Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
English Defence League
61 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/34jvef5
I have in the past mostly supported the Daily Mail when accused of sensationalised reporting.
Well this time it appears that they are indeed guilty of this while at the same time appealing for the Muslim readership.
What a load of over generalisation, useless non-facts, a complete one-sided investigation aimed at criminalising the EDL, an investigation that would be more at home in The Guardian than the Mail.
Could one imagine a similar investigation into some of the thugs that attended the recent students riots, or perhaps those thugs of the UAF or maybe Muslim Against Crusades?
I have in the past mostly supported the Daily Mail when accused of sensationalised reporting.
Well this time it appears that they are indeed guilty of this while at the same time appealing for the Muslim readership.
What a load of over generalisation, useless non-facts, a complete one-sided investigation aimed at criminalising the EDL, an investigation that would be more at home in The Guardian than the Mail.
Could one imagine a similar investigation into some of the thugs that attended the recent students riots, or perhaps those thugs of the UAF or maybe Muslim Against Crusades?
Answers
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.
The problem with the EDL, is that for one reason or another, attracted young men for whom violence IS a past time...and the media will focus on them because it's a much better story that reasoned debate.
That first picture of the supporters in modified hockey masks will raise a reaction much more than a picture of suited supporters, talking to Muslim leaders about their fears for their local traditions.
That first picture of the supporters in modified hockey masks will raise a reaction much more than a picture of suited supporters, talking to Muslim leaders about their fears for their local traditions.
-- answer removed --
Maybe sp but they are not the only group to attract this type of football hooligan., are any teams hooligans any different in their quest to any other's team?
You refer to the modified ski masks, well can you blame them for protecting their faces, just as the riot police do, and of course it is a uniform.
Oh, and incidentally we can't get Muslim women to remove their facial coving for our leaders or anyone else apart from their husbands for that matter.
Curious how all ‘patriots’ seem to have shaven heads.
http://i.dailymail.co...005DC-347_634x286.jpg
Mmmn! 2 at the most.
/// Renton works in the construction industry and lives with his Spanish girlfriend in a flat in a Victorian house with views over the Severn Estuary.///
At least he works, and can't be a racist, and how long has living there been a crime?
/// There is a small group of women, such as 42-year-old Leisha Brookes, who has tattoos and works in ‘security and promotions’, lives in an ex-council block in Southend.///
Mmnn! this one sounds a bit suspect.
You refer to the modified ski masks, well can you blame them for protecting their faces, just as the riot police do, and of course it is a uniform.
Oh, and incidentally we can't get Muslim women to remove their facial coving for our leaders or anyone else apart from their husbands for that matter.
Curious how all ‘patriots’ seem to have shaven heads.
http://i.dailymail.co...005DC-347_634x286.jpg
Mmmn! 2 at the most.
/// Renton works in the construction industry and lives with his Spanish girlfriend in a flat in a Victorian house with views over the Severn Estuary.///
At least he works, and can't be a racist, and how long has living there been a crime?
/// There is a small group of women, such as 42-year-old Leisha Brookes, who has tattoos and works in ‘security and promotions’, lives in an ex-council block in Southend.///
Mmnn! this one sounds a bit suspect.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
<<You refer to the modified ski masks, well can you blame them for protecting their faces, just as the riot police do, and of course it is a uniform. >>
Have you taken to glue-sniffing, AOG ?
<<At least he works, and can't be a racist, and how long has living there been a crime? >>
1. Peter Sutcliffe held down a job..........
2. Perhaps his girl-friend is not terribly 'brown' looking ?
This really ranks highly in your top ten stupidly blinkered posts (and there is a great deal of competition for the honours there!).
Have you taken to glue-sniffing, AOG ?
<<At least he works, and can't be a racist, and how long has living there been a crime? >>
1. Peter Sutcliffe held down a job..........
2. Perhaps his girl-friend is not terribly 'brown' looking ?
This really ranks highly in your top ten stupidly blinkered posts (and there is a great deal of competition for the honours there!).
Who can blame them for protecting their faces? Er, I can - if they have nothing to hide, and are confident of the correctness of their actions, why do they need to hide?
To compare that with the riot police protection is surely not serious? the chances of a riot policecman being assaulted are extremely high - hence the protection - whereas the EDL wear disguise only to avoid being arrested for their violkent behaviour.
The wearing of veils by some (note the 'some') Muslim women is a matter of religious observance and cultural preference, and again, is hardly comparable in this instance.
Renton 'cannot be a racist' because he has a foreign partner? Come on AOG, that is too simplistic for a man of your intelligence to believe. Racism is not always a 'catch-all' attitude - it can be directed at one particular section of foreign nationality and culture - you should know that - you are a Mail reader!
'Because it may draw a VEIL over the news ...' - Nope, still to subtle for me.
To compare that with the riot police protection is surely not serious? the chances of a riot policecman being assaulted are extremely high - hence the protection - whereas the EDL wear disguise only to avoid being arrested for their violkent behaviour.
The wearing of veils by some (note the 'some') Muslim women is a matter of religious observance and cultural preference, and again, is hardly comparable in this instance.
