out to working class communities and speaking a language that was understood, they were very good and as a result they won a lot of respect. They were,  perhaps, the best the left had seen in a long time in fact


speaking as an ex-member, I couldn't agree more. And yes, we weren't angels.


----------



## Corax (Aug 5, 2011)

On the new boards, I propose that any reference to 'the left' as though it has any meaning as a term be met with a 24hr ban.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 5, 2011)

Stoat Boy said:


> All they see is the Polish brick layer coming into the country and being willing to work for less money. .


what a ridiculous, one-size-fits-all, sweeping generalisation. Not ALL or even most w/c people have such shallow, self-interested thought processes, we are as capable of thinking beyond that as anyone else.


> You would assume that the British left would be at the vanguard of opposing this because all it seems to be doing is playing into the hands of big business


No it doesn't,it lays a possible path for future internationalisation of struggle, and reaffirms workers rights to free movement. Also, see dylan's point.


> but instead they seem to be the ones trying to shout down


passionate argument is not 'shouting down'; we're just not making the case clear enough


> anybody who suggests that perhaps its not in the interests of the British working class to have mass immigration into this country


. 
The key point is - it's not necessarily against their intersts, and it's capitalism, not immigration that is the worker's enemy


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> It's bullshit is what it is. The left just go lalala ignorance, uneducated, idiots, thick etc.


but that's just about the diametrical opposite to what I've argued here, likewise other 'leftists' (whatever that means these days)


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> Fuckit there is absolutely no point arguing this here where you actually think people give a flying fuck about international class identity lol


actually, an awful lot of workers always have, simply because it's in our overwhelming interest to. it's just we're let down by our crap, spineless leadership


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> You're out of order there.


 
No. What is out of order is the supposedly respectable objections to immigration from the pseudo racist left which goes along the lines of "objections to immigration aren't racist". Well here's news. Yes they are. Not least because we rarely see objections along the lines of "there are too many Australians taking the bar work" or there are two many Canadian scientists. (incidentally the immigration department is 50 times less likely to chase an Aussie visa overstayer than a Nigerian btw). So ok, prove me wrong. What are these supposedly "left wing" objections to immigration?

Immigrants take "British jobs and decrease wages". No they fucking dont. 



> Our estimates...show a positive relationship [between immigration and wages]...This is true for all skill groups and although these estimates never do better than approach the margin of individual statistical significance, their consistency across groups is impressive...The perception that immigrants take away jobs from the existing population, thus contributing to large increases in unemployment, or that immigrants depress wages of existing workers, do not find confirmation in the analysis of data.





> The UK has half a million job vacancies, and at the same time is dealing with worker shortages. Therefore, migrant workers [from the new EU countries] took up 'hard to fill' jobs. The International Property and Construction Organization reports that Polish and Czech electricians, plasterers, bricklayers or carpenters made up for the lack of skilled local workers in Britain.



http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2005/10/the_racist_pseu.html

The relationship between low wages, unemployment and immigration is a myth. During the 1930s Britain had virtually no immigration yet there was widespread unemployment and poverty. During the 1950s and 60s Employers actively recruited immigrant workers from the Caribean and Indian subcontinent yet wages rose throughout those decades. During the 1980s the number of families living under the poverty line grew by 60% yet it had nothing to do with immigration because the number of people who left the country actually exceeded those arriving. The economic case against immigration is mythical. Yes there is a danger that immigrant workers may be forced to take low paid work but the way to oppose this is to unionise immigrant workers and fight for higher pay for all not to attack immigrant workers

So what's the other objections because economics isn't one of them. Oh yeah, culture. That old chestnut. Immigrants dilute "British" culture. Well sorry to inform you but there is no such thing. Not in any definable homogenous sense anyway. Britain has always been a nation of immigrants. If there is one definable feature of the UK it is secularism. The idea that all our citizens are free to express themselves as they wish. Something that I am certainly proud of and think worth defending, It is also something that is directly under attack by those who oppose immigration on the basis of defending culture. It is not immigrant communities who are threatening the secular state, it is those who wish to base citizenship on some abstract idea of culture or ethnic purity when no such thing exists.

So what are the other objections to immigration if not xenophobia? Until someone demonstrates otherwise I will continue to argue that objections to immigration are nothing more than racism pure and simple and if saying so is "out of order" then tough shit


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 5, 2011)

It's not "racism". I mean immigration threads bore me to death, but when people start shouting "racist" at anyone who doesn't support open borders, then you've lost the argument there and then.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 5, 2011)

treelover said:


> But that isn't happening is it, not here, not in Poland, etc, in fact the lefts next big push is Cable St 2!, its like the left in the 80's and disarmament, its 'pie in the sky', meanwhile reality beckons


do you mind if I say something? You so often ma\ke good points, it's a pity that they end up down the usujal blind alley of 'The Left are crap' - because it takes them nowhere. First, god knows what this 'monolithic 'Left' is - it's _all of us_, in fact, and it's up tall of us to make things better, not constantly (in effect) moaning at oursleves. I honestly don't think too many people need tutoring in how crap the swappies are 
 Please take this in the constructive spirit in which this was meant


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 5, 2011)

Who's argueing for entirely open borders? I can't see many people on this thread doing it ...


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> It's not "racism". I mean immigration threads bore me to death, but when people start shouting "racist" at anyone who doesn't support open borders, then you've lost the argument there and then.


 
You wish. 

The fact is there is a constant whining complaint by those who oppose immigration that there is no opportunity to discuss the issue" when in fact the opposite is the case. We are bombarded with hysterical, deliberately inaccurate and dishonest argument against immigration from Politicians to the press all usually accompanied by the "I'm not racist but" line.but when confronted with the facts or asked to elucidate the content of their objections, the anti immigration argument dissolves into tedious repetition of easily refuted hysterical lies or vague objections to the "other" .  The fact is this country would be a poorer place without immigration and a strict immigration policy would see many of our essential services fall apart. Free movement of peoples across the globe is not only morally right, it is in all our interests.


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Who's argueing for entirely open borders? I can't see many people on this thread doing it ...


 
I am


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 5, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Who's argueing for entirely open borders? I can't see many people on this thread doing it ...


 
yeah dylans is, it's a bit much to start screaming "racist" at anyone who doesn't happen to share that view


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> yeah dylans is, it's a bit much to start screaming "racist" at anyone who doesn't happen to share that view


 
I'm not "screaming racist" at people who don't share my, admittedly radical, view. I am suggesting that those who see present immigration as a problem, who blame immigrant communities for unemployment or low wages and who advocate stricter immigration controls than present are advocating a policy that in the end is racist. Racist because it places the blame for social problems whether unemployment, low wages or shortage of resources at the door of immigrant communities.  I can see why those who advocate stricter immigration controls may not like that but it is what it is and it is not "screaming at people" to say so.


----------



## Corax (Aug 5, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Who's argueing for entirely open borders? I can't see many people on this thread doing it ...


 
I'm not because I can't be arsed, but if I could, I would.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 5, 2011)

> and who will look after the immigrants when they get old, its a giant Ponzi scheme and its baffling that the left supports it..
> its incredible that the rationales you put forward are eaxactly the same as the CBI, Digby Jones, why should a marxist like you care about growth etc,


 
Growth wasn't mentioned at all, the point was about what would happen to the NHS if strong pro-deportation effort were to be undertaken by the government, in current social and economic circumstances.
The advantage of 'migrants' for capitalist class is that the flow can be restricted, and they can be returned to another country when they near retirement age.
Lots of Irish immigrants returned home to Ireland when they had finished their working lives in Britain in the 20th century.

Nowadays in 2010 Obtaining British passports/becoming British citizens is difficult only if you are specially skilled will you get one. Ghanaian hospital porters who might have got one in 1990s now do not get them very easily. They will, most likely, leave before they are pensioners.

British capital looks like wanting to turn the immigration tap off: the points-based system, reductions in asylum approvals, making life difficult for immigrants no more cheap English lessons in mainstream state colleges,  restrictions for immigration from Bulgaria and Romania (unlike the 2004 experience), more deprtations per year than at any other year according to government statistics, opposition to Turkish membership in EU primarily because of immigration concerns, communal EU contributions to discussions within EU countries chiefs to move to a system it so that immigrants from East Europe can work in Britain but will receive supplementary benefits from their home country. You can definitely see a significant drop in the past two years of those coming to Britain. Landlords in Ealing can't find the Poles anymore!

Capitalism is the Ponzi scheme - it is borrowing from future generations by destroying the natural environment, primarily by duplication of efforts and production meaning excess energy consumption and climate change - not immigration.



> I'd like to ask Dylans when was the last time he attended a mass conference with workers from Central Europe who pledged solidarity with Uk workers, i think i will be a long time waiting, its all abstractions with people like him,



1. Why does he need to have? 
It's is a meaningless argument one being used by Egyptian rightists right now: "I'd like to ask [Egyptian Marxist a] when was the last time he attended a mass conference with workers from America (or Britain or Iran or Turkey) who pledged solidarity with Egyptian workers, i think i will be a long time waiting, its all abstractions with people like him,"

2. This cuts both ways
i. People in central European are pushing back. Look at the strike wave in Croatia, people being shot dead in Albania in opposition protests against privatisation, Polish doctors on strike against privatisation, Bulgarians are on strike against the privatisation of Bultabak which British American Tobacco wants to buy up. They are fighting against British capital, obviously this has been reported less than the confrontation in Libya, Syria and Egypt.

Look at the BBC strike - various 'British' anti-immigration journalists and 'British' pro-immigration journalists orgasming as they act as strikebreakers. Yet BBC worldwide and World Service, even though they're not in the same union, the strike was practically supported - no website no broadcasts, refusing to touch work related to the BBC on that day - Czech Republic and Turkey - similar stories.

Central European workers and other foreign workers have often supported struggles of British people.

