O/T Tommy Robinson Speaks About Manchester Terror Attack

[ragingpup]

Two wrongs don't make a right, but even if the reason WAS a selfish one, they were still trying to raise money for a little girl dying of cancer, so it was for a very good cause.

I'll tell you what's even worse though, the charity involved REFUSED to accept the money, despite the little girl needing life saving treatment quickly. The parents of the girl wanted to accept it, but as the charity were the official ones in charge of the donations, they were powerless to act. So out of some pathetic hatred of the EDL (I call it pathetic and uneducated, others may call it justified), the little girl was denied some money that could have helped save her life. So whose morals and principles are in the wrong place there? I'll tell you who, that idiotic left-leaning charity, because that little girl is now dead. More blood on the hands of lefties because of ridiculous policies and pathetic so called principles.

Oh, and Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll both attended the little girl's funeral. No-one from the charity did.

Been meaning to say something about Tommy and trying to find time to review some of the videos and comments from both sides.
This 'mini thread' on this unfortunate incident is a good point to comment.

First of all, in looking at the videos and some public reaction to them, it's true that the police don't come out looking great in that moment, nor do some of the Muslim responses. I've looked to see if I can find any direct evidence (in the limited time available) of BF actively using racist language per se. I was interested in his appearance with at a Q&A with students at Oxford (on YouTube where he makes some very good points and in this context, I can understand where he's coming from and appreciate the energy and concern behind his work.

However, these are limited observations and am always willing to review these points if someone directs me to contrary evidence. In the meantime, I'm taking him at face value on the evidence I've looked at.

However, what I am concerned about is not so much the message but how they choose to present it. Looking at this 'charity walk' for a little girl, I can appreciate their thoughts and taking the time to make a considered gesture. What sticks in the craw though, and for me cheapens some very good points, is the pair's decision to choose a route where a walk comprising members of BF would be likely to cause unrest, both from the multicultural residents and from AFL. From the reports, the police contacted BF to offer a couple of alternative routes but for a reason that sounds sinister to me, Tommy and co seemed to want to insist on the 'controversial' route that would obviously provoke a response.

This appeared to me to reveal an intention to provoke. They were offered and in the negotiations appear to negotiate an alternative with police but this was after a horrible incident that quite frankly they knew all along was going to happen. My impartial feeling on this is to dislike their organisation as they seemed to be wanting to create a hostile situation and response. The idea that they used a dying girl as a reason for this 'walk'. knowing all the time that they were aiming to create a provocative situation is repulsive. It completely turns me off, following my initial thoughts of "seems quite a reasonable bloke". If they had negotiated a route before hand that the police and locals were happy with, I'd be quite happy for them to proceed. I wish they'd have kept the dying girl walk separate to this though, or done it privately?

Similarly I saw another extended clip that followed BF on an 'official walk', handing out leaflets with their views on it. On this walk they walked around Brick Lane, East London - a heavily Muslim area handing out their newspaper. On this walk they:

1. Carried their large white crosses down a road where most of the locals are Islamic
2. Chanted "We want our country back" repeatedly
3. as they handed out their newspaper, they used the phrase "Take our country back"

All together, this obviously makes for a highly charged situation that was obviously calculated and executed to upset and incite the locals. Why do this? As I said above, Robinson has some good points to make but this puts someone like me completely off his cause. It makes him look cold, calculating and hateful. I don't know that much about him other than views on here and my own look at the Oxford debate. As I said, he came over well in this kind of context but in these two clips (and BF actually put the video of Brick Lane so that's how they wanted to portray themselves obviously) it really demeans themselves and their arguments.

Sorry if this is a bit rambling and disjointed - keep being made to do some work!

[Ellis_D]

Been meaning to say something about Tommy and trying to find time to review some of the videos and comments from both sides.
This 'mini thread' on this unfortunate incident is a good point to comment.