Renton 'cannot be a racist' because he has a foreign partner? Come on AOG, that is too simplistic for a man of your intelligence to believe. Racism is not always a 'catch-all' attitude - it can be directed at one particular section of foreign nationality and culture - you should know that - you are a Mail reader!
'Because it may draw a VEIL over the news ...' - Nope, still to subtle for me.
I just went to the DM site and entered 'student riots' into heir search box and found several in depth reports on the recent protests.
Did you think they'd ignored this massive news story?
Just about to do the same with UAF and Mac (although I suspect I won't find much on the MAC as they're not that well known).
Did you think they'd ignored this massive news story?
Just about to do the same with UAF and Mac (although I suspect I won't find much on the MAC as they're not that well known).
jackthehat
Forever the most ignorant twerp on AB.
/// Have you taken to glue-sniffing, AOG ? ///
I defiantly haven't, so it must be you, since you can't understand a perfectly understandable statement.
<<At least he works, and can't be a racist, and how long has living there been a crime? >>
/// 1. Peter Sutcliffe held down a job........./// What the hell as that got to do with it????????.
2. /// Perhaps his girl-friend is not terribly 'brown' looking ///
So one has to be 'Brown' looking before the word racist can be used, I always assumed that it was discrimination on the basis of race, not just colour, but then I am not as thick as you.
I am sorry that I can't pick which one of your pointless posts ranks the most stupidest because there are far too many to chose from.
Forever the most ignorant twerp on AB.
/// Have you taken to glue-sniffing, AOG ? ///
I defiantly haven't, so it must be you, since you can't understand a perfectly understandable statement.
<<At least he works, and can't be a racist, and how long has living there been a crime? >>
/// 1. Peter Sutcliffe held down a job........./// What the hell as that got to do with it????????.
2. /// Perhaps his girl-friend is not terribly 'brown' looking ///
So one has to be 'Brown' looking before the word racist can be used, I always assumed that it was discrimination on the basis of race, not just colour, but then I am not as thick as you.
I am sorry that I can't pick which one of your pointless posts ranks the most stupidest because there are far too many to chose from.
-- answer removed --
AOG
Getting back to yur original question - what are the glaring generalisations and non-fact your refer to?
Let's assume you're right, and the DM's report is as poor as it's usual standard - what have you noticed to support the general consensus (amongst us anti-DM lot) that this report is a load of garbage?
Getting back to yur original question - what are the glaring generalisations and non-fact your refer to?
Let's assume you're right, and the DM's report is as poor as it's usual standard - what have you noticed to support the general consensus (amongst us anti-DM lot) that this report is a load of garbage?
Perhaps we should all just refrain from posting on this old gits threads.
He really is the most appallingly rude and despicable person on the site.
Always quick to spew out insults and name calling when he doesn't like another's post but equally quick to take offence and whinge when posters challenge his half truths and distortions of the news.
<<I am sorry that I can't pick which one of your pointless posts ranks the most stupidest because there are far too many to chose from. >>
Maybe the district nurse hasn't been in today to change the incontinence pants but whatever the reason, that sort of comment is unacceptable. I'm all for making allowances when people's behaviour is below-standard, especially when it might be due to old age or some other enfeeblement - but frankly, this particular specimen's posting behaviour is too depressingly consistent in its racism, dishonesty, egotism and rudeness.
.
He really is the most appallingly rude and despicable person on the site.
Always quick to spew out insults and name calling when he doesn't like another's post but equally quick to take offence and whinge when posters challenge his half truths and distortions of the news.
<<I am sorry that I can't pick which one of your pointless posts ranks the most stupidest because there are far too many to chose from. >>
Maybe the district nurse hasn't been in today to change the incontinence pants but whatever the reason, that sort of comment is unacceptable. I'm all for making allowances when people's behaviour is below-standard, especially when it might be due to old age or some other enfeeblement - but frankly, this particular specimen's posting behaviour is too depressingly consistent in its racism, dishonesty, egotism and rudeness.
.
Technically, jack was the first person to make use of the word 'stupid'...
Not that I'm taking AOG's side, but that's exactly what he's going to say.
As to the content of this post...
AOG: Why do you suddenly drop your faith in the mail when you dislike what they're saying? Why do you suddenly develop a capacity to critically assess their reports, but don't when they're in line with your world-view?
You've been constantly crying out about how reliable they are, and how they 'dare to speak the truth' in the face of leftist oppression, but now that you've read something that doesn't fit they're cynically attempting to gain a 'Muslim readership' out of absolutely nowhere.
How does this make you feel about all the other links you've ranted about in the past? Could it be they were the subject of misreporting too? If not, why not?
Not that I'm taking AOG's side, but that's exactly what he's going to say.
As to the content of this post...
AOG: Why do you suddenly drop your faith in the mail when you dislike what they're saying? Why do you suddenly develop a capacity to critically assess their reports, but don't when they're in line with your world-view?
You've been constantly crying out about how reliable they are, and how they 'dare to speak the truth' in the face of leftist oppression, but now that you've read something that doesn't fit they're cynically attempting to gain a 'Muslim readership' out of absolutely nowhere.
How does this make you feel about all the other links you've ranted about in the past? Could it be they were the subject of misreporting too? If not, why not?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago