back to article Anonymous 'plonks' names, addresses of far-right EDL types on web

Computer-hacking collective Anonymous‬ claims it has leaked online the personal details of the far-right English Defence League's members. The hackers' list - the authenticity of which has not been independently verified - includes the names and addresses of more than 200 supposed members of the controversial protest …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ignorance is bliss...

    99.9% of the time I forget that the EDL even exists.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: Ignorance is bliss...

      That can't be true. Or the EDL would be happy all the time...

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    'Now Anonymous UK has accused the EDL of taking "advantage of moments of fear and terror to spread hatred and animosity"'

    And Anonymous renowned for spreading love and peace.

    1. BoldMan

      Please include Theresa May, Ed Milliband and Boris Johnson oh hell and most of the other parasitical politicians who also jumped on the bandwagon taking "advantage of moments of fear and terror to spread hatred and animosity"' by promoting the snoopers charter in response...

      1. ElNumbre
        Stop

        Meeja

        I'd also like to pile in the traditional media who went ape-shit about Divvy Cameron going on Holiday, instead of staying home and dealing with the "terror threat". Like they'd pictured him as some kind of spandex wearing superhero able to protect and serve at a moments notice?

        1. Jim Carter
          Unhappy

          Re: Meeja

          The very idea of David Cameron in spandex has put me right off my lunch! I hope you're happy!

          1. Titus Technophobe
            Stop

            @ Above

            Is there not a certain amount of irony in protesting the 'Snoopers charter' presumably on privacy grounds by releasing private information?

  3. Thomas 4
    Meh

    Hrmm

    While I really do enjoy seeing someone sticking the boot into wankers like the EDL, there are folks that sign up to forums like theirs to protest against them. Not everyone on that website is a frothing at the mouth nationalist, yet they run the risk of being lumped in with the rest of the English Dickhead League.

    1. starkey

      Re: Hrmm

      Why would somebody sign to an EDL forum up to protest against them and use their real name?

      They (the EDL) aren't exactly know for being reasonable so this seems like an odd suggestion to me, leaving aside the possibility of a hack, I certainly wouldn't trust the site administrators not to disclose my identity on a site like that if I were 'outed' as a none member.

      1. Combustable Lemon
        Trollface

        Re: Hrmm

        I suspect many people would, given the nature of the internet and the amusement people find in tearing into other people over their (often, easily enflamed) views.

        Troll for obvious reasons.

    2. The Indomitable Gall

      Online clothing store

      I also find it easy to imagine a whole host of student film-makers getting caught up in this -- I can easily see them buying up EDL paraphernalia for shooting topical shorts....

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Now if only Anonymous would do the same sort of thing and expose the details of crazy Islamic extremists.

    1. Khaptain Silver badge

      How about diasplaying a list of Anonymous's members and telephone numbers as well.

      1. cocknee
        Big Brother

        Duh

        I think you missed the point of the collective/rabble/loose association/cells/spotty teenagers/ "Anonymous".

        1. Natalie Gritpants

          Re: Duh

          I rather think Anonymous have missed that point too.

    2. Gordon Stewart
      FAIL

      Given there are, in reality, so few of them, I imagine that is a rather more difficult task...

    3. boltar Silver badge
      Flame

      "Now if only Anonymous would do the same sort of thing and expose the details of crazy Islamic extremists."

      Don't be silly - that would put the script kiddies in real danger and they don't have the balls for that. Its the same way all the supposed "edgy" commentators, writers and comedians in the media love to stick the boot in to christianity but are too scared to do the same to islam not that they'd ever admit as much. If you asked why they don't they'd just accuse you of being racist (apparently muslims are a race according to the liberal left) in an attempt to deflect attention from their cowardice.