First of all, in looking at the videos and some public reaction to them, it's true that the police don't come out looking great in that moment, nor do some of the Muslim responses. I've looked to see if I can find any direct evidence (in the limited time available) of BF actively using racist language per se. I was interested in his appearance with at a Q&A with students at Oxford (on YouTube where he makes some very good points and in this context, I can understand where he's coming from and appreciate the energy and concern behind his work.

However, these are limited observations and am always willing to review these points if someone directs me to contrary evidence. In the meantime, I'm taking him at face value on the evidence I've looked at.

However, what I am concerned about is not so much the message but how they choose to present it. Looking at this 'charity walk' for a little girl, I can appreciate their thoughts and taking the time to make a considered gesture. What sticks in the craw though, and for me cheapens some very good points, is the pair's decision to choose a route where a walk comprising members of BF would be likely to cause unrest, both from the multicultural residents and from AFL. From the reports, the police contacted BF to offer a couple of alternative routes but for a reason that sounds sinister to me, Tommy and co seemed to want to insist on the 'controversial' route that would obviously provoke a response.

This appeared to me to reveal an intention to provoke. They were offered and in the negotiations appear to negotiate an alternative with police but this was after a horrible incident that quite frankly they knew all along was going to happen. My impartial feeling on this is to dislike their organisation as they seemed to be wanting to create a hostile situation and response. The idea that they used a dying girl as a reason for this 'walk'. knowing all the time that they were aiming to create a provocative situation is repulsive. It completely turns me off, following my initial thoughts of "seems quite a reasonable bloke". If they had negotiated a route before hand that the police and locals were happy with, I'd be quite happy for them to proceed. I wish they'd have kept the dying girl walk separate to this though, or done it privately?

Similarly I saw another extended clip that followed BF on an 'official walk', handing out leaflets with their views on it. On this walk they walked around Brick Lane, East London - a heavily Muslim area handing out their newspaper. On this walk they:

1. Carried their large white crosses down a road where most of the locals are Islamic
2. Chanted "We want our country back" repeatedly
3. as they handed out their newspaper, they used the phrase "Take our country back"

All together, this obviously makes for a highly charged situation that was obviously calculated and executed to upset and incite the locals. Why do this? As I said above, Robinson has some good points to make but this puts someone like me completely off his cause. It makes him look cold, calculating and hateful. I don't know that much about him other than views on here and my own look at the Oxford debate. As I said, he came over well in this kind of context but in these two clips (and BF actually put the video of Brick Lane so that's how they wanted to portray themselves obviously) it really demeans themselves and their arguments.

Sorry if this is a bit rambling and disjointed - keep being made to do some work!

Before I go into answering this, I really need to clear something up. I think you are getting Tommy Robinson and Paul Golding confused. Tommy is the smaller guy in the charity video I posted. He is the co-founder and ex-leader of the EDL, NOT Britain First. Paul Golding is the leader of Britain First. Tommy Robinson is not and never has been a member of Britain First. However, he has recently been on a couple of walkaround videos with them. But NOT at Brick Lane.

Britain First are more right wing than the EDL. I wouldn't describe them as far right, although the media always does. They are certainly not far right like Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan or the National Front.

Paul Golding does always preach about them going on peaceful marches, though that seems to depend on what mood he is in. I have seem him and other members confront aggressive Muslims several times. Although it does have to be said, it is nearly always the Muslims who become abusive or aggressive first, BUT, there is no doubt that Paul Golding and Britain First purposely use antagonistic tactics. I have seen videos of them walking into mosques and shouting about Muhammad being a *****phile, and other things. Whilst what they are saying is actually true, it is inflammatory, and although I don't like any religion, I don't see the need to walk into ANY place of worship and try to intimidate or annoy the people worshipping there.

I think that is a fair review of Britain First.

So to the charity walk. Remember, it's not Britain First, but EDL. And actually, only two members of the EDL. If they had wanted to be inflammatory they would have had a march through the area with a few thousand EDL supporters, as at other rallies.

But let's just make a couple of points on that. Firstly, I don't know what reports you have read. I do know, though, that Tommy and Kev told the police if they would be arrested they would take a different route, but were NEVER informed of this. IF you have read that the police told them this, it doesn't surprise me. The police are often known for lying - Hillsbrough, Orgreave to name but two. So it wouldn't surprise me if this was another police plan to just arrest Tommy. As they allowed assaults to take place in front of them, it does seem to be yet another police stitch up.

Let's also remember, everyone has a right to raise money for charity. Everyone also has a democratic right to protest. As I already acknowledged to millmoor - I am always an honest man - perhaps part of it WAS for their own benefit. As with plenty of celebs who raise money for charity. Their protest here, I feel, is the point that we supposedly live in a free democracy.

It sounds to me, ragingpup, that you are unwittingly suggesting that there should be Muslim only areas in this country? That there should be no-go areas for whites, Christians or atheists. Remember this is still a Christian country.

And every man, woman or child should be allowed to walk down any street in the country and not be attacked. Especially if they are doing a peaceful charity march. So it shouldn't be Tommy or Kev who should be punished for walking through their own country and coming under attack (in this case by violent leftists, but no doubt it would have been by extremist Muslims had they walked through the area). It might be common sense that they don't walk through there, but why shouldn't they? The police's job is to keep innocent people safe and arrest the criminals. Walking through certain areas is not a criminal offence (yet) but if we bow down to this kind of behaviour that certain people aren't allowed to walk through certain areas for fear of attack, then what kind of country are we becoming?

Imagine two Muslims being told they are not allowed to walk through certain areas or they would be arrested. There would be outrage and rightly so, yet for some reason lefties only want equality for themselves and minorities.

As for the rest of your post, as I explained, that has nothing to do with Tommy Robinson. That is Paul Golding and Britain First. The walking around with white crosses, the storming of mosques, the shouting 'We want our country back', the walk through Brick Lane, and many other intimidating and antagonistic things. And although I do agree with some of their objectives, as I explained earlier, I don't like some of their bully-boy tactics. But I do like it when they went round Islamic hate preachers' houses. I don't like to see any innocent person being bullied. I am sure me criticising some of these things Britain First do will shock some people on here who have already formed a view of me in their minds, but there you go.

[ragingpup]

Before I go into answering this, I really need to clear something up. I think you are getting Tommy Robinson and Paul Golding confused. Tommy is the smaller guy in the charity video I posted. He is the co-founder and ex-leader of the EDL, NOT Britain First. Paul Golding is the leader of Britain First. Tommy Robinson is not and never has been a member of Britain First. However, he has recently been on a couple of walkaround videos with them. But NOT at Brick Lane.

Britain First are more right wing than the EDL. I wouldn't describe them as far right, although the media always does. They are certainly not far right like Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan or the National Front.

Paul Golding does always preach about them going on peaceful marches, though that seems to depend on what mood he is in. I have seem him and other members confront aggressive Muslims several times. Although it does have to be said, it is nearly always the Muslims who become abusive or aggressive first, BUT, there is no doubt that Paul Golding and Britain First purposely use antagonistic tactics. I have seen videos of them walking into mosques and shouting about Muhammad being a *****phile, and other things. Whilst what they are saying is actually true, it is inflammatory, and although I don't like any religion, I don't see the need to walk into ANY place of worship and try to intimidate or annoy the people worshipping there.

I think that is a fair review of Britain First.

So to the charity walk. Remember, it's not Britain First, but EDL. And actually, only two members of the EDL. If they had wanted to be inflammatory they would have had a march through the area with a few thousand EDL supporters, as at other rallies.

But let's just make a couple of points on that. Firstly, I don't know what reports you have read. I do know, though, that Tommy and Kev told the police if they would be arrested they would take a different route, but were NEVER informed of this. IF you have read that the police told them this, it doesn't surprise me. The police are often known for lying - Hillsbrough, Orgreave to name but two. So it wouldn't surprise me if this was another police plan to just arrest Tommy. As they allowed assaults to take place in front of them, it does seem to be yet another police stitch up.