Who shipped food and clothes during the miners' strike 84-85? East Germans and West Germans. 
Who gave donations to the miners? Japanese miners and steelworkers, South African miners.
Who helped the P&O strike in the late 1980s? French transport workers blockading strikebreaking 'British' ships.
Who went on boycott to stop paper reaching the Wapping strikebreaking operation? Finnish paper workers.
Who organised plantation workers to claw back 'surplus-value' from British tyre producers in the 1960s, forcing them to keep production in Britain? Indonesian communists.


Why are there 'Lithuanian' 'immigrants' 'immigrant workers' here? Largely because unemployment there is higher (20% according to official statistics , estimates say 25%) than here. If you were serious about stopping immigration from below, you'd be constantly organising campaigns for British solidarity for Lithuanian struggles so that unemployment there was reduced and fewer Lithuanians emigrated.

One important reason why Central Europeans here feel unable to struggle is because they are on work permits - if the employer is unhappy the permit is rescinded and you become an illegal or are deported or they are on self-employed visas even though they are working for employers - see the Slovakian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Czech, Polish electricians,  construction workers, lorry drivers, even forklift drivers. Hence there is no particular employment contract that can be challenged, simply atomised labour-sellers, who even when they wish to join a reformist union are not able to do so because they are not a bargaining unit of labour but 'fellow employers' to the main company. Union subscriptions can not be made from. Even if they do join, the union will thwart any attempt to struggle from the lower ranks, which tends to be where immigrants are concentrated.
It's not racism obviously, bureaucratic and reformist unions have an in-built tendency to support the weakest and poorest paid the least. (Clearly there is another category of immigrants who have middle-class and managerial professions accountants, actuaries etc aswell as business owners, they are smaller in number)

Obviously there are fights about the nation and national citizenship across the world, there are many Ukrainian immigrants in Poland who experience the sharp end of the rightwing press there.  



> It's bullshit is what it is. The left just go lalala ignorance, uneducated, idiots, thick etc.



Please make an argument, I don't even understand what "bullshit" you mean here.



> Fuckit there is absolutely no point arguing this here where you actually think people give a flying fuck about international class identity lol



The suggestion above is that 'national class' identity exists. Does this cross England, Scotland and Wales? If so, once Scotland is independent, will the national class identity become an international class identity? Does a class identity even exist? I'm not sure what use an 'identity' is to us anyway, 'class' is analysis of the world and its economics that may help to assert your interests more fully - you don't need any identity behind it.

Restricting immigration will not remove the scapegoatism or instantly increase levels of struggle. Look at Japan - very few immigrants - hence the rightwing press fights against 'internal' undesirables: poor people in general and their letting their young be influence by yakuza and organised crime, Burakumin and their crime-ridden ways, homeless people and Chinese-origin Japanese, 'poncers' who have too many children without having the means to look after them.

When Germany (under the SPD) removed hundreds of thousands of Turkish workers in the mid to late 1970s because of the - did militancy amongst the 'German' workforce or 'German' living standads rapidly increase? No, not particularly, is my answer. Did it stop race attacks/increase 'community cohesion' ... yes for a while until the early 1980s when things started up started again.

I want someone to prove how it will be different with Britain in the 2010s, compared to FRG in the 1970s, that increasing deportation/restricting immigration will actually make things for people like us, ordinary British citizens, better. Every time deportation sweeps haven't solved problems, the right-wing either a. sticks in fingers in its ears or b. says 'but they weren't done widely enough'. Will tuition fees be removed? Will health services improve? Will gas prices come down? Will disabled people stop being targeted as welfare 'cheats'? Will 'British' organised crime not monopolise the terrain of former migrant criminal gangs? Will business interests start treating us with respect because there are fewer immigrants per year? Does this happen in Japan?


----------



## Edie (Aug 5, 2011)

We're a rich country. With social security we pay for. If we opened our borders then understandably a lot of workers from poorer countries will flock here, driving down wages, putting English people out of work and claiming benefits. Most of the money they make will understandably be sent home to there relatives out of this country. How the fuck is any of that in the working class interest? It ain't.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> Of course  you don't. because you are an EDL sympathising racist cunt



I agree with angel: out of order.

I think pro-deportation/pro-exclusion arguments are legitimate ones people should have a right to define who they want to live with and who they don't want to live with. But pro-deportation arguments will mean you knock out people [immigrants] from participating in struggle, people you desperately need as allies - security guards, agricultural workers etc. The easier it is to deport the more likely immigrant people who do engage in struggle will be deported. 
Pro-immigration arguments are also absurd, what good does it do saying 'I love immigrants' as one campaign at election had it, or 'Britain needs more immigrants not fewer'. The error is the concept of 'Britain' considering the economy via prism of the state (controlled by business classes) its policies, its companies, its welfarism - instead of seeing the economy as something that needs democracy. That the state is a nation-state doesn't matter it's a capitalist state. The productive and potentially productive people of Britain, on the other hand, don't 'need' more or 'need' less immigration, we demand jobs, free education and no price rises for all people ie democracy in the economy.

I don't think advocating a 'no borders' policy makes much sense, the demands should be on the policies that have the widest net first - things that affect everyone - the wages and prices, not immigration policies or the exorbitant cost of visas which are a side-effect of business policies. Otherwise the demand is as meaningful as asserting 'drug gangsters and FTSE 100 CEOs should all be exiled to St Kilda with a small fleet of fishing boats'.


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

> I want someone to prove how it will be different with Britain in the 2010s, compared to FRG in the 1970s, that increasing deportation/restricting immigration will actually make things for people like us, ordinary British citizens, better. Every time deportation sweeps haven't solved problems, the right-wing either a. sticks in fingers in its ears or b. says 'but they weren't done widely enough'. Will tuition fees be removed? Will health services improve? Will gas prices come down? Will disabled people stop being targeted as welfare 'cheats'? Will 'British' organised crime not monopolise the terrain of former migrant criminal gangs? Will business interests start treating us with respect because there are fewer immigrants per year? Does this happen in Japan?



Good post. So would I.

http://www.noii.org.uk/no-one-is-illegal-manifesto/


----------



## sihhi (Aug 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> We're a rich country. With social security we pay for. If we opened our borders then understandably a lot of workers from poorer countries will flock here, driving down wages, putting English people out of work and *claiming benefits*. Most of the money they make will understandably be sent home to there relatives out of this country. How the fuck is any of that in the working class interest? It ain't.



This is happening with 'northerners' heading south - because they have no work back home they are willing to settle for any wage down south in the service sector on any contract. Middle ranking functionaries in hotels down south - full of 'northeners'. Shouldn't East Anglia and the South East institute a system of migration controls? It would maintain higher wages for workers in the SE. It would be in their working-class interest. We southerners need borders against people from Gorbals.


----------



## Edie (Aug 5, 2011)

Gtf sihhi.

Also of course there is a working class British identity. And this is why people feel so upset, alongside the jobs and wages. You speak to my in laws about what they saw happen to Blackburn in the 1960s onwards. Blackburn changed beyond there recognition and it upset them in ways I doubt you'd understand. They moved from there house when they become the only white family and the Pakistani community around them had a VERY strong sense of an alternative community. 

It's an easy liberal bollocks to say the White working class don't have an identity to lose. We do. My in laws have nothing against Pakistani-British people as individuals, but to say that immigration had no impact on the community they grew up in is bullshit.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 5, 2011)

> We're a rich country. With social security we pay for. If we opened our borders then understandably a lot of workers from poorer countries will flock here, driving down wages, putting English people out of work and claiming benefits. *Most of the money they make will understandably be sent home to there relatives out of this country*. How the fuck is any of that in the working class interest? It ain't.



Let's be clear about this, though I don't advocate 'open borders', 

I quite agree that these three things (what immigration is charged with) are crimes.



> driving down wages
> 
> putting English people out of work
> 
> money ... will ... be sent ... out of this country



But who does these things by the tonne? On every count it is (capitalist) companies, (capitalist) politicians and (capitalist) businessmen. Day in day out they drive down wages of English people, putting laws against any public sector increase above 0,5% when prices are rising by 7%, they put English people out of work - by the million, every recession. When English people demand something like investment instead of profits they threaten to take all their money abroad look at the British oil industry, every month they invest billions abroad to make more money for the company because capitalism demands strategic decision-making on the basis of profit to be realised over a given cycle? Does it help English people? No, that money could have been used for more sensible things back home- drug treatment, old age care, flood prevention etc etc.
Why don't they pay more tax and help English people in this country? Because they can't, it makes no sense to pose the question. It's as empty as asking chickens to start flying because they are members of the pheasant family and wings and the rest of 

I am fairly certain that ordinary Poles (or people from poorer countries) care more about our fellow English citizens and want better wages for them than any English businessman. That might be because I happen to live in an area with a large number of Poles - I am happy to proven wrong.

Not sure who is claiming benefits- the immigrants or the English - I don't see claiming benefits as a crime either.


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> Gtf sihhi.
> 
> Also of course there is a working class British identity. And this is why people feel so upset, alongside the jobs and wages. You speak to my in laws about what they saw happen to Blackburn in the 1960s onwards. Blackburn changed beyond there recognition and it upset them in ways I doubt you'd understand. They moved from there house when they become the only white family and the Pakistani community around them had a VERY strong sense of an alternative community.
> 
> It's an easy liberal bollocks to say the White working class don't have an identity to lose. We do. My in laws have nothing against Pakistani-British people as individuals, but to say that immigration had no impact on the community they grew up in is bullshit.


 
What is this homogenous British identity you talk about?  Is a second or third generation family from the Indian sub continent part of this definition of British that you wish to define?   What about a second or third generation Afro Caribean family? Do they fit into your definition of "British Identity" or are they excluded.? If they are not excluded, if their identity is also British then I can agree with you. That the definition of British includes all our citizens. But I think, if you are honest, you don't mean them do you? You don't mean the identity of all British people of whichever ethnicity or cultural background they, or their parents and grandparents came from. You mean white


----------



## sihhi (Aug 5, 2011)

Last post for now.



