The personal details of English Defence League supporters have been stolen in a hacking attack on its website, it was reported today. The far-right group's leadership emailed members in recent days to warn them of the breach, the Daily Telegraph reports. "As you may have become aware the English Defence League clothing site was …
"....items from the clothing site."
Let me guess, a natty line in black shirts......right?
I Call Godwin!
Possibly on the first post in this thread, if only it had referred to brown shirts...
No such thing as coincidence
This is becoming a bit sinister.
Counting to 10 in IT
@Counting to 10 in IT
Or 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001, 1010 .......
That's what I was getting at, although computer scientists start at 0.
Ah yes, however...
Counting to 10
0, 1, 10
is correct although the counting radix should have been specified as 2 for clarity
counting to ten
..., 1010 is correct
OK. I'll get my coat...
As we all know...
...the EDL is not a collection worthless racist thugs and there will be no correlation between their current membership list and that leaked from the BNP in 2008. As if!
Mine's the one with the swastika armband and a copy of the Daily Mail in the pocket.
EDL were formed by a football hooligan.
I guess he was missing the violence and thought of a way to carry out some violence without involving football.
>EDL were formed by a football hooligan
What's your point?
The early years of Amnesty International were formed (note: not founded) by an ex-Chief of Staff of the IRA. So I guess it's just an organization for protecting the rights of terrorists:
Or possibly past associatons can't always be relied upon to predict future behaviour.
The strange thing is....
The violence at EDL demostrations , only seems to have when the Unite Against Fascism, whats even stranger , is that when the press mention who gets arrested, if its an EDL person thats noted, otherwise its just a number of arrests.
Ah well nothing like unbiased media.
Suggestion for your next subscription
After the EDL please also join the ELDL (English Language Defence League).
Your English is terrible.
I will not defend it.
that all the BNP nutjobs ome out of the closet and post their rubbish on here. This is a place of, generally, intelligent, well-educated people. The only thing you achieve by posting your paranoid bollocks is to give the general readership a good lunch-time laugh.
So, Mr Astroturfer, what you're saying is that if nobody opposes you nobody needs be hurt?
You are Richard Littlejohn
and I claim my five pounds
I'd have preferred you to defend my council tax by staying at home the other week.
Although, I did find it amusing that the march started at the football ground and ended a few hudred yards later at the magistrate courts.
The lessons of history...
Obviously, this guy has never heard of Cable Street.
They weren't wanted in our neck of the woods either; generally we have pretty good relations here. Despicable bunch of thugs.
"What are you saying, that Unite Against Fascism shouldn't try and get the dumb folks in the EDL to explain why they believe what they do?"
Which would be all well and good, if that was actually the UAF's message.
Except that the UAF's message appears to be: We support free speech, providing we agree with what you're saying. If we don't like it, then we would like to ban it (ref: Dick Griffin's appearance on Question Time and the furore surrounding that). And well, trying to get views that you don't agree with banned strikes me as just a little bit fascist.
The irony of this sheer hypocrisy appears to be obvious to everyone but UAF members themselves.
The UAF/BNP/EDL/ANL all just seem to be up for a ruck and are as bad as eachother in my opinion.
But nevertheless, I note with interest that nobody is able to deny the hypocrisy of a group labelling themselves "anti-fascist" calling for others views that they disagree with (whether they're racist or not is almost immaterial) to be banned.
That's a slippery slope leading towards true fascism. Goal posts and definitions can and would be moved, and before you knew it perfectly legitimate speech would be banned under the pretence of it offending someone. It's hard to deny that the BNP's views are reprehensible (I personally don't find them offensive per se, just ridiculous, and think the leaders and members of the BNP are at best a laughing stock) but the UAF is going about their "aim" in completely the wrong way. Everyone would like to see an end to racism but the UAF's methods of achieving this are just completely naiive.
By calling for the BNP and its leader's media appearances to be banned (as they have done) they simply come across as trying to declare themselves judge and jury of what people should be able to see and hear and what the general public should and shouldn't find offensive. This totally alienates them from a lot of the potential BNP voters who don't like to be told what to think, and probably gains the BNP votes in the process. And as I've said, calling for another group's views (however objectionable they are) to be BANNED just because you don't like them IS fascist in itself.
