Far-right protests

[Haywain]

still know that there's a fair few EDL types at the football and that's where they'll be this weekend instead of contributing to a critical mass of disorder in their town centres.

So there won't be any hint of trouble at the planned anti-immigration protests this weekend?

 

[RT4038]

Just commenting on the video in #532. Who is this ‘historian’? He doesn’t seem to give his name at the beginning (mine starts at 00.03) and I have not got the time to go watch the whole video. Has he got a record of respected peer-reviewed works and a respectable reputation in one branch or other of the history industry? Or is he just someone who has read a lot of books and then cherry-picked such facts as he wants, and considers that makes him a historian? The fact that he is putting things out on Tic-toc, or so it appears, makes one doubt the depth and breadth of his knowledge.

Well, yes! I started watching it, and realised very soon that it wasn't exactly a balanced view. Trying to blame the PM of a few weeks for long term issues is a bit much, whatever one might think of his politics! Perhaps reading too many books on certain niche subjects gives too narrow a view....?

 

[AlterEgo]

So there won't be any hint of trouble at the planned anti-immigration protests this weekend?

Are they planned for 3pm Saturday? I've no idea.

 

[birchesgreen]

I have a pretty low opinion of YouTube historians, little is referenced and checked (and as someone who had the MHRA referencing guide beaten into them while doing their history masters this jars a tad).

 

[Haywain]

Are they planned for 3pm Saturday? I've no idea.

As you are suggesting that the start of the football season will see then end of trouble , does that matter?

 

[AlterEgo]

As you are suggesting that the start of the football season will see then end of trouble , does that matter?

Are the protests on Saturday during the pre-drinking time for the football or not?

Why is the Newcastle one apparently so early at 0930? Who starts a demonstration at 0930? Are Newcastle United playing that afternoon in a friendly?

For the record, once the season is underway, yes, I expect the nastiest stuff will have ended. We won't have actual riots or vans being set on fire.

 

[Haywain]

Are Newcastle United playing that afternoon in a friendly?

No, they are playing this evening.

Are the protests on Saturday during the pre-drinking time for the football or not?

I have no idea when they are and no idea why you seem determined to conclude that football fans are to blame for the trouble at these protests. Some football fans may be involved but plenty of those causing trouble won't be going to football matches this weekend or any other.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have no idea when they are and no idea why you seem determined to conclude that football fans are to blame for the trouble at these protests. Some football fans may be involved but plenty of those causing trouble won't be going to football matches this weekend or any other.

Like I explained, it's one element of the fash riot triangle. I'm not saying "football fans are to blame" but any of the following happening will have a dampening effect on the riots:

- Bad weather
- Football being on
- Worst protagonists already in jail

I'm very aware not all football fans are idiots but you only need 20-30 complete idiots at a riot and St James' Park holds 50,000 people. It's not tarring all football fans and I don't feel so sensitive about admitting that a minority of other matchgoing fans are literal racists.

No, they are playing this evening.

4pm isn't evening! There's access available to the women's game from 1pm with the same ticket. I could have guessed, having seen the time, that Newcastle were at home. It's the Sela Weekender, a whole afternoon of football and - for some people - getting juiced on coke and/or pissed.

 

[jon0844]

So there won't be any hint of trouble at the planned anti-immigration protests this weekend?

As long as the young lads don't have one drink too many, I'm sure it will be fine. They're just concerned citizens wanting to have their opinions heard (by having a brick thrown at your head).

 

[Haywain]

I don't feel so sensitive about admitting that a minority of other matchgoing fans are literal racists.

Nor do I, but it works across the whole spectrumof society, and is far from being exclusive to football.

4pm isn't evening!

I was looking at tonight's match, without realising there's another one tomorrow.

There's access available to the women's game from 1pm with the same ticket. I could have guessed, having seen the time, that Newcastle were at home.

Returning to why the protest is timed for 0930, almost certainly because the police wouldn't allow it to take place any later because of their ability to handle it. Not because the organisers want to allow protestors to go to football afterwards. It's long been the case that the police won't allow protest marches to happen at the same time as, and in close proximity to, football matches.

 

[DustyBin]

Not so much, but people coming out to defend their communities from street fascists and make a stand for a tolerant society are quite different from the EDL-esque thugs.