Let's also remember, everyone has a right to raise money for charity. Everyone also has a democratic right to protest. As I already acknowledged to millmoor - I am always an honest man - perhaps part of it WAS for their own benefit. As with plenty of celebs who raise money for charity. Their protest here, I feel, is the point that we supposedly live in a free democracy.

It sounds to me, ragingpup, that you are unwittingly suggesting that there should be Muslim only areas in this country? That there should be no-go areas for whites, Christians or atheists. Remember this is still a Christian country.

And every man, woman or child should be allowed to walk down any street in the country and not be attacked. Especially if they are doing a peaceful charity march. So it shouldn't be Tommy or Kev who should be punished for walking through their own country and coming under attack (in this case by violent leftists, but no doubt it would have been by extremist Muslims had they walked through the area). It might be common sense that they don't walk through there, but why shouldn't they? The police's job is to keep innocent people safe and arrest the criminals. Walking through certain areas is not a criminal offence (yet) but if we bow down to this kind of behaviour that certain people aren't allowed to walk through certain areas for fear of attack, then what kind of country are we becoming?

Imagine two Muslims being told they are not allowed to walk through certain areas or they would be arrested. There would be outrage and rightly so, yet for some reason lefties only want equality for themselves and minorities.

As for the rest of your post, as I explained, that has nothing to do with Tommy Robinson. That is Paul Golding and Britain First. The walking around with white crosses, the storming of mosques, the shouting 'We want our country back', the walk through Brick Lane, and many other intimidating and antagonistic things. And although I do agree with some of their objectives, as I explained earlier, I don't like some of their bully-boy tactics. But I do like it when they went round Islamic hate preachers' houses. I don't like to see any innocent person being bullied. I am sure me criticising some of these things Britain First do will shock some people on here who have already formed a view of me in their minds, but there you go.

Thanks Mr Ellis_D - You're of course right! My wife put me right on this last night!

However, some of BF's tactics are pertinent here.

AS I said and must keep repeating so as to assure you I am looking at the situation as impartially as possible, Golding made some very good points in an assured calm manner when talking to students at Oxford (on You Tube).

I would of course applaud him for taking the time out to raise money for a dying child with a sponsored walk. I would of course defend his right to walk wherever he wants, when he wants when doing so in a peaceful and to take part in peaceful protests if they are agreed and are agreed with authorities to take place in a peaceful manner.

His sponsored walk though really worries me and I'd be grateful if you, as someone that seems to know about the incident:

1. If his motive was to walk to raise money for a dying girl why did he choose to choose a route that deliberately went past a mosque and a community that will be aware of his past and therefore likely to react in a way that might cause a breach of the peace. Why not walk around Epping Forest? We have some lovely views out there.

2. Reports on Channel 4 and the Daily Mail both reported that the Met offered Robinson two alternative routes. Yes, they might be fibbing but if Robinson had announced his intentions (how did he publicise it so that others knew about it?), then it would be a likely response from the Police and I would expect that to happen. Why do you suppose that they wouldn't have done that? On the evidence presented, I would have thought it more likely that Robinson turned up intending to take the route via the Mosque anyway - he seemed really determined to go via that route? Why??

3) As someone who is willing to listen to Robinson's arguments, and have done, and take some of his points, doesn't it worry you, as someone who is promoting these arguments (usually quite eloquently I must say) that a person like me is completely repelled by the idea that Robinson seems to have used the situation of a dying girl to promote his own political agenda? It turns me completely off the bloke.

Yes, anyone is welcome to go anywhere. Robinson could get out of bed this morning and walk through this route, as I have many times as a local, and no one would bat an eyelid (however, his profile might cause a few locals to react, that would be inexcusable and if I was him I think it might not be a good idea - but I've always walked through there without the slightest hint of trouble). The difference is if you announce that you will be walking down there at X o clock in what I can only put down as questionable motives. It's effectively the same as BF isn't it? Deliberate provocation. The same would be said if the AFL or even a group of Islmists were to announce a charity walk right past Robinson's house. They sort of have a right to do it but it would most likely cause a breach of the peace, and the police would most likely offer alternative routes. If not, the bloomin should do!