Edie said:


> Gtf sihhi.
> 
> Also of course there is a working class British identity. And this is why people feel so upset, alongside the jobs and wages. You speak to my in laws about what they saw happen to Blackburn in the 1960s onwards. Blackburn changed beyond there recognition and it upset them in *ways I doubt you'd understand.* They moved from there house when they become the only white family and the Pakistani community around them had a VERY strong sense of an alternative community.
> 
> It's an easy liberal bollocks to say the White working class don't have an identity to lose. We do. My in laws have nothing against Pakistani-British people as individuals, *but to say that immigration had no impact on the community they grew up in is bullshit.*



No one has said that - all the things you describe are the side effects of decisions by (mostly textile) capitalists. It has little to do with what I posted. 

Does the "working class British identity" include the Ulster Presbytarians? Plymouth Brethren? Catholics? Temperance Methodists? The Irish? The Manchester Jews? The Wee Freers? Scottish nationalists? Are today's English federalists part of "working class British identity" very few people wanted an English parliament until fairly recently but now they claim to represent Britain's real working-class identity.

One sentence White, next sentence British. Please define "the identity" which "the White working class have to lose". 
Let's understand what we're talking about and no picking and choosing bits and pieces let's have the identity in full.  Explain what it is now in 2011.

My claim was asserting the interests of a class doesn't need an identity, it doesn't need red flags, doesn't need clenched fist salutes. I'm not sure if you think it does or doesn't need that. I personally fly the English flag.

As for 



> ways I doubt you'd understand


 
Earlier on you said that these left whoever they are keeping telling everyone is thick stupid, that this was a problem, now I become the thick one - and get called liberal! Ho hum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'Far from being a burden on this country, immigration is essential. The UK birthrate (1.64 the lowest since records began) which means that immigration, especially skilled immigration, is essential simply to keep the working age population stable. Without immigration the NHS for example would grind to a halt.'
> 
> 
> and who will look after the immigrants when they get old, its a giant Ponzi scheme and its baffling that the left supports it..
> ...


 
A lot of that skilled and semi-skilled foreign labour currently contributing to the Exchequer won't be here when they're old, they'll be back in the EU countries they were born in, so hardly a Ponzi scheme.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 5, 2011)

no, cos i'd like to see the show of unity against them in the east end. 
i would also like to see them get a pasting.


----------



## Edie (Aug 5, 2011)

Of course I include people who aren't white, who have either settled here and integrated or were born here. They're as British as anyone, in fact most of my asian-British mates couldn't imagine and wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

If you think it's only white people who are worried about immigration you are very wrong.


----------



## treelover (Aug 5, 2011)

Dylans shot down in flames there, thanks for the long and constructive post, Sihhi...


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> Of course I include people who aren't white, who have either settled here and integrated or were born here. They're as British as anyone, in fact most of my asian-British mates couldn't imagine and wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
> 
> If you think it's only white people who are worried about immigration you are very wrong.


 
Ok I just wanted to define what identity it is you think that is under threat by immigration.


----------



## rover07 (Aug 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> Of course I include people who aren't white, who have either settled here and integrated or were born here. They're as British as anyone, in fact most of my asian-British mates couldn't imagine and wouldn't want to live anywhere else.



But your asian mates become British because their parents decided to come here.

Would you rather they all went home?


----------



## Edie (Aug 5, 2011)

Oh fuck off rover.


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> Oh fuck off rover.


 
But he has a point. You see. I'm confused by the basis for your objections. You cite the threat to culture as one and you give an example of family members moving because of Asian neighbours moving in, but then you say that you are including Asian Brits who supposedly share your concerns about immigration. Don't you see the contradiction here? Because, though you are right that Asian Brits are as British as anyone, they retain a cultural and ethnic identity as Asian Brits in a multicultural society. Therefore presumably your concerns about the threat to culture should apply to them too. I presume your family members would have felt threatened by your British  Asian friends moving in next door just as much as a family of new migrants. I presume they didn't check their passports or birth certificates before putting their house on the market and moving away.  They didn't move away because they were immigrants, they couldn't have known if they were or not, they moved away because they were Asian.

This is why I have a problem with trying to identify British in cultural terms. Britain is a secular society, a society where citizenship is not defined in cultural terms but rather a society where a person's cultural identity has no bearing on their citizenship. Trying to define British in cultural terms and especially in terms of threats to that supposed culture undermine that very principle


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> what a ridiculous, one-size-fits-all, sweeping generalisation. Not ALL or even most w/c people have such shallow, self-interested thought processes, we are as capable of thinking beyond that as anyone else.
> 
> No it doesn't,it lays a possible path for future internationalisation of struggle, and reaffirms workers rights to free movement. Also, see dylan's point.
> 
> ...



True.


----------



## Edie (Aug 5, 2011)

Well there is a large degree of cross over between British Asian culture and White working class culture, we share the same schools and parks, ours kids play together and we go out and have meals together (halal). But there are obviously differences too. Being a Muslim British Asian is quite a bit different to be being White British. Most of the kids go to mosque after school to learn Arabic, the adults don't drink down the pub, most Muslim mums wear hijab, most would want there children to marry other Muslims.

These differences mean communities may live in the same area but be quite seperate.


----------



## dylans (Aug 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> Well there is a large degree of cross over between British Asian culture and White working class culture, we share the same schools and parks, ours kids play together and we go out and have meals together (halal). But there are obviously differences too. Being a Muslim British Asian is quite a bit different to be being White British. Most of the kids go to mosque after school to learn Arabic, the adults don't drink down the pub, most Muslim mums wear hijab, most would want there children to marry other Muslims.
> 
> These differences mean communities may live in the same area but be quite seperate.


 
Yes but that has very little to do with immigration or concerns about immigration does it? After all, the communities you are describing  are British.


----------



## rover07 (Aug 5, 2011)

Sounds like your community is very mixed already, Edie. 

Im sure in twenty years time when families have inter-married you'll be down the mosque for weddings etc.

I expect too there willl be right-wingers moaning about how all the Chinese immigrants coming over here dont mix, have alien customs and some cant even speak English!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> So what are the other objections to immigration if not xenophobia? Until someone demonstrates otherwise I will continue to argue that objections to immigration are nothing more than racism pure and simple and if saying so is "out of order" then tough shit


you do that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> Of course  you don't. because you are an EDL sympathising racist cunt


 
i don't agree with all that many of your assertions, or the construction you put on facts, because all too often they turn out to be mistaken

does that make me an edl sympathising racist cunt too?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 5, 2011)

nora!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 17, 2011)

Given the recent turn of events do you 93 urbs still feel the same way? I mean, is a full blown race riot really a price worth paying for either an anti-statist posture or an abstract fetish for freedom of speech?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2011)

Full blown race riot?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 17, 2011)

Far right group marching through an area with a large muslim population following a recent wave of riots, a breakdown of police- community relations and a highly charged atmosphere are frankly not odds I'd be prepared to stake a "first they came for the fascists" analysis on. The banning of the march in this instance would be eminantly sensible and proportionate when weighed against the potential for large scale public disorder (not to mention that tax payers money shouldn't be spent on the policing and security for far right boneheads to stir shit up for the sake of it and pretend it's freedom of expression). The home secretary already has the powers at her disposal to ban marches when they pose threats to local communities and the EDL have already been subject to such bans in the past, and if there was ever a paradigm case for such a ban it would now in Tower Hamlets. The real threat to civil liberties comes from the new proposals to grant wide ranging powers to the police and to restrict social media. The EDL march is the wrong focal point of attention for civil libertarian concerns.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Far right group marching through an area with a large muslim population following a recent wave of riots, a breakdown of police- community relations and a highly charged atmosphere are frankly not odds I'd be prepared to stake a "first they came for the fascists" analysis on. The banning of the march in this instance would be eminantly sensible and proportionate when weighed against the potential for large scale public disorder (not to mention that tax payers money shouldn't be spent on the policing and security for far right boneheads to stir shit up for the sake of it and pretend it's freedom of expression). The home secretary already has the powers at her disposal to ban marches when they pose threats to local communities and the EDL have already been subject to such bans in the past, and if there was ever a paradigm case for such a ban it would now in Tower Hamlets. The real threat to civil liberties comes from the new proposals to grant wide ranging powers to the police and to restrict social media. The EDL march is the wrong focal point of attention for civil libertarian concerns.


no it wouldn't be sensible. please engage brain before posting. if the march is allowed then the police know where the edl are, and where the locals are and that. and if the march is banned there is the potential for greater disorder, with the edl all over the bloody shop.

in addition, the way these things work is that unpopular groups like football hooligans or fascists are often used to set a precedent which is then in the future used against other groups you may agree with more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Given the recent turn of events do you 93 urbs still feel the same way? I mean, is a full blown race riot really a price worth paying for either an anti-statist posture or an abstract fetish for freedom of speech?


do you know anything about the area? there won't be a fucking 'full blown race riot' (whatever that is) in th.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2011)

The entire thread is predicated on the idea that there was never going to be a march anyway, which there wasn't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The entire thread is predicated on the idea that there was never going to be a march anyway, which there wasn't.


fyi: the march is planned for sept 3.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2011)

The apocalypse is planned for December 12, 2012, too. Well, depends on your calendar.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 17, 2011)

Scheduled for September 3rd apparently. Pickmans, interesting to note that the recent EDL march in Telford was banned and yet the police were able to contain the few hundred EDL that turned up without much trouble. Still it's funny that you oppose the ban from a _pro-police_ perspective. I thought you were one of those ACAB class war types...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2011)




----------



## Edie (Aug 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yes but that has very little to do with immigration or concerns about immigration does it? After all, the communities you are describing  are British.