      1. cyborg
        Flame

        "Its the same way all the supposed "edgy" commentators, writers and comedians in the media love to stick the boot in to christianity but are too scared to do the same to islam"

        Most comedians - like everyone else with any damn sense - write about what they know. When "sticking the boot in" really means, "I was raised CofE and here are the silly things that happened". Fear is irrelevant and plenty of jokes have been made on Islam but that doesn't fit in with your prefab Daily Mail built worldview so whatever eh?

        "If you asked why they don't they'd just accuse you of being racist "

        No. See above.

        The MailOnline is more your pace - back there with you and leave the thinking to grown-ups.

  5. Shasta McNasty
    Thumb Up

    Irony

    . In one reported case, a York mosque successfully quelled an EDL protest with tea, biscuits and football

    You have to love the irony in which the EDL protestors were pacified.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Irony

      Which is exactly what should happen. Sit down, pour the tea, break out the biscuits and talk. I doubt that they converted anyone to Islam but it sould have dispelled a few myths.

      Maybe next time the EDL types can take the worshippers to the pub?

      1. Lee D Silver badge

        Re: Irony

        You want to take followers of a mosque to the pub? Either you're being ignorant or trying to be funny. If you don't know, that's an awful lot of Diet Cokes, given that Islam forbids alcohol.

        1. The BigYin

          Re: Irony

          "If you don't know, that's an awful lot of Diet Cokes, given that Islam forbids alcohol."

          So does Christianity.

          "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. [Romans 13:13-14]"

          There are other quotes.

          And in point of fact, I know Muslims who drink. Much less common than drinking Christians, I grant you that.

          1. Professor Clifton Shallot

            Booze ban

            Siggesting we avoid drunkenness is not the same thing as prohibiting alcohol.

            I think there's enough in the reports of the actions of Jesus for us to be fairly sure he didn't object to booze outright.

          2. Triggerfish

            Re: Irony

            I know Muslims who drink, but I am not exactly sure that that makes them Muslim though (in the correct sense, they would certainly identify themselves as it), or they are at least breaking the tenets of their faith by doing so.

            1. Bumpy Cat
              Stop

              Re: Irony

              @Triggerfish

              The Koran forbids alcohol from grapes, so technically it's only wine that's off-limits. More to the point, however, trying to say who is and isn't a true practitioner of the faith, from outside the faith, is not very cool. Demanding absolute adherence to scripture just buys in to the extremists viewpoint.

              1. Triggerfish

                Re: Irony

                The Koran forbids alcohol from grapes, so technically it's only wine that's off-limits. More to the point, however, trying to say who is and isn't a true practitioner of the faith, from outside the faith, is not very cool. Demanding absolute adherence to scripture just buys in to the extremists viewpoint.

                @ Bumpy Cat.

                First off can I point out I did not intend to make that implication in the way you seem to be thinking, said I am not sure, at no point did I try and say with any definition say what made someone a true Muslim. In fact I think you will find that I said that many of the Muslims who drink would regard themselves as Muslims.

                Re reading the comment about tenets of faith may be misinterpreted that way.

                If you thought that apologies, was not what I meant to imply.

                As for breaking tenets of the faith.

                I may be under a misapprehension the more faithful Muslims I have known tend to shun all alcohol, even to the point we were discussing alternates to alcohol when sharing recipes even if it was only a spoonful distributed amongst a lot of ingredients. They were quite strict on it and it was a no no, the grape more being a metaphor for all alcohol.

                I thought because of this it was a strict no no, but one of the things the youths did,

                I've met Muslims of all sorts from trainee imams who wont even listen to music. (apparently only religious music is acceptable), however some will argue that's to strict an interpretation.

                I've, drank with some, I've smoked with some, I've bought odd substances off a few, been to parties with some and have stayed with Muslims who have not had any objection to their daughters coming out to parties down the road with us.

                I just am not sure how Muslim that makes them in the strictest interpretation, if a Jew chomps down on bacon butties are they still Jewish? What the cut off point?

                I'd all say they were Muslim though, its never bothered me to much.