But, the most important thing of all in this is that such deliberate, apparently quite cynical actions stir up the divisions between us, and is exactly the kind of action that ISIS want. Surely you accept that the end result of deliberate hostility is to further push impressionable Muslims further towards an extremist cause. The ISIS organisation make no secret of that this is their strategy and all research points to the fact that this is the worst thing we can do? Surely you can see that?

I think Robinson should be heard and maybe he himself might have rethought that this kind of action is counter productive against his cause? He should try and get his views across in a non provocative means and join the cause in trying to both integrate Muslim communities into the British way of life whilst promoting accountability and responsibility from the small sections of the communities that promote extremist views.

[Ellis_D]

Thanks Mr Ellis_D - You're of course right! My wife put me right on this last night!

However, some of BF's tactics are pertinent here.

AS I said and must keep repeating so as to assure you I am looking at the situation as impartially as possible, Golding made some very good points in an assured calm manner when talking to students at Oxford (on You Tube).

I would of course applaud him for taking the time out to raise money for a dying child with a sponsored walk. I would of course defend his right to walk wherever he wants, when he wants when doing so in a peaceful and to take part in peaceful protests if they are agreed and are agreed with authorities to take place in a peaceful manner.

His sponsored walk though really worries me and I'd be grateful if you, as someone that seems to know about the incident:

1. If his motive was to walk to raise money for a dying girl why did he choose to choose a route that deliberately went past a mosque and a community that will be aware of his past and therefore likely to react in a way that might cause a breach of the peace. Why not walk around Epping Forest? We have some lovely views out there.

2. Reports on Channel 4 and the Daily Mail both reported that the Met offered Robinson two alternative routes. Yes, they might be fibbing but if Robinson had announced his intentions (how did he publicise it so that others knew about it?), then it would be a likely response from the Police and I would expect that to happen. Why do you suppose that they wouldn't have done that? On the evidence presented, I would have thought it more likely that Robinson turned up intending to take the route via the Mosque anyway - he seemed really determined to go via that route? Why??

3) As someone who is willing to listen to Robinson's arguments, and have done, and take some of his points, doesn't it worry you, as someone who is promoting these arguments (usually quite eloquently I must say) that a person like me is completely repelled by the idea that Robinson seems to have used the situation of a dying girl to promote his own political agenda? It turns me completely off the bloke.

Yes, anyone is welcome to go anywhere. Robinson could get out of bed this morning and walk through this route, as I have many times as a local, and no one would bat an eyelid (however, his profile might cause a few locals to react, that would be inexcusable and if I was him I think it might not be a good idea - but I've always walked through there without the slightest hint of trouble). The difference is if you announce that you will be walking down there at X o clock in what I can only put down as questionable motives. It's effectively the same as BF isn't it? Deliberate provocation. The same would be said if the AFL or even a group of Islmists were to announce a charity walk right past Robinson's house. They sort of have a right to do it but it would most likely cause a breach of the peace, and the police would most likely offer alternative routes. If not, the bloomin should do!

But, the most important thing of all in this is that such deliberate, apparently quite cynical actions stir up the divisions between us, and is exactly the kind of action that ISIS want. Surely you accept that the end result of deliberate hostility is to further push impressionable Muslims further towards an extremist cause. The ISIS organisation make no secret of that this is their strategy and all research points to the fact that this is the worst thing we can do? Surely you can see that?

I think Robinson should be heard and maybe he himself might have rethought that this kind of action is counter productive against his cause? He should try and get his views across in a non provocative means and join the cause in trying to both integrate Muslim communities into the British way of life whilst promoting accountability and responsibility from the small sections of the communities that promote extremist views.