What the UAF should be doing, instead of just turning up and protesting/fighting with the EDL such that most people can barely tell the difference between them, is highlighting what the BNP's views are, and why they're ridiculous or objectionable. They'd win far more support that way. As it happens it just seems like they're trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't find offensive.
@AC @ Bristol Dave
>Besides, the EDL isn't exercising free speech, it's exercising vandalism and criminal damage, it riots, there's a pretty big difference.
But you can't deny that whenever there's something anti-muslim in the news, the typical reaction seems to burn an effigy and... erm yes riot. So to be fair, there are tw*ts on both sides :)
(take the time Richard Gere snogged Shilpa Shetty or the Danish Muhammad cartoons for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy )
Any excuse for a riot
I remember sitting in a pub back in the 70s when there were a series of riots between the NF and the Anti Nazi League. The table just behind was full of a group of Yoooofs who were discussing which side they were going on for the next days planned riot. They were debating which side would give them the best chance of giving a few Coppers a good kicking. Politics is immaterial to some people, they just want an excuse for a fight.
How strangely appropriate.
@Shakje: Strangest of all...
Is that you think the usual commentards around here are "intelligent, well-educated people." You haven't been here long, have you?
That is all.
I wonder where the list will get posted
now that wikileaks/anonymouse are busy picking fights with everyone they can.
...to a TSA recruitment site.
I'm looking really hard for some relevance in your comment but....
They're both scum
I've no time for either the EDL/BNP or their leftie counterparts in the ANL, they're all the same really, all just out looking for a fight. When I were at Uni in the early 90s, I got really fed up with tossers from the Socialist Workers Riot Division causing mayhem, giving the BNP etc. loads of ammo to use against the other (peaceful) anti-fascist organisations. Should have kept those copies of Searchlight...
Not sure about the EDL, but there's nothing "right wing" about the BNP.
They are National *Socialists*, who like the idea of a big state that meddles in economic matters, supposedly in support of British Workers.
Erm you obviously never took a history lesson. Look at the Nazis in Germany. The NSDAP were originally socialists but look at where they ended up...
The BNP is really not a stones throw away from the beginnings of the NSDAP tbh.
What ever I say I am. That is what I am not
Democratic Republic of Germany, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, National Socialists, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Peoples Republic of China. Need I go on.
If a leadership feels the need to state a political or cultural belief in the title of their organisation it probably means that is what they want people to think despite the glaring inconsistencies in their actions.
The BNP's socialist manifesto
Here are some snippets from the BNP's 2010 manifesto:
- The BNP will ensure that the National Health Service is used to serve British people and not used as an International Health Service.
- The BNP will reverse the budget cuts on education and prioritise this sector as vital to the rebuilding of our nation.
- The BNP will offer free university education to deserving students who have completed their period of Community Service.
- The BNP will make rail travel affordable once again by reversing the disastrous privatisation process which has grossly inflated ticket prices.
- The BNP would take some of these savings and invest them in rebuilding British industry and skills through an active protectionist policy as many other European nations already do.
- The BNP will therefore introduce legislation to ensure that a foreign acquisition of any significantly-sized British company is judged to be in the public and national interest before it can proceed.
- The BNP will oppose the privatisation of natural monopolies such as Royal Mail.
- The BNP will reinvigorate the IT sector in Britain with massive investments in technology universities.
- The BNP will institute a policy of protectionism for the local IT industry and jobs.
- The BNP will nationalise the telecoms infrastructure to enable the creation of a not-for-profit 100Mbps broadband service across the country.
To be honest, their manifesto is a bit of a handbag of unrealistic populist policies (including 200mph maglev trains). Not all of it is socialist, and some of it is sensible, but it's clear that they believe in a big, redistributive, interfering state. They favour protectionism, nationalisation, and welfare (for those who meet their definition of British), rather than free trade, privatisation, self reliance, and genuine charity.