It has to do with how some White wc people view immigration yer. Specially in the north. I was being talked at about it last night as it goes.

See I think this is where the far right get a foothold. People like you dylans go on about how there's no White wc culture (in fact I got laughed on here and told I was an idiot for saying there was) and identity, pretend that people aren't threatened by immigration and that it doesn't drive down wages. It leaves a hole for the BNP and EDL to exploit.


Sorry for delay been in Majorca!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2011)

Edie said:


> It has to do with how some White wc people view immigration yer. Specially in the north. I was being talked at about it last night as it goes.
> 
> See I think this is where the far right get a foothold. People like you dylans go on about how there's no White wc culture (in fact I got laughed on here and told I was an idiot for saying there was) and identity, pretend that people aren't threatened by immigration and that it doesn't drive down wages. It leaves a hole for the BNP and EDL to exploit.
> 
> Sorry for delay been in Majorca!



No-one has said there's no "white working-class culture" (that'd be a fucking stupid thing to say). What many people have said is there's no single white working-class culture that unites the white working-class, there are hundreds/thousands of them, usually based around a particular geography and history of type of employment.

As for immigration, it's nowhere near as much of a problem as the fact that the white working-class are under a constant attack by outside forces in order to keep them from realising that together against the ruling classes they'd get far more done than shouting about immigration. It isn't immigration that's been driving down wages, it's the bosses. The fact that they've driven down wages below a ceiling on which a person can live means that the only people who'll *take* many of the jobs you're talking about are immigrants who often don't know their rights.


----------



## Emet (Aug 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> As for immigration, it's nowhere near as much of a problem as the fact that the white working-class are under a constant attack by outside forces in order to keep them from realising that together against the ruling classes they'd get far more done than shouting about immigration. It isn't immigration that's been driving down wages, it's the bosses. The fact that they've driven down wages below a ceiling on which a person can live means that the only people who'll *take* many of the jobs you're talking about are immigrants who often don't know their rights.


What? There's no market for labour? Bosses always try to drive down costs, whether for labour or anything else. That's their job, to control costs. And all of us drive down costs by buying cheap. If you get quotes for building work, all other things being equal, you choose the cheapest.

I work at the minimum wage end of the market, when I work, and quite often there is a large proportion of immigrants in the workplace, who, like me, are unskilled. There are more of us chasing the same jobs. Even when times were good and wages were rising, ours rose much less quickly. Arguably, the jobless youth would have had more incentive to be employed, during the boom period, had there been less immigration.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2011)

In what way does your post reply to his? You argue bosses try to get the cheapest - of course they do. VP says the same. He argues that the cheapest often means immigrant labour. He agues it would be better to ally with these people to push rates up across the board. You argue that it's a _space_ thing rather than _rate_ thing. He's right, you're wrong.


----------



## Edie (Aug 21, 2011)

Rubbish. There's lots of similarities to unify and give us identity. It's just the left don't like it for some reason. Think it's something to be ashamed of, fine to recognise it in other cultures when they are travelling but not at home.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2011)

Like what then? What are they today?


----------



## Edie (Aug 21, 2011)

You think foreigners can't tell English people? No distinguishing characteristics? That our cultures no different to there's? You make me laugh, I just got back from Spain


----------



## Emet (Aug 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In what way does your post reply to his? You argue bosses try to get the cheapest - of course they do. VP says the same. He argues that the cheapest often means immigrant labour. He agues it would be better to ally with these people to push rates up across the board. You argue that it's a _space_ thing rather than _rate_ thing. He's right, you're wrong.


Do you think that there won't be unintended consequences of 'labour unity'? And what fraction of the labour market are supposed to get unified? Network admins on £100, 000 a year? Do their wages go up or down? What happens if they take their valuable skills to other markets and leave shortages behind when their wages slide? Will Capital walk when trade unions bureaucratise working practises and send costs up? You might be left with rights that are pretty much notional because there is just no work at all.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 21, 2011)

Edie said:


> You think foreigners can't tell English people? No distinguishing characteristics? That our cultures no different to there's? You make me laugh, I just got back from Spain


Yes. But the thing that annoys me about talking about "white working class" culture is it excludes any other group of person. I mean is a black or mixed race person living on an estate any different to their white neighbours?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2011)

Emet said:


> Do you think that there won't be unintended consequences of 'labour unity'? And what fraction of the labour market are supposed to get unified? Network admins on £100, 000 a year? Do their wages go up or down? What happens if they take their valuable skills to other markets and leave shortages behind when their wages slide? Will Capital walk when trade unions bureaucratise working practises and send costs up? You might be left with rights that are pretty much notional because there is just no work at all.



Unintended for who? All, but starting on the people you mentioned. The min wage end. The bit where i work. Let's deal with that first. What goes wrong in my scenario?


----------



## Emet (Aug 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Unintended for who? All, but starting on the people you mentioned. The min wage end. The bit where i work. Let's deal with that first. What goes wrong in my scenario?


Work might not be done if it can't be done below a certain cost. We don't get paid. The work goes elsewhere, maybe abroad. We can't then even spend that money locally.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2011)

Emet said:


> Work might not be done if it can't be done below a certain cost. We don't get paid. The work goes elsewhere, maybe abroad. We can't then even spend that money locally.



You what? You just argued that immigrants were bring job prices down. Not up. So how would their presence push job prices up?


----------



## Emet (Aug 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You what? You just argued that immigrants were bring job prices down. Not up. So how would their presence push job prices up?


I don't understand how you got to the above. You are arguing that through unity the price of labour will rise, at least at the low end. Well, if that prices you of the market jobs will disappear. In that case, the price of labour will fall. You can have a notional minimum wage but it won't work, the jobs are in China, say. Wanna go there?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2011)

Emet said:


> I don't understand how you got to the above. You are arguing that through unity the price of labour will rise, at least at the low end. Well, if that prices you of the market jobs will disappear. In that case, the price of labour will fall. You can have a notional minimum wage but it won't work, the jobs are in China, say. Wanna go there?


Well what the fuck are you  arguing - that the price of labour should fall? Then following your logic you should support immigration.

And no, you don't get priced out of min wage jobs.


----------



## treelover (Aug 21, 2011)

'As for immigration, it's nowhere near as much of a problem as the fact that the white working-class are under a constant attack by outside forces in order to keep them from realising that together against the ruling classes they'd get far more done than shouting about immigration'

in terrms of employment, the evidence is piling up that is is migrant labour that is taking up the majority of new entry level jobs, why is their so much denial of this? (on here anyway) Leaving aside that it isn't happening goes in the face of peoples lived experience, you've worked with statistics etc, why in this case are they ignored.


----------



## Emet (Aug 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well what the fuck are you arguing - that the price of labour should fall? Then following your logic you should support immigration.
> 
> And no, you don't get priced out of min wage jobs.


At no point have I used the word 'should'. Personally, I am ambivalent about immigration, not against it. I'm pretty certain that immigrants have disproportionately sought and got work at the lower end. Immigration has therefore kept my (and others in my position) wages lower than they might otherwise have been.

And yes, your minimum wage job may go if your company competes with a company where wage rates are lower (say in another country), all other things being equal.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2011)

I used the word should to highlight where your argument should lead. And no, you're back at your inability to argue against my point - if the people at the bottom didn't compete against each other and instead demanded more they'd get more.

No, it can't because EU competition rules mean that you pay the min wage in each country. You moving schools to china? How you going to do that?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2011)

I used the word should to highlight where your argument should lead. And no, you're back at your inability to argue against my point - if the people at the bottom didn't compete against each other and instead demanded more they'd get more.

No, it can't because EU competition rules mean that you pay the min wage in each country. You moving schools to china? How you going to do that?


----------



## Edie (Aug 21, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'As for immigration, it's nowhere near as much of a problem as the fact that the white working-class are under a constant attack by outside forces in order to keep them from realising that together against the ruling classes they'd get far more done than shouting about immigration'
> 
> in terrms of employment, the evidence is piling up that is is migrant labour that is taking up the majority of new entry level jobs, why is their so much denial of this? (on here anyway) Leaving aside that it isn't happening goes in the face of peoples lived experience, you've worked with statistics etc, why in this case are they ignored.


Yer. Why?


----------



## Emet (Aug 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I used the word should to highlight where your argument should lead. And no, you're back at your inability to argue against my point - if the people at the bottom didn't compete against each other and instead demanded more they'd get more.
> 
> No, it can't because EU competition rules mean that you pay the min wage in each country. You moving schools to china? How you going to do that?


You've failed to deal with the 'unintended consequences' argument: unity may not ultimately lead to more money.

I don't know what the minimum wage is in countries like Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria (etc) is but I bet it is somewhat below £6 an hour.

I am, like you, in competition with people in China for work. I won't move but the capital that might enable me to get a job could.

Look, I might be completely wrong about this and you may be right. I just don't think so.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2011)

Emet said:


> You've failed to deal with the 'unintended consequences' argument: unity may not ultimately lead to more money.
> 
> I don't know what the minimum wage is in countries like Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria (etc) are but I bet they are somewhat below £6 an hour.
> 
> ...



I asked you what the unintended consequences might me and i got a deafening silence in return.  You've got to tell me what you at least think they are before i can respond.

You can't go fucking nowhere on min wage and you can't get undercut. You'll see other people being dragged down to our level. That's fuck all to with immigration - that's the skilled top end of the w/c and their shit.


----------



## audiotech (Aug 21, 2011)

treelover said:


> in terrms of employment, the evidence is piling up that is is migrant labour that is taking up the majority of new entry level jobs, why is their so much denial of this? (on here anyway) Leaving aside that it isn't happening goes in the face of peoples lived experience, you've worked with statistics etc, why in this case are they ignored.



