Couldn't believe the "Allah is a paedo!" chants!

Apparently they also surfaced in Brighton too when an asian bloke was shouting obscenities at the EDL, along with "We've all sh*gged your wife" (or something along those lines, I forget the exact wording).

"We love the floods" may have been reserved especially for Bradford though as I didn't hear about that being used in Brighton.


Really goes a long way to proving them right when they said they weren't racist eh?

How can something that never existed be a paedo?...Better not go down that road!!

Which, in truth is what I expected. Not that it was a bad call (all things considered) it's just the contradiction in the police advice

who is left to pay for all this policing? I think the bill should be passed on to both the UAF and EDL but I know that is unlikely.

That's the price of democracy.

but democracy goes with what the majority wants and doesn't want. The majority of Bradford DID NOT want the EDL or the UAF here. Therefore why should the majority pay for something we did not want?

indeed. I would hope that the council would be a bit miffed at having to foot that bill. Is there not anything they can do?

They'll probably try and use it as another excuse why the Bulls can't have a renovated stadium and why they're going to have to abandon the latest crap scheme for the city centre.

The majority isn't "paying for" these people. It is paying for the police to do what they can to enforce the law and maintain order.

You didn't want the police to keep order?

E.E.E.D.L E.E.E.D.L

Morons.

"My Lords, civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometimes vindicated by history. The suffragettes are an example which comes immediately to mind. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind. But there are conventions which are generally accepted by the law-breakers on one side and the law-enforcers on the other. The protesters behave with a sense of proportion and do not cause excessive damage or inconvenience. And they vouch the sincerity of their beliefs by accepting the penalties imposed by the law. The police and prosecutors, on the other hand, behave with restraint and the magistrates impose sentences which take the conscientious motives of the protesters into account. The conditional discharges ordered by the magistrates in the cases which came before them exemplifies their sensitivity to these conventions."

Oh dear. I must confess to thinking it was two sets of yobs who wanted a rumble. I was all for scooping them up and allowing them to debate the arguments in a sealed off area, without the noisy distractions from outside, which might have disturbed their intellectual deliberations. The police could have opened the area up after an hour or so to allow them to announce the results of their democratic considerations. I'm sure they would have filed out, agreeing to differ, in true English fashion.

I'd go with that. I've said for a while let's just put the EDL and UAF into a nice sealed area and let them do whatever they want. Regardless of which side "wins" the...erm....debate, it'll still mean a lot of idiots that I really don't care about, being no longer a factor.