"All fighting is equally bad guys, please stop and kiss" is at best a luxury belief, and at worst a way of trying to equivocate the antagonist in a conflict. Was the Battle of Cable Street bad, or was it actually the watershed for the end of British fascism, and an important event in checking the far right in the run up to Britain's eventual involvement in WWII?

I completely agree and that was the point I was making. It was good to see ordinary people taking to the streets in overwhelming numbers to deliver a clear message. It was a rejection of violence and extremism by people who I suspect held varying political views.

I’m about as far from an idealist as one can be, and there comes a point when violence has to met with violence in order to stop it. Tit-for-tat attacks against a loosely defined “enemy” however only leads to further division and escalation. Thankfully it didn’t really happen on this occasion, barring a few isolated incidents.

Edited to add that the police were largely able to keep things under control which obviously helped!

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

99% of the time policing at football is antagonistic and I strongly believe there would be less trouble if they simply weren't there. Almost everybody just want to have a good time watching the match and then going home.

Kinda makes you lose all respect for any kind of policing.

I would suggest that there is some variety in policing methods when it comes to football. It's been clear for a long time that the Met and South Yorkshire forces have plenty of "wrong-uns" in their ranks.

But the need for some form of policing will continue as long as a small minority of fans continue to believe in the need for public displays of tribalistic behaviour as part of their way of being fans. This leads to the noisy groups chanting loudly, and sometimes aggressively, in locations often far removed from the match they are attending. It may not be intended to cause offence but nevertheless can make for an unpleasant experience for other people. Arguably it is actually anti-social behaviour but in practice is tolerated by the police as long as it doesn't lead to any sort of disorder. But the general public has every right to expect that such behaviour is at least being closely monitored with swift intervention being possible if necessary. And it's a real shame because I have come across so many fans who are much more respectful of their fellow citizens.

In terms of the recent riots it's somewhat understandable that some seek to conflate the thugs on the streets with the rowdier element of football fans but at least football clubs themselves are trying to push the truly undesirable people away from the game.

 

[ainsworth74]

Two more counter-protesters jailed by Leeds Crown Court for affray, I am however very confused because I keep being told that there is two-tier policing in the UK? So why are these guys being jailed alongside all the rioters? Surely they should have been let off with a slapped wrist?

Two men jailed after fight at Leeds protests​

Two men from Leeds have been jailed after pleading guilty to affray following a protest.

Sameer Ali, of West Park Drive, West Park, and Adnan Ghafoor, of Spen Bank, West Park, were sentenced at Leeds Crown Court on Friday.

The offences took place following an anti-immigration protest and a counter- demonstration in Leeds city centre on 3 August.

Ali, 21, was jailed for 20 months, while Ghafoor, 31, received a two-and-a-half-year sentence after the court heard he had breached a suspended sentence for driving offences.

Ali and Ghafoor, who were not known to each other, had been walking in a group of about 17 people at about 16:40 BST after leaving the Headrow following the demonstrations outside Leeds Art Gallery.

As they were walking, they encountered a group of four men on Great George Street, two of whom were draped in Union Jack flags while a third was wearing a Union Jack mask.

Ali's solicitor, Graham O'Sullivan, said his client claimed a fight started when racist comments were made by one of the four men.

CCTV footage played to the court showed Ali punching two of them before grabbing another man's flag and attacking him. He then returned to the other men and continued to attack them.

Prosecutor Heather Gilmour said Ali played a "leading role" in the violence, while Ghafoor had hit one member of the group three times when he was in a chokehold.

[...]

Leeds: Two men jailed after fight following protest

Sameer Ali and Adnan Ghafoor, from Leeds, are jailed for their role in a fight following a protest.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[TheGuy77]

Arrests almost at the 600 mark, with a quarter being charged.

 

[swt_passenger]

BBC reporting significant jail terms for people inciting others using social media - or should that be anti-social?

(By the way, I didn’t link to the page because it was one of those ‘rolling news’ pages I saw.)

 

[Busaholic]

BBC reporting significant jail terms for people inciting others using social media - or should that be anti-social?