                Funnily enough the only one I have met who was talking like they were on their way to radicalisation (to a scary degree of fervour), when asked about alcohol in recipes was just a case of; pah its not enough to get drunk on who cares and was probably the least informed of any I have known about their own faith and the real world.

                1. Bumpy Cat

                  Re: Irony

                  @Triggerfish

                  Yeah, I didn't think you meant it that way, but it read that way and I wanted to clear that up. :)

                  It's always converts and clueless who take anything to extremes - unfortunately in some mosques there are people who are willing to steer that to violence. I remember reading an interview with one radical female convert to Islam; she said when she converted she told her children that Islam prohibited alcohol. Her eight-year-old daughter asked her "Does that mean you won't drink so much any more, mummy?", and when the woman replied yes, the daughter said "Yay!". Lady, if your eight-year-old daughter is worried about your drinking, the problem is not alcohol, or Western society, it's you.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Irony

                  I just am not sure how Muslim that makes them in the strictest interpretation, if a Jew chomps down on bacon butties are they still Jewish? What the cut off point?

                  The cut off point is when you stop trying.

                  The pork prohibition existed, in the beginning, because pork is a more dangerous meat to handle and it's only in recent years that we've had the technology to properly prepare and consume it on a casual basis. Does that mean the prohibition should no longer apply? That is a question that can start really long debates, but the short version is that if you think it probably doesn't then you can probably eat pork while remaining a member of a faith that doesn't eat pork. But it's best not to shout about it or you might derail normal conversations into those really long debates until nobody wants to talk to you.

                  I once asked a Syrian about smoky bacon crisps. You know, the ones meant to taste of bacon but containing no animal products whatsoever. He replied that he would treat it like real pork and make sure his mother never found out.

                  1. Triggerfish

                    Re: Irony

                    @Bumpy Cat.

                    No worries thought I had to as well. :)

                    Have to agree on the clueless bit, its a strange thing the girl I knew who was quite radicalised had a real cognitive disconnect thing going on.

                    @Mycho

                    Agree with where your coming from, that's why I don't really discount the ones who tend to break some of the tenets/laws/whatever as not being Muslim, and yeah I have listened to the debate over whether a teaspoon or so of wine in a recipe is a no no or something that they can be flexible about, it came down about half half, no one became apostate.

              2. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

                Re: Irony

                "...trying to say who is and isn't a true practitioner of the faith, from outside the faith, is not very cool. Demanding absolute adherence to scripture just buys in to the extremists viewpoint."

                No, it highlights the hypocrisy of picking and choosing beliefs from your religion that don't clash with modern society's standards.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Irony

              In the canteen of my then-workplace I once sat opposite a muslim who was eating bacon. He had an explanation on how it was compatible with Islam. I wasn't paying enough attention to recite it now, but I'm sure most people can explain how their religion is compatible with the things they do anyway.

              As for York, the best quote comes in the Imam's interview with GQ when he explicitly invites them to quote him that sensible people think the Taliban are nutters.

          3. VinceH
            Coat

            Re: Irony

            " Much less common than drinking Christians"

            Muslim vampires are quite rare, yes.

          4. nuked
            Devil

            Re: Irony

            DId he turn his blood into non-alcoholic wine then, or was he having a day off?

          5. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Irony

            Christianity forbids alcohol? Someone obviously forgot to tell the Irish.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Irony

              They're Catholic, not Irish.

              But it's surprising, seeing as Catholicism hates everything.

          6. boltar Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Irony

            >>"If you don't know, that's an awful lot of Diet Cokes, given that Islam forbids alcohol.

            >

            >So does Christianity.

            Does it? Someone better tell all the priests and vicars whats in the communion wine then!

          7. Don Jefe
            Happy

            Re: Irony

            Specifically those quotes forbid drunkenness, not drinking. Jesus himself was supposed to be popular at parties, he did bring free wine for everyone. You are misapplying scripture to suit your argument which is what the nutjobs do.