First of all, I really MUST point out, that it was Tommy Robinson who spoke at Oxford NOT Paul Golding.

Secondly, you are asking me questions, some of which I have know way of actually knowing the answer to. I can't see inside his mind, nor have I asked him about it. I do accept though, that you are being open minded and fair, so I will attempt to answer the questions in an honest way as possible.

1. I touched on this before. I have seen him speak out before that there should not be any no-go areas for ANYONE in our country and that everyone should be able to walk peacefully down any street. You and I both agree on that. So was he trying to prove that that is not the case? That's what I think. Of course, he could have been just trying to stir people up in that area. But if all he was doing, along with one other person, was a peaceful charity walk, he should have been able to do it anywhere without the fear of attack. Let's not try to twist this into anything else - any person in Britain should be allowed to walk down any street and not be attacked. The person innocently walking down a street can NEVER be the one in the wrong, only the people doing the assaulting.

Where would it end otherwise? If Bill Smith says he doesn't like Muslims, is he allowed to punch them if one walks through his white only area? Would that be okay?

2. As far as I recall, Tommy announced his intention to do a charity walk on Facebook/Twitter for this little girl. I can't pretend to know the full ins and outs of why it was decided which route, etc, because I can't remember reading it. Although, two possible reasons - though there could be completely different ones - are 1. Him making the political point he should be allowed to walk anywhere in his own country, and 2. That he wanted to inflame some radical Muslim to attack him. Again, probably to make a political point...... See, I am always honest.......

3. Yes, I completely agree. All I can say in response to that is, there are plenty of celebrities and politicians who use things like this to push their own agenda. Jeremy Corbyn has done it with the Manchester bombing. So many celebs do things for charity and make sure it reaches the public eye so they make sure they look like a good guy. I'm not saying any of it is right, and I'm not saying that if Tommy did it for that reason it is okay of him either. Cold he have tried to raise money for the little girl without making a political point at the same time? Almost certainly.

As for the rest of what you said, it's possible, even probable that Tommy understands that now. He quit the EDL, he had a lot of meetings and talks with moderate Muslims so they can all understand each other better, and I don't think he would do that now.

I think, if he wants to make political points about being able to walk anywhere he wants, he can make that point. He knows the risks - in his case, he is risking his life. His choice. If Muslims want to come and attack him, as they often have, then that's their decision. I do agree that he should keep any charity work he wants to do separate from any political work though.

[KerrAvon]

1. I touched on this before. I have seen him speak out before that there should not be any no-go areas for ANYONE in our country and that everyone should be able to walk peacefully down any street. You and I both agree on that. So was he trying to prove that that is not the case? That's what I think. Of course, he could have been just trying to stir people up in that area. But if all he was doing, along with one other person, was a peaceful charity walk, he should have been able to do it anywhere without the fear of attack. Let's not try to twist this into anything else - any person in Britain should be allowed to walk down any street and not be attacked. The person innocently walking down a street can NEVER be the one in the wrong, only the people doing the assaulting.

So if you agree that anyone should be allowed to peacefully walk down any street, you would have been opposed to any attempt to ban the march that Anjem Choudary stated that he wished to hold in Wootton Bassett (the one where he said he wanted to parade empty coffins through the town to draw attention to Afghan war casualties)? And to be clear, you think the Home Secretary of the time was wrong when he said that he would ban it if the police requested him to?

2. As far as I recall, Tommy announced his intention to do a charity walk on Facebook/Twitter for this little girl. I can't pretend to know the full ins and outs of why it was decided which route, etc, because I can't remember reading it. Although, two possible reasons - though there could be completely different ones - are 1. Him making the political point he should be allowed to walk anywhere in his own country, and 2. That he wanted to inflame some radical Muslim to attack him. Again, probably to make a political point...... See, I am always honest.......

Your honesty is commendable, but how about taking a critical look at the two propositions that you have advanced?

Why would anyone not wanting to make a political point choose a route that went past the East London Mosque and ended at the scene of Lee Rigby's murder and why on earth would anyone concerned with raising money for charity choose to take the opportunity to make a political point?

