WTAF - Far right protests

[Poppi89]

I have just heard on the radio that far-right protesters will be out tomorrow in response to the BLM protesters. People are being urged not to be out in support of BLM tomorrow due to the aggressive nature of the far-right group and BLM protests are being cancelled because of them.

I am outraged by this. The BLM protesters are asking for people to not be killed due to the colour of their skin. They have rightly or wrongly made a decision to put themselves at risk of COVID-19 to help spread this message - a lot of people have called them idiots etc for doing this.

The far-right protests are now also protesting in large groups (but not in response to a murder) and are 'known' for being aggressive. How is this acceptable?

I would like to hear from anyone who is planning to join/agree with these far-right protests and their reasons why?

Notmyfirstusername
I have described the majority of the arms seen in the photograph but I shall leave you to it.

Right, so because some far right idiots are too stupid to know how to do a Nazi salute, the rest were just waving in unison?

There is a particular kind of - what shall we call it - wave that groups of men do at football matches. They pull one arm back, bending it at the elbow, then extend it. Often with one index finger pointing out. They accompany this with chanting, "come on you reds" or some such.

That's what it looks like to me, tbh. Your suggestion that they are too stupid to know how to do it says more about you.
Large gangs of big white men on the streets scare the hell out of me. But angry, bitter and sad are not automatic crimes in Britain.

There is a particular kind of - what shall we call it - wave that groups of men do at football matches. They pull one arm back, bending it at the elbow, then extend it.

I've been to around 600 football matches in my life. I know the gesture you mean.

That's not what they're doing in that video. It's a clear nazi salute. I know it is, you know it is. Cut your shit.

@Smilethoyourheartisbreaking

I asked first. Humour me Also I'm not making excuses for something an eye witness said and filmed . I'm curious why you are

I’m using my judgement based on that evidence just like you. I’ve interpreted it one way, you’ve interpreted it another. It’s a useful exercise to illustrate why trial by jury can be so problematic, isn’t it?

I find them and their behaviour quite loathesome enough to condemn them as nasty, far right thugs without the need to embellish it.

We were unsure, questioning assumptions doesn’t mean that we’re saying that those people are not racist thugs who are beneath contempt. It certainly doesn’t make a person a supporter of the FR, that’s a very insulting allegation.

I questioned it because it’s never been shown on the BBC News and they have on the whole been very thorough.

I actually think bringing up Nazi salutes actually deflects the questions about Churchill’s own racist views. Because it makes him a hero again rather than an Imperialist and a racist bigot who despised Ghandi the Indian people.

Whether a group of thugs did or didn’t make Nazi salutes or not hardly let’s them off the hook, does it? Their violence was seen on TV.

Give that presumably you’ve seen the incontrovertible evidence that the cenotaph was graffitied, why would you doubt it? I’ve even read the first hand account of the person who did it.

How many times is it necessary for me to say how much I abhor the beliefs and actions of these people? To be accused of being a racist and as bad as they are because I refuse to lie and say I’ve seen one detail I haven’t just goes to show how insane some sections of MN has become.

Whether they performed a salute or not is immaterial anyway. They’re scum whether they did it or not.

Hmm, damned predictive text! I meant ‘lets’ not ‘let’s’.

@Smilethoyourheartisbreaking

Please do not equate MN to a trial by jury. Laughable.

I didn’t. I said it explains how interpretative of evidence can be problematic. You seem to be very good at twisting things you see to suit your agenda.

Interpretation, damn it.

@Smilethoyourheartisbreaking

Also I you think I have been twisting truths to my agenda...you haven't been paying attention to previous posters at all

You’re the one who challenged me. I humoured you as you requested. Now I’ve said all I’m going to. Have a good evening.

We wouldn't be arguing over it if it didn't make a difference. The violence is known, has probably been picked up on CCTV etc and will no doubt follow the course of law.

I second what Younghill said. Some posters seem to have an agenda on here. I am avoiding some of these threads, as they are starting to get tiresome.

I do not need to prove anything one way or the other as I have no place in taking them to court. I don't know if we have a specific offence of that in the UK.

And before you jump down my throat at that, it's a matter for law. We have law for a reason - it is imprecise and needs updating as everything else, but it's the best we can manage.

Because it makes him a hero again rather than an Imperialist and a racist bigot who despised Ghandi the Indian people.

Ghandi himself had racist views and there is now a campaign to have his statue removed;

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-53025407

"Last year, students from Manchester called for a similar statue of Gandhi to be removed because of his "well-documented anti-black racism"."