Damned lies and etc. Not saying you're playing games and lying here, but where are your stats to back-up your assertion?

As someone who was so desperate I took a job delivering Chinese meals. Pay £20 + £1 for every meal delivered. The most I was paid was around £30. That works out at £6.00 an hour (less with costs I incurred). Entry level it certainly was and it should be said not very reliable either. Because of a decline in orders due to the economic downturn no drivers are now being taken on. That's a real world statistic btw.


----------



## treelover (Aug 21, 2011)

*'UK Immigration: Foreign Born Worker Employment Rises By 300,000 In Second Quarter While UK Born Workers Lose 50,000 Jobs*

Source: *eGov monitor - A Policy Dialogue Platform*
_Published Friday, 19 August, 2011 - 07:56'_

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/43372

some evidence here


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 21, 2011)

That is not evidence of what you claim at all.


----------



## Emet (Aug 21, 2011)

Emet said:


> Do you think that there won't be unintended consequences of 'labour unity'? And what fraction of the labour market are supposed to get unified? Network admins on £100, 000 a year? Do their wages go up or down? What happens if they take their valuable skills to other markets and leave shortages behind when their wages slide? Will Capital walk when trade unions bureaucratise working practises and send costs up? You might be left with rights that are pretty much notional because there is just no work at all.


butchersapron: I thought I had begged a few questions about differential wage rates with the above. More for us probably means less for them. How do changes in relative earning power for higher paid workers affect the rest of the economy? Oh, and haven't you heard of differential pay disputes between different sets of unionised workers?

I must go and do other things right now. Have a good evening.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 21, 2011)

This may already have been posted, but FYI:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14591243


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2011)

Emet said:


> What? There's no market for labour?



Have I said that, anywhere?



> Bosses always try to drive down costs, whether for labour or anything else. That's their job, to control costs.



If they're any good at their job, it's about quite a lot more than controlling costs.



> And all of us drive down costs by buying cheap. If you get quotes for building work, all other things being equal, you choose the cheapest.



Really? Only if you're either an idiot or getting a good price because you know the tradesman/have some pictures of him doing the nasty with a woman who isn't his wife.

What's your incentive to choose the cheapest unless you can be sure that the materials and labour used are up to snuff?

And I say this as a skint person who thinks very long and hard about spending money.



> I work at the minimum wage end of the market, when I work, and quite often there is a large proportion of immigrants in the workplace, who, like me, are unskilled. There are more of us chasing the same jobs. Even when times were good and wages were rising, ours rose much less quickly. Arguably, the jobless youth would have had more incentive to be employed, during the boom period, had there been less immigration.



Arguably they wouldn't. A few points and questions:

If you're talking about EU nationals working here, they're not classed as immigrants because UK workers have the same right to work in the rest of the EU as they're exercising. Immigrants, then, fall into two categories, legal and legal. Are you taliking about the former, the latter or both?

If you're a "jobless youth" living at home, then you're disincentivised from taking any job paying less than minimum wage (and I'm talking minimum adult wage here, not the "kiddy rate") unless your parents are both in decent-paying jobs. The disincentive is that if they rely on any benefits, your income will affect their right to those benefits unless those benefits are one of the few types that are "disregarded" as income (Disability Living Allowance, Carer's Allowance/Premium and Attendance Allowance being three that occur to me off the top of my head).

There's little incentive to taking a job that expects the same amount of work out of you as out of a 30-year old if, between the ages of 16 and 18, you're expected to do that job for less than two-thirds of the rate the 30-year old will be paid, especially for unskilled labour. If you're learning a trade at an apprenticeship, fine. When it's a device for saving the boss money, and you can be all but certain he'll bin you as soon as you command the full rate.

As you say, there are more chasing the same number of jobs because there are fewer jobs. what dent would you reckon immigration is putting on the prospects of "unemployed youths", figure-wise?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2011)

Edie said:


> Rubbish. There's lots of similarities to unify and give us identity.



I haven't said that there aren't. In fact I said there's no single white working-class culture. That's a plain fact. We share elements across the hundreds or thousands of separate ww/c cultures, and they may well form the basis of unity and identity, but they don't at the moment, and that's not because of the mythical evil lefties you chunter about, it because the the boss classes have spent their energies since time immemorial playing "divide and conquer".



> It's just the left don't like it for some reason. Think it's something to be ashamed of, fine to recognise it in other cultures when they are travelling but not at home.



Load of bollocks. I love big parts of English and British culture. What I (and many people, even resolute Tories like my dad) don't like is the way English culture gets defined not by the majority of English people, but by pundits and pecksniffers working for our rulers, telling us "to be English means _X, Y_ and _Z_". Well fuck that. Why should some cunt who's never lived in the world the majority of English people live in get to dictate what comprises my culture or identity?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2011)

Edie said:


> You think foreigners can't tell English people? No distinguishing characteristics? That our cultures no different to there's? You make me laugh, I just got back from Spain



If I go to Germany, no-one knows I'm English until I speak, because any German I say is inflected with a heavy south London accent. They assume I'm from "the East", because that's what I look like: A big ugly peasant from the Ukraine or Poland.


----------



## treelover (Aug 21, 2011)

flattering description of you there...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Yes. But the thing that annoys me about talking about "white working class" culture is it excludes any other group of person. I mean is a black or mixed race person living on an estate any different to their white neighbours?



Yeah, but I'm talking about it with reference to Edie's post, that "people like dylans say there's no wwc culture". Of course there isn't a singular wwc culture, there are loads of them, and very many of them co-exist and hybridise with other cultures around them. That's why I hate this idea of "English" and "British" cultures so much: Because some cock gets to dictate to use what our cultures are, rather than allowing those cultures to speak for themselves. Look at John Major's attempt to define Englishness - mimsy middle-class "betwen-the-wars" Village England, no rough edges. You get visions of the village green, not the ramshackle tied cottages the farm labourers and their families lived in. Even now, we get head-nods to ethnic cuisine and music, but that's all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2011)

treelover said:


> flattering description of you there...



Why would I wish to flatter myself?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2011)

Emet said:


> I don't understand how you got to the above. You are arguing that through unity the price of labour will rise, at least at the low end. Well, if that prices you of the market jobs will disappear. In that case, the price of labour will fall. You can have a notional minimum wage but it won't work, the jobs are in China, say. Wanna go there?



You'd have a point if the majority of the workforce where employed in exportable industries, but guess what? Most of that is already gone - to China, to India or to Hell.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'As for immigration, it's nowhere near as much of a problem as the fact that the white working-class are under a constant attack by outside forces in order to keep them from realising that together against the ruling classes they'd get far more done than shouting about immigration'
> 
> in terrms of employment, the evidence is piling up that is is migrant labour that is taking up the majority of new entry level jobs, why is their so much denial of this? (on here anyway) Leaving aside that it isn't happening goes in the face of peoples lived experience, you've worked with statistics etc, why in this case are they ignored.



They're not.

Look at the jobs you're talking about.

Had a good look?

Would the majority of those jobs have been "created" if there were no "migrant labour" to be exploited (put simply, were the jobs of the sort that would have sustained a British worker with the financial obligations normal to such a person?)?

I keep hearing about denial, and how migrants steal jobs, but in the established jobs, many of them are of the sort that employers stopped hiring "native labour" for years ago, because they needed a minimum pay rate the employers weren't willing to meet, and the "new jobs" tend to be ones created in order to take advantage of the "opportunities" inherent to chaeap migrant labour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

Emet said:


> You've failed to deal with the 'unintended consequences' argument: unity may not ultimately lead to more money.
> 
> I don't know what the minimum wage is in countries like Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria (etc) is but I bet it is somewhat below £6 an hour.



As is the cost of living.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2011)

Emet said:


> I don't know what the minimum wage is in countries like Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria (etc) is but I bet it is somewhat below £6 an hour.


so?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

treelover said:


> *'UK Immigration: Foreign Born Worker Employment Rises By 300,000 In Second Quarter While UK Born Workers Lose 50,000 Jobs*
> 
> Source: *eGov monitor - A Policy Dialogue Platform*
> _Published Friday, 19 August, 2011 - 07:56'_
> ...



You realise that a "foreign-born worker" isn't necessarily an "economic migrant" but could equally be that nice chap Ravi from down the road who came over with his parents when he was 3 and is a British national, right?


----------



## treelover (Aug 22, 2011)

of course, i am looking for other sources which i have identified..


----------



## Edie (Aug 22, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't said that there aren't. In fact I said there's no single white working-class culture. That's a plain fact. We share elements across the hundreds or thousands of separate ww/c cultures, and they may well form the basis of unity and identity, but they don't at the moment, and that's not because of the mythical evil lefties you chunter about, it because the the boss classes have spent their energies since time immemorial playing "divide and conquer".
> 
> 
> 
> Load of bollocks. I love big parts of English and British culture. What I (and many people, even resolute Tories like my dad) don't like is the way English culture gets defined not by the majority of English people, but by pundits and pecksniffers working for our rulers, telling us "to be English means _X, Y_ and _Z_". Well fuck that. Why should some cunt who's never lived in the world the majority of English people live in get to dictate what comprises my culture or identity?


You read Watching the English (can't remember who it's by) or The English by Jeremy Paxman? What do you think about them?

I'm not really talking about the bollocks spoken by John Major about bicycles. But if I speak to someone who is in the BNP (don't know anyone in the EDL personally) then a sense of pride in who they are and where they come from is important. Take it away and what are you left with? Anger. Anyway I'd better stfu but I think your wrong and stupid to tell wwc they got no unifying identity.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

You mean two books by the upper middle classes about their own fascination with their image of trad english culture? Fuck all that i connected with in either book (apart from the class stats in he paxman book) and fuck all to with working class culture. Why does the the BNP being proud of fuck all make any difference?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

if there's an area with a strong w/c culture and the area is majority white it makes that culture working class btw -  not white w/c  culture.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

Surely it would depend on whether the community felt that its whiteness was a particularly valuable aspect of its identity?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

You mean if it was a racial culture? Then of course, that's a circular sort of thing

And the only way whiteness is linked to being w/c today is in negative terms - in terms of the state and so on being able to abuse them because of whiteness. In terms of it being a positive thing to organise around then no, the white part of the w/c, despite a century of prodding, have failed brilliantly to organise on that basis.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

I mean that you can't read off from the existence of a working class community that happens to be majority white, that it sees itself as a) predominanly w/c, b) predominantly white, or c) importantly both white and working class.