To characterise the BNP as "far right", as if they are a little bit further along Lady Thatcher's road, is grossly misleading. They have a lot more in common with Old Labour.
I expect the site site will be down for a while
"The EDL would like to apologise for this security leak. The leadership is doing everything they can to understand how this occurred so it can never happen again." - no time soon then
Foreign Invasion - No Defence?
It's all down to a combined attack by Commies, Eastern Europeans, Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Students, the entire Musilm faith, Jews (just in case) etc. etc.
And has nothing to do with the coincidence that the English Defence League has no defence against invaders.
I have a head filled with snot and a raging temperature but this has made my Christmas for me.
Santa (foreign bastard that he is) has come early.
"far-right" is a lazy piece of journalism
"Far-right" really doesn't mean anything. It's shorthand for "polite people don't share these views, and while we're at it why not smear the Tories, UKIP, and all for being on the right and therefore a bit like far-right-lite".
Call a spade a spade, but don't just parrot this nonsense, please.
I think what you mean to say is that "Far-right" doesn't mean anything *to you* which, in my ever so humble opinion, is a problem with you and not the rest of us who know very well what "Far-right" means.
Who qualifies as left-leaning in your political universe? Fidel Castro? Kim Jong Il?? Pol Pot???
You are George Galloway and I claim my £10.
right and left
Right and Left are pretty poor descriptors now days.
When people use them they attach differing concepts depending upon their own view point.
Those who idealise the "left" believe it represents wealth redistribution, civil liberties and, fairness.
Those who idealise the "left" then in turn believe that the "right" stand for "stamping on the little guy", fascism and, injustice.
Those who idealise the "right" believe it represents self improvement, civil liberties and, fairness.
Whilst viewing the "left" as "Inspiring people to be dependent upon the state", authoritarianism and, state control.
Both try to cling to either a redistributive economy (those who earn the most pay a higher level back while those who earn the least receive additional benefits) and on the other side a view that reducing redistributive burden leads to greater growth and opportunity (somewhere like Hong Kong).
It is of course nonsense, on both sides.
The old compass is a better way of really getting to grips with these things (liberal/authoritarian and free-market/managed economy) Though it could probably do with a 3rd scale... something around traditionalism maybe.
If you look at immigration, a supporter of free market economies would be all for it as it increases the potential labour pool and adds consumers.
While a supporter of a managed economy would be against immigration as you need to find somewhere to make use of the additional man power and it means more mouths to feed.
People on the "far right" actually tend to be authoritarian left, as they believe in jobs for everyone of the correct colour (managed economy) they also tend to be strong believers in state control. State control is of course easier in a managed economy. The more GDP the state controls the more power they have over the population (as they employ more people, take a greater wedge of your earnings, possibly own your home/power supply/etc.)
Not that there are no authoritarian right, it's just more complicated, basically it only makes sense if you're rich.
Not that extreme authoritarians are blessed with much sense.
@AC 14:37 & 15:30
Ah the real universe, that would be the one that exists only between your ears, I suppose? I was idly wondering who you would think of as being of the centre, since almost all mainstream political parties are right-wing in your world view, depriving you of a useful political label.
We haven't made much progress in this endeavour since you only cite Nelson Mandela - are you thinking of his early days as a hard-line Marxist or his latter period as the leader of reconciliation? - and the Dalai Lama, a bizarre choice of a pseudo-hereditary autocrat whose actual political views are somewhat opaque.
At least we've identified that Fidel Castro is to the left of your centre point, I wondered whether his recent apparent shift away from collectivism might have damaged him in your eyes. And yes, I think Castro is left-wing as ought to be obvious from my post - perhaps you need to take a reading comprehension class?
Are you a liar or ignorant?
UKIP are not racists. A lot of UKIP members voted for a black man to be their leader recently.
At least one UKIP MEP has mixed race children (which BNP activists told him should be deported).
Also UKIP and the BNP have nothing in common with regards to economic policy.
Are you ignorant or just lying about people you disagree with?
Or, more simply...
BNP/EDL aren't actually ashamed of and embarrassed by their bigotry, unlike UKIP.