I really do take exception to the BBC for deciding jail terms are 'long', 'lengthy' or 'significant'. It is not their job to use adjectives to describe them. I'm sure it suits the government and other authorities to have them so described, if only to try to deter people from violent behaviour. Personally, I wouldn't describe any of the sentences so far for any of the behaviour to be any longer than might be expected, especially given that prisoners are currently being released after serving 40% of their allotted jail time.

 

[swt_passenger]

I really do take exception to the BBC for deciding jail terms are 'long', 'lengthy' or 'significant'. It is not their job to use adjectives to describe them. I'm sure it suits the government and other authorities to have them so described, if only to try to deter people from violent behaviour. Personally, I wouldn't describe any of the sentences so far for any of the behaviour to be any longer than might be expected, especially given that prisoners are currently being released after serving 40% of their allotted jail time.

It was my wording, I think the BBC wrote long. I think the significance is I doubt any of those sentenced expected it might or could happen.

 

[DustyBin]

Two more counter-protesters jailed by Leeds Crown Court for affray, I am however very confused because I keep being told that there is two-tier policing in the UK? So why are these guys being jailed alongside all the rioters? Surely they should have been let off with a slapped wrist?

Leeds: Two men jailed after fight following protest

Sameer Ali and Adnan Ghafoor, from Leeds, are jailed for their role in a fight following a protest.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yes, quite!

 

[brad465]

BBC Comedy Greats uploaded this video 3 weeks ago. It's almost as if they can read the future:

 

[D1537]

I really do take exception to the BBC for deciding jail terms are 'long', 'lengthy' or 'significant'. It is not their job to use adjectives to describe them. I'm sure it suits the government and other authorities to have them so described, if only to try to deter people from violent behaviour. Personally, I wouldn't describe any of the sentences so far for any of the behaviour to be any longer than might be expected, especially given that prisoners are currently being released after serving 40% of their allotted jail time.

And let's not forget the 5-year sentences for the Just Stop Oil protesters - for simply planning an attack. On that basis, I would not say any of these sentences are significant.

 

[brad465]

And let's not forget the 5-year sentences for the Just Stop Oil protesters - for simply planning an attack. On that basis, I would not say any of these sentences are significant.

What needs considering is the sentences currently being handed down for riot offences are the low hanging fruit, the ones where criminals have pleaded guilty, which has allowed them to receive more lenient sentences compared to had they gone through a full trial and been found guilty by a jury, as JSO protestors were. Once some of those who are to be found guilty rioting but went through a trial to get there, along with more serious offences that need longer investigations to reach charges as well as trials are sentenced, then a better comparison can be made.

That been said I do think this whole event has shown up the hypocrisy in us all: anyone who sympathised with BLM and/or climate protestors has gone "tough on crime" on the rioters but less so on the former where crimes were committed, while those who sympathise with the underlying causes of the riots and supposedly claim to be "tough on crime", were tough on the former groups but more sympathetic to rioters.

 

[AndrewE]

Interesting article from David Olusoga today - who certainly knows what he is talking about. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...nt-racism-fomented-by-populism?CMP=GTUK_email

"There can be no excuses. The UK riots were violent racism fomented by populism"​

He states clearly that in no way are these riots "protests."

Riots are not protests and there is a difference between motivations and excuses. Despite much that has been said, the riots of 2024 were not born of “legitimate grievances” about poverty, underinvestment and the breakdown of basic services, all supposedly deepened by mass immigration. The people attacked on the streets, those who had to defend their places of worship or their homes, are the neighbours of the rioters. They live in the same towns and suffer the consequences of the exact same poverty and underinvestment.

 

[ainsworth74]

What needs considering is the sentences currently being handed down for riot offences are the low hanging fruit, the ones where criminals have pleaded guilty, which has allowed them to receive more lenient sentences compared to had they gone through a full trial and been found guilty by a jury, as JSO protestors were.

Yes, everyone who has been pleading guilty at their first appearance before the magistrates (which I think is everyone we've had a sentence for so far) should have gotten a 1/3 reduction in their sentence for making that plea at the first opportunity. So, crudely, you could probably increase every sentence given so far by 1/3 to get an idea of what they might have gotten if they'd gone to trial and then were found guilty.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Yes, everyone who has been pleading guilty at their first appearance before the magistrates (which I think is everyone we've had a sentence for so far) should have gotten a 1/3 reduction in their sentence for making that plea at the first opportunity. So, crudely, you could probably increase every sentence given so far by 1/3 to get an idea of what they might have gotten if they'd gone to trial and then were found guilty.