It might see itself in any of the above lights, or have an alternative organising idea altogether?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

All you're saying then is that cultures can see themselves in racial terms (without getting into the question of what cultures are here). The question is _do_ they? And i'd say no. Just look around you. You're also running community and culture together as if you think that they're the same thing - do you think that?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're also running community and culture together as if you think that they're the same thing - do you think that?



hmm - they aren't separable are they?  Could you have a community that didn't have a culture?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

You tell me - my point is simply that the white part of the w/c does not and never really has organised on a race basis.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

that might be true (as it happens I think it largely is, though sections of it have tried with greater or lesser degress of success).  But whether a group is w/c (and only incidentally maj white) or whether it is in a significant sense "white working class" depends on how it sees itself?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

Of course, and being white has never really been seen as a signifier of working classness -in terms of self-identity anyway. The white season demonstrated that this is not true for others looking inwards/downwards.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

would the same also be true of ethnicity?  (elements of the English working class identifying itself as ethnically/culturally/religiously etc. superior to the Irish immigrant labourers- class has not always been the principle organising category of working men (and women)?)


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

I think you may be giving the church and king mobs and that too much credit - and imposing a coherent anti-catholic views on purely opportunist stuff. Where do we look for historical examples of working class creation of self-identity? E.P Thompson or Robert Peel? The point is about _today_ though - the w/c does not organise on a racial basis despite there being a lot of widespread casual racial prejudice.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

casual racial prejudice that is widespread not only in the working class, but also in the m/c and r/c as well.


----------



## Edie (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Of course, and being white has never really been seen as a signifier of working classness -in terms of self-identity anyway. The white season demonstrated that this is not true for others looking inwards/downwards.


What is the White season?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

A big pile of middle class assumptions in brief. it was BBC week of specials concentrating on they think are the white working class. There was a really good thread on it at the time, let me try and find it - i'll edit it in if i find it.

either this one or this one


----------



## Edie (Aug 22, 2011)

Ta.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

Edie said:


> You read Watching the English (can't remember who it's by) or The English by Jeremy Paxman? What do you think about them?



First one was Kate Fox.

Yep, I've read both of then, plus many others. Paxman goes for a historical angle, Fox goes for an anthropological angle. Most of the books on this subject and their authors have something in common - the perspective they report from is that of the middle and upper classes. That's why books like Eamonn Collins' "The Likes of Us" is much more interesting.



> I'm not really talking about the bollocks spoken by John Major about bicycles. But if I speak to someone who is in the BNP (don't know anyone in the EDL personally) then a sense of pride in who they are and where they come from is important. Take it away and what are you left with? Anger.



I'm all for a sense of pride about where you come from and who you are. Me, I'm inordinately proud of being a working class south Londoner, just like people from Yorkshire are inordinately proud of being Tykes. Why do I have to buy into some bollocks about some unitary national identity that someone (John Major or the BNP, I don't give a fuck which) wants to force on me.



> Anyway I'd better stfu but I think your wrong and stupid to tell wwc they got no unifying identity.



That's okay. I don't think you're wrong and stupid. I *know* you are. 

As usual you haven't read what I wrote. I said there's *no single white working class culture*.

I haven't said anything about the white working class having no unifying identity. In fact in the post you quoted, I made clear (although obviously not clear enough) that I believe that it's actually the diversity of working class culture that provides a basis for unity.

Next time you call someone stupid, make sure you're not shooting yourself in the foot, Edie.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> All you're saying then is that cultures can see themselves in racial terms (without getting into the question of what cultures are here). The question is _do_ they? And i'd say no. Just look around you.



I'd have to insert a _caveat_ there, in that some BME communities have been encouraged to represent themselves in such terms, but it is still the case that many w/c communities don't define racially, but by circumstance, i.e. a "we're all in the shit together" attitude.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

articul8 said:


> that might be true (as it happens I think it largely is, though sections of it have tried with greater or lesser degress of success). But whether a group is w/c (and only incidentally maj white) or whether it is in a significant sense "white working class" depends on how it sees itself?


I'd argue that most, if not all the attempt to organise "white working class" communities on a race basis have been grafts from middle and upper class value systems by members of those classes.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

The IWCA argued that the multicultural encouragement to ethnic self-recognition amongst BME communities was also functioning as a prompt to white communities w/c to do the same, didn't they? And had an analysis that suggested the far right (in the shape of the BNP) was making significant inroads.

What is now being said? That this has been empirically proved wrong? That the BNP failed to down to its own subjective fuck ups? That the w/c is naturally hostile to racial self-idenfication? That the context cut across what the BNP were trying to do? A bit of everything?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

The IWCA - alongside many others (kenan Malik, asian youth movement, sen etc) argued that top down multi-culturalsim racialised social issues and that this could only help the BNP, and that this would be an obstacle to class organisation. It was and is. It's not a zero sum game where the BNP either come to power or the critique falls.


----------



## Edie (Aug 22, 2011)

So VP what are these differences between wwc communities?


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 22, 2011)

Early reports saying the March is banned, and it will just be a static demo.

If that is the case, they will be bussed in and out, and stuck in a pen where nobody can see them, have there speeches and then fuck off....

Really wanted them to march so people could tell them to fuck off.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 22, 2011)

Oh and according to Martin Smith (UAF) there march is still going ahead.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

For martin, it has to.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The IWCA - alongside many others (kenan Malik, asian youth movement, sen etc) argued that top down multi-culturalsim racialised social issues and that this could only help the BNP, and that this would be an obstacle to class organisation. It was and is. It's not a zero sum game where the BNP either come to power or the critique falls.



But if the w/c has never, by and large, had any truck with race as a core component for organising its political identity (as you claimed earlier), why is it such a threat and such an obstacle?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 22, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Early reports saying the March is banned, and it will just be a static demo.



Where's that coming from Bob?


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 22, 2011)

Twitter

not got any news links yet.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 22, 2011)

But we all knew it was on the cards anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But if the w/c has never, by and large, had any truck with race as a core component for organising its political identity (as you claimed earlier), why is it such a threat and such an obstacle?



Because, as argued, it can racialise social issues and make politics about race. It's really quite simple - the w/c doesn't as one have to be either formally racist or non racist. It's not, as i said, a zero sum game. Can you answer your own question?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

ah, so whilst the w/c wouldn't choose race as a political category for itself, it is a category being imposed from above on its behalf by a section of the liberal middle class which aims to make the w/c conform to its own jaundiced view of it?


----------



## love detective (Aug 22, 2011)

articul8 do you really need to be asking why the racialising of class issues is an obstacle in the way of progressive working class organisation?

I don't think you do, but it leaves me wondering why you are?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 22, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> But we all knew it was on the cards anyway.



Just clocked it. After Telford & the London unrest, yep, was always going to happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

articul8 said:


> ah, so whilst the w/c wouldn't choose race as a political category for itself, it is a category being imposed from above on its behalf by a section of the liberal middle class which aims to make the w/c conform to its own jaundiced view of it?


 That might be true but it's fuck all to do with what i posted. What's wrong with you today? You're full of teenage box tricks and this. What you playing at?


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 22, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Just clocked it. After Telford & the London unrest, yep, was always going to happen.



They more than likley wanted it banned, they must know they would have been hurt badly trying to march.... static is an in and out job, copper or two each to look after them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

Edie said:


> So VP what are these differences between wwc communities?



The history of different communities, for a start. Let's take a rally easy to follow example - the mining communities. Talk to any worker up into the 1990s and they'll all say the same thing: Mining communities were pretty much self-contained. That's not to say all mining communities were exactly the same, because they weren't - different areas, and even different collieries in the same area had different traditions and ways of dealing with stuff. Same thing applies wherever you had docks, shipyards, steel mills, in fact any mass employment. Everyone was working class, but that didn't make them some homogeneous mass with a single identity, i.e. "white working class". It just meant that they shared a  couple of *facets* of their identity - that they were white and working class, but not others such as trade, history or geography.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But if the w/c has never, by and large, had any truck with race as a core component for organising its political identity (as you claimed earlier), why is it such a threat and such an obstacle?



Because with the right degree of political manipulation it *can* be made an issue. It just needs mainstream politicians stupid or greedy enough to consider doing so.


----------



## Edie (Aug 22, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The history of different communities, for a start. Let's take a rally easy to follow example - the mining communities. Talk to any worker up into the 1990s and they'll all say the same thing: Mining communities were pretty much self-contained. That's not to say all mining communities were exactly the same, because they weren't - different areas, and even different collieries in the same area had different traditions and ways of dealing with stuff. Same thing applies wherever you had docks, shipyards, steel mills, in fact any mass employment. Everyone was working class, but that didn't make them some homogeneous mass with a single identity, i.e. "white working class". It just meant that they shared a  couple of *facets* of their identity - that they were white and working class, but not others such as trade, history or geography.


I've always respected you for being able to make a point forcibly without putting someone down or being a cunt. You don't need to patronise me I'm not as thick as you think.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That might be true but it's fuck all to do with what i posted. What's wrong with you today? You're full of teenage box tricks and this. What you playing at?



I'm trying to render some form of consistency and coherence - otherwise lacking - into your posts.