There is something of a contradiction on the stance that you take towards the liberty of people who want to make provocative 'charity walks' and people who find themselves on the (100% reliable) terrorism watch lists. There appears to be the full spectrum there - from out and out libertarian to the draconian.

[Ellis_D]

So if you agree that anyone should be allowed to peacefully walk down any street, you would have been opposed to any attempt to ban the march that Anjem Choudary stated that he wished to hold in Wootton Bassett (the one where he said he wanted to parade empty coffins through the town to draw attention to Afghan war casualties)? And to be clear, you think the Home Secretary of the time was wrong when he said that he would ban it if the police requested him to?

Your honesty is commendable, but how about taking a critical look at the two propositions that you have advanced?

Why would anyone not wanting to make a political point choose a route that went past the East London Mosque and ended at the scene of Lee Rigby's murder and why on earth would anyone concerned with raising money for charity choose to take the opportunity to make a political point?

There is something of a contradiction on the stance that you take towards the liberty of people who want to make provocative 'charity walks' and people who find themselves on the (100% reliable) terrorism watch lists. There appears to be the full spectrum there - from out and out libertarian to the draconian.

Firstly, Anjem Choudary is a hate preacher. Tommy Robinson is not, regardless of what the left might believe. Choudary has been involved with several proscribed organisations. Tommy has been involved with none. Choudary has been involved with radicalising and training people to go and fight for terrorist organisations abroad. Tommy has not. Choudary praised the murderers involved in the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks describing them as "magnificent martyrs". Tommy has NEVER praised ANY murderer. Choudary has regularly called for the deaths of British police and armed forces, Tommy has not.

That you would try to compare the two is baffling and again, frankly, laughable. But this is one of the most worrying things about the left. You seriously compare terrorists, and hate preachers like Anjem Choudary to people you consider to be far right like Tommy Robinson, and you don't even see how utterly ridiculous it is. One of them hates Britain, preaches hate and supports terrorism and murders. The other speaks out against that hate and terrorism.

That said, IF a Muslim who was NOT under suspicion of links to terrorists (I'd be amazed given the evidence if Choudary wasn't on that hate list) wanted to form some kind of protest about the war in Afghanistan, or any other country, even if it involved the quite bizarre spectacle of walking coffins through the street, then yes, they should be allowed to exercise their democratic right to protest. If the Home Secretary at the time told police he would ban the march if police wanted him to, then I can only assume that is because Choudary is a hate preacher and on the terror suspects list.

To be clear, any Muslim who is not suspected of this behaviour - and of course the Home Secretary would have access to this information - should be allowed to walk down any street they feel like and hold a PEACEFUL protest or demonstration.

'Why would anyone not wanting to make a political point choose a route that went past the East London Mosque and ended at the scene of Lee Rigby's murder and why on earth would anyone concerned with raising money for charity choose to take the opportunity to make a political point?' - I'm sure I have already been over this and like I said, he probably did want to make a political point. And again, I'll be honest, he may have been trying to provoke an attack from a Muslim or Muslims. And then be able to say, 'Look at these Islamic extremists, this is how bad they are, they would even attack me on a charity march.'

I'm not agreeing with him if he WAS trying to make a political point out of supposedly just raising money for charity, just as I don't agree with other public figures or celebrities who use things like that for their own agenda. There is also of course the very realistic possibility that by taking such a deliberate and provocative route that he knew would gain the march maximum publicity. That would also have gained the charity maximum donations. And the parents of the little girl were happy enough with the ends justifying the means.

And finally, there is no contradiction. Just common sense. Everyone in Britain should have the freedom to peacefully walk down any street they like without fear of being attacked. The person doing the attacking should ALWAYS be the one in the wrong. I'd hazard a guess that if it was a Muslim walking down the street being attacked by white atheists or Christians you would be one of the first to speak out about how wrong it is. Simply walking down a street does not mean you might potentially murder tens, hundreds or thousands of innocent people, being a suspected terrorist does.