Increase by a half, actually...

 

[ainsworth74]

Increase by a half, actually...

Listen, I never said maths was my strong point

 

[DustyBin]

And let's not forget the 5-year sentences for the Just Stop Oil protesters - for simply planning an attack. On that basis, I would not say any of these sentences are significant.

In the case of the JSO idiots, it’s worth noting the scale and nature of the planned attack, as well as the history of the offenders; they rightfully had the book thrown at them.

I’m can’t say I sympathise with the people who incited the recent riots either incidentally.

That been said I do think this whole event has shown up the hypocrisy in us all: anyone who sympathised with BLM and/or climate protestors has gone "tough on crime" on the rioters but less so on the former where crimes were committed, while those who sympathise with the underlying causes of the riots and supposedly claim to be "tough on crime", were tough on the former groups but more sympathetic to rioters.

Very true!

I try, as I’m sure many people do (or possibly not?!), to take a step back and challenge myself in this respect, but we all have our “angles”!

 

[Donny Dave]

The other thing about the JSO protesters, in addition to blocking motorways, they broke a court injunction to do so, which inflated their sentences.

 

[DustyBin]

Interesting article from David Olusoga today - who certainly knows what he is talking about. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...nt-racism-fomented-by-populism?CMP=GTUK_email

"There can be no excuses. The UK riots were violent racism fomented by populism"​

He states clearly that in no way are these riots "protests."

It’s merely an opinion; you’ll find others in the likes of the Spectator.

He’s certainly correct however to point out that rioting is not a form of legitimate protest.

 

[nw1]

In the case of the JSO idiots, it’s worth noting the scale and nature of the planned attack, as well as the history of the offenders; they rightfully had the book thrown at them.

Non-violent though, which is a big big difference.

I would maintain that the rioters should get considerably harsher sentences than the JSOers as a result, though this would be done partly by increasing the rioters' sentences and partly by decreasing those of the JSOers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2024 ==

What needs considering is the sentences currently being handed down for riot offences are the low hanging fruit, the ones where criminals have pleaded guilty, which has allowed them to receive more lenient sentences compared to had they gone through a full trial and been found guilty by a jury, as JSO protestors were. Once some of those who are to be found guilty rioting but went through a trial to get there, along with more serious offences that need longer investigations to reach charges as well as trials are sentenced, then a better comparison can be made.

That been said I do think this whole event has shown up the hypocrisy in us all: anyone who sympathised with BLM and/or climate protestors has gone "tough on crime" on the rioters but less so on the former where crimes were committed, while those who sympathise with the underlying causes of the riots and supposedly claim to be "tough on crime", were tough on the former groups but more sympathetic to rioters.

Perhaps but as I said, these riots were particularly and notably violent compared to the actions of climate protestors, for example.

I guess a better comparator is the 2011 riots, which had less "dark" motivations yet were still riots and therefore the perpetrators should have obtained appropriate severe sentences for rioting.

Being very controversial for a minute: I would go further and say that in this case, due to the particularly dark and hate-filled motivations behind these riots, I would say that these particular rioters should serve unusually harsh sentences compared to the norm for rioters. Perhaps this could be done by obtaining additional time for hate crimes (for attacking mosques, for example) or even (in some cases, such as firebombing asylum hotels) terrorism offences. It's a bit like the perpetrator of a murder committed for reasons of greed or spite should perhaps receive a harsher sentence than the perpetrator of a murder committed against someone who terrorised your friends and family.

 

[najaB]

Being very controversial for a minute: I would go further and say that in this case, due to the particularly dark and hate-filled motivations behind these riots, I would say that these particular rioters should serve unusually harsh sentences compared to the norm for rioting. Perhaps they could obtain additional time for hate crimes or even (in some cases, such as firebombing asylum hotels) terrorism offences, for example.

I agree, as long as those charges are included in the charge sheet and they plead guilty or the judge/jury explicitly finds them guilty of those offences.