Is your claim about w/c communities with majority white populations generally having no truck with organising about racial identity simply an empirical claim about working class history to date, or is it meant to imply that there is something is in such communities that is inimical to racist politics??


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

In what way is asking a a totally bizarre question to a reply to one of your own earllier bizarre posts rendering coherence? It's pretty clearly trying to force me and my posts into a pre-existing set of stuff you already have set up in your mind. It's a peice of your pathetic line of leading questions that you'e been banging out all day.

Really long winded and wanky way of saying that w/c communities can be racist. Well done.  Are they? I asked you earlier to answer the question that you put to me - will you?



> But if the w/c has never, by and large, had any truck with race as a core component for organising its political identity (as you claimed earlier), why is it such a threat and such an obstacle?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

insofar as elements of majority white w/c communities are organising around ethnic-religious (not strictly racial) prejudice, it is not entirely without precedent [there really is a parallel between anti-Irish and anti-Muslim bigotry]. And no doubt the deliberate de-mobilisation of class as an organising category by the Labour party leadership has disempowered countervailing strategies that have could be more effective in cutting across them.

But are whole w/c communities racist in toto? No.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

So what the fuck are you trying to shoehorn me into saying exactly?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

Edie said:


> I've always respected you for being able to make a point forcibly without putting someone down or being a cunt. You don't need to patronise me I'm not as thick as you think.



I didn't patronise you, I gave you an easy example to follow. Would you have prefered me to write in _academese? Did my use of the word simple" offend you? If so you shouldn't be so thin-skinned: it means what it means - a simple example (over a single paragraph) rather than a complex one (over half a dozen paragraphs)._


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

To Butchers - I'm not. I thought you were saying that there is some essential non-racistness in working class cultures that would ordinarily insulate against external attempts to implant it.


----------



## Pinette (Aug 22, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Early reports saying the March is banned, and it will just be a static demo.
> 
> If that is the case, they will be bussed in and out, and stuck in a pen where nobody can see them, have there speeches and then fuck off....
> 
> Really wanted them to march so people could tell them to fuck off.


Really wanted them to march so that people would turn their backs. Silence. Contempt.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 22, 2011)

I'm not unhappy if the March is banned, it's provocation rather than a protest. If it was other it could be done in Trafalgar Square, without the hoolie awayday chanting and posturing.

I don't agree that a ban diminishes the right to protest per se in any way that is of consequence. The state will ban what it considers to be a threat to itself, whether we wish to draw a line or not, unless 100,000 or so people gather anyway.

Whilst it might seem poetic justice for the EDL to get a good shoeing the reality is that people will get hurt, arrested, sentenced. It's not a great climate for encouraging that kind of martyrdom. Poor tactics to have spectaculars in full view of the Police and CCTV.

Positions get entrenched, policing tougher and freedom of expression further limited.

Would a big outcry if this were banned in some way safeguard the right to protest against, for example, an economic summit? I doubt it. An outcry would be perverse and understood by few who might feel threatened by the EDL.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 23, 2011)

I wonder what the scum and vermin of the EDL would make of this?


----------



## Chris Dossett (Aug 23, 2011)

We have freedom of speech; if you say they cannot then you must then ask, who regulates who can? 
Though you may disagree with fascism, it is not new and  despite its telling history some are seduced by it. 
Then, why censor the belief of utter ignorance, as supposed to facing them in the streets with enough people, to drown them in our spit!"

"Fascism is not in itself a new order of society. It is the future refusing to be born." - Aneurin Bevan


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2011)

Do what?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

Chris Dossett said:


> We have freedom of speech; if you say they cannot then you must then ask, who regulates who can?
> Though you may disagree with fascism, it is not new and despite its telling history some are seduced by it.
> Then, why censor the belief of utter ignorance, as supposed to facing them in the streets with enough people, to drown them in our spit!"
> 
> "Fascism is not in itself a new order of society. It is the future refusing to be born." - Aneurin Bevan



Go on Chris....am listening...


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 23, 2011)




----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 23, 2011)

love it. tommy robinson says you can demonstrate anywhere you want it the world, its only england where his simpleton army get persecuted.

fucking cretin.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 23, 2011)

even half the audience get bored with his arrant nonsense by the end of it. best ignored tbf. oxygen thief at most.


----------



## Chris Dossett (Aug 23, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Go on Chris....am listening...


*Well back to the original question, I believe that we should be a conscious society, that question things. *
*Benito Mussoloni once said (but in Italian) "Fascism is a religion. The twentieth century will be known in history as the century of Fascism." *
*The twentieth century almost was, and as with any belief, unquestioned or challenged, breeds ignorance.*

*Religion advocates tolerance, where as fascism IS, by its very nature; brutal and fueld by fear.*
*"Over 2000 years ago, the Rabi Hillel, spoke and argued for tolernec in the area we now think of as palastine. *
*A few hundreds years later, for the 3 briefs years, Jesus never once uttered a single word of intollerence about anybody *
*and the last seromon of the profect Mohamed, answers everyone who lives in fear of someone who is different. It speaks volumes for Muslim tollerence. The first line states, "No white man will be lifed above a black, No black man will be life above a white..."*


*I feel no more threatened by Muslims, as my grandparents did by the jews that livied in London. And as Londers came togther to stop the facsism marching through an area that was predominately Jewish 75 years ago, we must come together this Septmeber to stop their succssors from marching through London, to bring fear and terror to the community that now lives here. *


*
*

*
*


----------



## Chris Dossett (Aug 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're not.
> 
> Look at the jobs you're talking about.
> 
> ...


 How about, fare pay for workers across the world?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 25, 2011)

* from twitter*
*DaveHill  *
Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman thanks those who'd planned to march against EDL for support & asks them now to "stand down" #lbth #london


----------



## lazyhack (Aug 25, 2011)

March now banned.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 25, 2011)

His blog says it's banned, cant see anything about asking people to stand down?

http://mayorlutfurrahman.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/the-edl-march-has-been-banned/


----------



## lazyhack (Aug 25, 2011)

Reported here by Dave Hill from the groaner - https://twitter.com/#!/DaveHill/status/106714673667252224


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 25, 2011)

> *Religion advocates tolerance*




somewhat optimistic view there!


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 25, 2011)

They'd get pulverised in Tower Hamlets without the protective wing of the old bill.


----------



## shaman75 (Aug 25, 2011)

Well, this could backfire in a spectacular fashion...



> The campaign to have a march planned by the English Defence League through one of London's most ethnically-diverse boroughs banned looks to have been successful. The Metropolitan Police has announced that it is "in the process of applying to the Home Secretary for *authority to prohibit a march in five London boroughs for a period of thirty days." It will be effective from 2 September.* More details of the application are promised later, including the names of the boroughs affected, one of which is undoubtedly Tower Hamlets. The application, which is highly unlikely to be turned down, applies to *all marches* in the boroughs concerned, including a planned counter-march against the EDL.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehi...ice-apply-to-prohibit-edl-tower-hamlets-march


----------



## lazyhack (Aug 25, 2011)

Cops want to ban all marches in 5 london boroughs until october now.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 25, 2011)

Shocking as it is, it will stop people from fighting, if they let them march it would kick off and people would get really hurt if not deaded.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 25, 2011)

They shouldn't have banned this, the EDL would have showed themselves up for the tossers they are


----------



## Pinette (Aug 25, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> They shouldn't have banned this, the EDL would have showed themselves up for the tossers they are


I agree with you Streathamite, though I'm not surprised - is anybody? If the riots hadn't taken place so recently then perhaps the march would've taken place and then the EDL would have had the opportunity of showing themselves to be a bunch of posturing little Hitlerite bastards with no-one showing the slightest interest in their cretinous agenda.


----------



## malatesta32 (Aug 26, 2011)

they can still have a static demo. however, many of them are pissed off with being the carpark defence league and may not turn up for it, especially the more northern firms. there will still be some who go tho. they have bigged it up for too long to back out really but this could be another bradford 'the little big one.'


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 26, 2011)

malatesta32 said:


> they can still have a static demo. however, many of them are pissed off with being the carpark defence league and may not turn up for it, especially the more northern firms. there will still be some who go tho. they have bigged it up for too long to back out really but this could be another bradford 'the little big one.'



Carpark Defence League.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 26, 2011)

N N NCP N N NCP !!!


----------



## malatesta32 (Aug 26, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> N N NCP N N NCP !!!



jokes aside, the carpark strategy has had a serious demoralising effect on them. many EDL cant see the point of forking out cash, travelling for hours and being ignored in NCPs finest enclaves. they are gradually realising that the 'public' do see them as racist football hooligans. which is what they are. eejits.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 26, 2011)

Pinette said:


> I agree with you Streathamite, though I'm not surprised - is anybody? If the riots hadn't taken place so recently then perhaps the march would've taken place and then the EDL would have had the opportunity of showing themselves to be a bunch of posturing little Hitlerite bastards with no-one showing the slightest interest in their cretinous agenda.


yeah agreed, it's the bloody riots wot dunnit


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 26, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Carpark Defence League.


liked that too - such wildean wit!


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 26, 2011)

Right the fuzz where under pressure to apply for a ban, so what if they asked for a 30 day ban as they knew it would be rejected? they did what they where asked, and then it's not their issue if TM does not apply the ban..... just a theory


----------



## past caring (Aug 26, 2011)

Eh? You can't be serious? When was the last time a Home Secretary refused an application from a police force for a ban? There is no chance that the application will not be granted if it's made.

I know that all you do is post up random stuff about the EDL and that actual analysis isn't your forte, but surely you're not this thick?


----------



## BlackArab (Aug 26, 2011)

An organisation called Right to protest have decided to challenge the ban.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 26, 2011)

past caring said:


> Eh? You can't be serious? When was the last time a Home Secretary refused an application from a police force for a ban? There is no chance that the application will not be granted if it's made.
> 
> I know that all you do is post up random stuff about the EDL and that actual analysis isn't your forte, but surely you're not this thick?



Sorry you must have me confused with someone who gives a fuck.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 26, 2011)

BlackArab said:


> An organisation called Right to protest have decided to challenge the ban.


Where did you hear that?


----------



## past caring (Aug 26, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Sorry you must have me confused with someone who gives a fuck.



No, I was already well aware that you do not give a fuck about posting up any old shite. But I reserve my right to point out to others that it is shite, just on the off chance that there's someone credulous enough to believe it.

Why not play safe and stick with posting up comment-free links? It's only when you venture an opinion that your idiocy is exposed.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 26, 2011)

refer to post #416


----------



## past caring (Aug 26, 2011)

In other words "Ner-ner-ner-ner"?

Quality.

You thick cunt.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 26, 2011)

oh leave it out ffs

banning of marches is bollocks and Nick Lowles or whatever he's called saying "we won the ban" is bollocks too.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 26, 2011)

Well it's not banned yet guess it will be Tuesday before we hear anything...


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 26, 2011)

http://www.twitvid.com/TMN72

*Tommy Robinson' # responds to Tower Hamlets march ban: "we'll show up anyway" *


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 26, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> http://www.twitvid.com/TMN72
> 
> *Tommy Robinson' # responds to Tower Hamlets march ban: "we'll show up anyway" *



As long as he has the cash for a car-parking space he should be OK.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 26, 2011)

assume that was before or after court today.. no news on how he got on yet.


----------



## BlackArab (Aug 26, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Where did you hear that?



they twittered it


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 26, 2011)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-secretary-bans-edl-march-2344538.html

*Home Secretary bans EDL march*


----------



## OneStrike (Aug 26, 2011)

Fucking stupid and backward banning this imo.  It is a clear precedant that could well lead to banning all sorts of gatherings. UAF own goal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> Fucking stupid and backward banning this imo. It is a clear precedant that could well lead to banning all sorts of gatherings. UAF own goal.


another thing is that what will break the edl is it being smashed on the streets. the home secretary's just breathed new life into the edl and lengthened its longevity.


----------



## OneStrike (Aug 26, 2011)

Yep, the edl have just got the best possible result, they'd have been laughed/smashed out of Hackney, now they have a victims card to play with.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 26, 2011)

The martyr role is central to the fascist narrative. The other side of the coin is that this risked being a major public order incident. I would rather have seen it go ahead and be outnumbered and laughed at or whatever. I am wary of the principle of bans but these things have to be on case by case basis.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 26, 2011)

Score draw, the thousands who petitioned the Council ,the Police and the Home Office will feel that they have achieved a victory. The EDL had no intention of marching , got the publicity and remain physically and reputationally intact.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 26, 2011)

Agreed, Tommy knew they wouldnt get to March.


----------



## revlon (Aug 26, 2011)

uaf are twisting their melons on this. Asking people to sign a petition demanding their right to march against the edl who won't be marching! A bit manic

"We, the undersigned, welcome the banning of the racist English Defence League’s march through Tower Hamlets.
We are.. appalled to discover that the home secretary, Theresa May, has agreed to the Metropolitan Police’s application for a blanket ban on ALL marches across five London boroughs

This is a huge attack on everyone’s civil liberties and prevents people’s rights to oppose racism.

We have the democratic right to peacefully march through Tower Hamlets on 3 September to show unity of Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Black, Asian and LGBT communities, trade unions and all those against fascism and for freedom, and to voice opposition to the EDL’s attempts to divide us.
Our legal advice says there is no law that says if one march has been banned, all marches in that area must be banned.

_It is our human right to peacefully march in Tower Hamlets._"

http://uaf.org.uk/2011/08/sign-now-support-the-right-to-march-against-edl-racists-and-fascists/


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 26, 2011)

lol


----------



## OneStrike (Aug 26, 2011)

The e.d.l, cowered down to less than a thousand, marching under clear and demonstrated contempt through Hackney would have left little for their deluded imagination.  Now their warped teenage dreams can run wild.  Please tell me what the UAF are good for, i'm open to learn, they appear to be a bunch of smug, aloof, soft as shit wankstains to me, campaigning to reduce the rights of those they don't agree with ffs.


----------



## Step Left (Aug 26, 2011)

I was recently reading Matthew Collins' book 'hate' (lets for the sake ignore allegations and the scepticism surrounding him). But reading his book, it strikes me really odd that his musings about his time in the far right and what they were up to show that Searchlight's strategy is totally wrong. Why does he work for them, and why do searchlight keep making the same mistakes and ignore what their moles say? There is a case where Collins said the NF announced a march, not intending to march, but create publicity when the bans rolled in. How can anyone in that organisation think asking the state to ban the EDL in tower hamlets is a good thing, especially as last time thousands of people turned out to physically confront them last time and the EDL bitched out. Madness I say!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> another thing is that what will break the edl is it being smashed on the streets. the home secretary's just breathed new life into the edl and lengthened its longevity.


Yup. It certainly hurt the NF like hell in the late '70s when they got shown their arses. They lost credibility with their own, and with those sympathetic enough to them to shove them their votes.


----------



## Corax (Aug 26, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> http://www.twitvid.com/TMN72
> 
> *Tommy Robinson' # responds to Tower Hamlets march ban: "we'll show up anyway" *


I thought he wasn't allowed out to play at the moment anyway?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2011)

Step Left said:


> I was recently reading Matthew Collins' book 'hate' (lets for the sake ignore allegations and the scepticism surrounding him). But reading his book, it strikes me really odd that his musings about his time in the far right and what they were up to show that Searchlight's strategy is totally wrong. Why does he work for them, and why do searchlight keep making the same mistakes and ignore what their moles say? There is a case where Collins said the NF announced a march, not intending to march, but create publicity when the bans rolled in. How can anyone in that organisation think asking the state to ban the EDL in tower hamlets is a good thing, especially as last time thousands of people turned out to physically confront them last time and the EDL bitched out. Madness I say!


part of the thing about collins' book for me was his evidence on the poor quality of searchlight intelligence, and its sources. for example, i think it's on page 129 (tho that's from memory) he says that searchlight put the nf members at 3-4000 when from his vantage point in the organisation he knew their membership was 800 tops. if searchlight have poor intelligence then they're going to make poor decisions, based on erroneous information.

however, what you say is madness (and what does look like madness from a perspective where you look at searchlight as a genuine anti-fascist organisation) looks - from a searchlight perspective rather more rational when you take into consideration that searchlight has a track record of fucking over anti-fascists, be they anarchists, red action, afa, anl, uaf, yre etc. and given searchlight's known state links, it's no great surprise if when push comes to shove they turn to a state solution.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2011)

Corax said:


> I thought he wasn't allowed out to play at the moment anyway?


what i'd like to see is tommy robinson fronting an anti-edl festival while his edl namesake's trying to marshal the troops down the way.


----------



## Corax (Aug 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> what i'd like to see is tommy robinson fronting an anti-edl festival while his edl namesake's trying to marshal the troops down the way.


It would be difficult, what with him having been dead for more than 500 years. And anyway, nobody likes orpharion and bandora stuff these days.

*With thanks to the good folk at wikipedia*


----------



## Step Left (Aug 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> part of the thing about collins' book for me was his evidence on the poor quality of searchlight intelligence, and its sources. for example, i think it's on page 129 (tho that's from memory) he says that searchlight put the nf members at 3-4000 when from his vantage point in the organisation he knew their membership was 800 tops. if searchlight have poor intelligence then they're going to make poor decisions, based on erroneous information.
> 
> however, what you say is madness (and what does look like madness from a perspective where you look at searchlight as a genuine anti-fascist organisation) looks - from a searchlight perspective rather more rational when you take into consideration that searchlight has a track record of fucking over anti-fascists, be they anarchists, red action, afa, anl, uaf, yre etc. and given searchlight's known state links, it's no great surprise if when push comes to shove they turn to a state solution.



Im not defending Searchlight here, but that isnt necessarily evidence of poor intelligence. There is, to be fair, a lot of bullshit and propaganda involved in fascism/anti-fascism, for tactical purposes. Also Searchlight, back then, probably only existed through donations and selling magazines. Its not a great business model if you tell the truth and downplay the size and threat of the far right to your target audience (which was the liberal refomist left who really didnt want to face up to or deal with the physical aspects which were a serious threat). So we can't be sure whether Searchlight was just bullshiting people or had crap intell.

I dont like searchlight and I know they tried to fuck over AFA with nick lowles in the mid 1990s. I suspect they had state links back then (they certainly do now, openly admit it), however, its really hard to prove. As the evidence is always tarnished with conflicting accounts and competing propaganda (whether self-generated or state disinformation).


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 26, 2011)

For da lulz innit

trufax reacts to the ban

http://trufax101.tumblr.com/


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 26, 2011)

BlackArab said:


> they twittered it


who?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 26, 2011)

.

knot werth it


----------



## andrewc (Aug 26, 2011)

A friend has posted that this blanket ban will also cover any protests against the DSEI at ExCel from 13/09 to 16/09

Two birds one stone ?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 26, 2011)

andrewc said:


> A friend has posted that this blanket ban will also cover any protests against the DSEI at ExCel from 13/09 to 16/09
> 
> Two birds one stone ?


fuck me, that's probably true. we're away on holiday on 15th sep, got my dates mixed up but that's when the DeSI demo was planned for certainly and that would be caught under this.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 27, 2011)

SWP position


> In response to the decision of the home secretary, Theresa May, to ban all marches in five London boroughs for 30 days from the 2 September 2011, Unite against Fascism (UAF) and United East End (UEE) have issued the joint statement below calling for the right to march against the racists.
> 
> The statement is live on the UAF website and we urge all comrades to sign and circulate to local activists and trade unionists for the maximum number of signatories.
> 
> ...


----------

