Is The Edl's Tommy Robinson Sill On Bail?

[Gromit]

Anyone know?

He was arrested again yesterday headed for the London mosque.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23110566

[FredPuli43]

I was thinking of the law relating to the wearing of uniforms (now replaced by s13 of the Terrorism Act) as well as public order. Both arose because of activities in the 1930s The 1986 Act replaced s5 with other offences, just as it did the common law offences of rout, riot, and affray, but, of course, you can't have similar offences governed by two statutes so the old one is abolished.

[THECORBYLOON]

That's a bit garbled (I blame the 'phone) but you get the drift.

[jomifl]

So, no one knows what trouble would be caused by walking past a mosque or who the participants in that trouble would be apart from the EDL (naturally). Please explain who else would be involved and why, if you wish the above comments to be taken seriously. Apparently the EDL wished to make a point, well why not? you are free to make your points, why deny that privilege to others just because you disagree with them. This is fascism hiding in a fog of PC.

[FredPuli43]

" Fascism hiding in a fog of PC" eh? What an irony. That's exactly the response Sir Oswald, no mean fascist himself, would have made to his being prevented.

[sherrardk]

Is it poplar opinion to agree with the EDL then (or have I got the wrong end of the stick)?

[sherrardk]

I'll get me coat (this is obviously going to be something that I won't have the patience to follow - why people have to be so cryptic I have no idea, if you want to say something, just say it, don't pussy foot around).

[FredPuli43]

And how do you define a "real" person, RobKep ? Someone who agrees with your views? If not that, what?

You understand that we might never have met anyone who calls himself or herself real.

[FredPuli43]

Well, you'd better think again, RK. It may be that you are so far out in your " real" personage, that you cannot conceive of anyone having thoughts and opinions contrary to yours. These people are defined by you as not real. A little imagination in thinking might disabuse you of that notion.

[ummmm]

So you're saying that different views stir up debate but you don't include your own views in that?

[FredPuli43]

So you say, but what is your "overwhelming evidence"? You really can't escape by saying the evidence is overwhelming. No prosecutor or defender would get away with that bald statement and neither shall you. Give an example of an instance that is part of this evidence.