Donate SIGN UP

Why are they not allowed to protest in peace?

Avatar Image
anotheoldgit | 16:06 Sat 20th Mar 2010 | News
34 Answers
http://www.timesonlin...me/article7069609.ece

Once more the English Defence League's peaceful protest in Bolton has been highjacked by far left members of Unite Against Fascism, who have sent along some 2,000 members to cause mayhem.

So as not to cause trouble, already the EDL postponed their planned demonstration on March 6th because it would clash with a peace loving Hindu festival,

Statement from the EDL:

/// "We have received information that far-left groups were planning to attack Hindus whilst dressed in EDL clothing, which may be purchased freely from our internet shop. This cowardly attack, had it taken place, was to be blamed on our organisation with the intent of discrediting our stated aim of peacefully protesting against radical Islam. Due to the respect we have for the peace loving Hindu community, we deemed it only right and proper that we cancel our own plans to ensure their safety." ///
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 34 of 34rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A quote from UAF leader Rhetta Moran :-

I am not to attend any EDL or UAF meeting or gathering anywhere in the country.

"This is gross violation of my human rights and a completely ridiculous bail condition. Please circulate this story through your networks.

"While I was detained in Bolton Police Station, police took my house keys, went to my home, and without a warrant took papers and copied my computer. They left notification."

Oh dear, a typical far left dumb fool.
For info, the above bail condition is appropriate, proportionate and justified when dealing with criminals in order to deter any further problems whilst on police bail, but described by the accused as ridiculous and a gross violation of human rights. Unreal.
Like it our not, the Police can search your property with or without your consent following your arrest for an indictable offence without a warrant under Section 18 of PACE. The Police have had this power for 26 years.


“... police took my house keys, went to my home, and without a warrant took papers and copied my computer. They left notification.”

So they followed the legislation correctly then. I can only assume that Rhetta Moran is the kind of moron who shouts very loudly about their rights whilst simultaneously being completely unaware of the law or what rights they actually possess. She probably asked for her 'phone call' when she arrived at the custody suit.
Correct Birdie, and these are the dumb far left criminals who think they know the law, think they are educated. Dumb far left cretins, usual village idiots.
And have authority to search under Sec 32 PACE, but these far left village idiots know better.
dh001 - You're right. I forgot about 32. It's been a while since I wore the silly hat.
Ha ha Birdie, same here with the hat
Nice one. Which force? Sorry, which 'Service'?
I have been with West Merica and Wiltsire
Oh, the soft southern counties eh?

I was in GMP. Up north.

;-)
Ah they done a good job arresting those criminals of the ironically named UAF and hats off to them, despite the political pressures.
GMP. a proper police force. as the disgraceful UAF found out. Criminal scum
I agree.

And...

I think the The UAF organisation is schizophrenic. It's guiding principal is to defeat Fascism. And yet it operates in a decidedly Fascist way. It seeks to silence those who disagree with it – violently if necessary.

Am I missing something? If you disagree with someone's opinion, the correct way to 'defeat' them is to engage them in logical debate.

What you don't do (or rather, shouldn't do) is turn up on mass and clash physically with those people whose ideological viewpoint you disagree with. By doing so, you're destroying the very thing you claim to be upholding – the right to hold a political viewpoint.
AOG yet again trots out this weird definition of free speech. The one where any opposing view is deemed to be shutting down freedom.

It's like a boxer complaining to the ref that his opponent isn't letting him box, just because the opponent's hitting him back.

21 to 34 of 34rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

Why are they not allowed to protest in peace?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.