Again, that you can't see the vast difference between the two is extraordinary.

[KerrAvon]

Firstly, Anjem Choudary is a hate preacher. Tommy Robinson is not, regardless of what the left might believe. Choudary has been involved with several proscribed organisations. Tommy has been involved with none. Choudary has been involved with radicalising and training people to go and fight for terrorist organisations abroad. Tommy has not. Choudary praised the murderers involved in the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks describing them as "magnificent martyrs". Tommy has NEVER praised ANY murderer. Choudary has regularly called for the deaths of British police and armed forces, Tommy has not.

That you would try to compare the two is baffling and again, frankly, laughable. But this is one of the most worrying things about the left. You seriously compare terrorists, and hate preachers like Anjem Choudary to people you consider to be far right like Tommy Robinson, and you don't even see how utterly ridiculous it is. One of them hates Britain, preaches hate and supports terrorism and murders. The other speaks out against that hate and terrorism.

That said, IF a Muslim who was NOT under suspicion of links to terrorists (I'd be amazed given the evidence if Choudary wasn't on that hate list) wanted to form some kind of protest about the war in Afghanistan, or any other country, even if it involved the quite bizarre spectacle of walking coffins through the street, then yes, they should be allowed to exercise their democratic right to protest. If the Home Secretary at the time told police he would ban the march if police wanted him to, then I can only assume that is because Choudary is a hate preacher and on the terror suspects list.

To be clear, any Muslim who is not suspected of this behaviour - and of course the Home Secretary would have access to this information - should be allowed to walk down any street they feel like and hold a PEACEFUL protest or demonstration.

'Why would anyone not wanting to make a political point choose a route that went past the East London Mosque and ended at the scene of Lee Rigby's murder and why on earth would anyone concerned with raising money for charity choose to take the opportunity to make a political point?' - I'm sure I have already been over this and like I said, he probably did want to make a political point. And again, I'll be honest, he may have been trying to provoke an attack from a Muslim or Muslims. And then be able to say, 'Look at these Islamic extremists, this is how bad they are, they would even attack me on a charity march.'

I'm not agreeing with him if he WAS trying to make a political point out of supposedly just raising money for charity, just as I don't agree with other public figures or celebrities who use things like that for their own agenda. There is also of course the very realistic possibility that by taking such a deliberate and provocative route that he knew would gain the march maximum publicity. That would also have gained the charity maximum donations. And the parents of the little girl were happy enough with the ends justifying the means.

And finally, there is no contradiction. Just common sense. Everyone in Britain should have the freedom to peacefully walk down any street they like without fear of being attacked. The person doing the attacking should ALWAYS be the one in the wrong. I'd hazard a guess that if it was a Muslim walking down the street being attacked by white atheists or Christians you would be one of the first to speak out about how wrong it is. Simply walking down a street does not mean you might potentially murder tens, hundreds or thousands of innocent people, being a suspected terrorist does.

Again, that you can't see the vast difference between the two is extraordinary.

So to be completely clear, you would have been opposed to any ban on Anjem Choudary and his chums walking through the streets of Wootton Bassett with an empty coffin even though you describe him as a hate preacher and has been involved with several proscribed organisations? I'm afraid we part company on that point. I think such an action would have been grossly provocative and insensitive and should have been banned if Choudary had tried to go ahead with it. I also think that when 'Tommy' wants to make a provocative' charity walk' though London he should be told that he must take an alternative route.

I am an unashamed libertarian, but accept that the right of people to protest has to be balanced against need to keep public order and the rights of people to enjoy the areas where they live without provocation from people seeking to make political points.

Of course I agree with you that everyone in Britain should have the freedom to peacefully walk down any street they like without fear of being attacked. I just think that people have responsibilities as well as rights and that they include a responsibility not to deliberately create situationss where being attacked is likely to happen and making sure that there are cameras there to capture it.