          8. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
            Pint

            Re: Irony

            "I know Muslims who drink."

            According to a Kuwaite friend, the man may drink but never the Muslim. Especially when outside of a muslim country ;-)

          9. KiwiPete
            FAIL

            Re: Irony

            Er, Water into Wine? or Wine into Water? oh, and alcohol != "drunkenness".

        2. Heathroi
          Holmes

          Re: Irony

          Technically the Koran forbids a drop of alcohol passing your lips, doesn't say anything about a pint, as a muslim friend of mine once said.

          Also its should be easy to Identify EDL members since they all wear the clothing line sold on the website. Wouldn't they?

        3. boltar Silver badge
          WTF?

          Re: Irony

          "You want to take followers of a mosque to the pub? Either you're being ignorant or trying to be funny. If you don't know, that's an awful lot of Diet Cokes, given that Islam forbids alcohol."

          Well duh! If there was a clueless fuckwit of the day award on here you'd probably have earned it.

    2. Spleen

      Re: Irony

      Have you ever seen an EDL member? Most could be quickly pacified with a mildly energetic game of dominoes, let alone a game that involves running around.

      1. The BigYin

        Re: Irony

        I had the unfortunate occasion to be at a motorway services when they arrived. At first I thought it was a biker's outing as the uniforms looked the same (and there is a massive amount of racism in UK biking, most bikers* IME are xenophobes). Then I noticed the buses and paid more attention to the slogans on their clothing.

        I left. Quickly. As I think many others did.

        *I said "bikers" not "motorcyclists". Difference.

  6. Velv
    Stop

    "Thou shall not speak words I do not want you to speak"

    Censorship, be it governments, religions, or organised groups, is censorship. Anonymous are no better than the EDL in that respect. Intimidating the members of EDL is censorship. Vigilante action will go wrong, and has been seen in other places, the wrong people are named.

    I don't like what EDL stand for, but I stand by their right to say it. By all means campaign against their arguments. But as soon as you censor, you radicalise.

    1. The BigYin

      Anonymous are probably worse than the EDL. The Anons can read and write for starters....

    2. The Jase

      "Intimidating the members of EDL is censorship."

      And the EDL intimidating KFC staff isn't?

      The EDL marching then, by their very nature is censorship under your definition.

      So what do we censor?

      1. Titus Technophobe
        Stop

        @The Jase

        Two wrongs do not make a right. But should EDL intimidate the staff at KFC then they stand to be arrested by the police.

        Assuming that the protest is valid how about not censoring anybody? One of my objections to anonymous as I understand it is that they will get happily censor any organisation for no particular reason.

        In this instance their actions may well have been worse in that by releasing names and addresses they might well have incited vigilante action. Whilst it might be argued that this action is valid against the EDL I would argue otherwise (see two wrongs above). Further to this what happens with a case of mistaken identity?

        1. The Jase

          Re: @The Jase

          I can tell you've never been doxxed. Scary at first, but it amounts to a whole lot of nothing in the end.

          I've had enough of the EDL threaten to beat/kill me, I have very little sympathy for them.

          If I believed enough in a cause, I'd stand up and be identified for it.

    3. ThomH Silver badge

      The problem with guaranteeing free speech is that you can't hold it up as the be all and end all while simultaneously saying that the EDL have the right to say anything they want but Anonymous don't have the right to say that person X is a member of the EDL.

      At some point you have to balance the rights of one group against the rights of another. In this case I think the defamation angle is the right one to follow. If Anonymous has misidentified anybody then those people will likely be subject to a heavy adverse reaction. It's the rights of those individuals that should properly restrict the right to free speech.

      So, yes, I'm against what Anonymous has done. I'm also against the EDL but that's neither here nor there. But I disagree with what's happened not because I think free speech is an absolute right but rather because I think that limitations are justified in specific limited cases.

      1. cyborg
        Megaphone

        Misunderstanding Free Speech

        "The problem with guaranteeing free speech is that you can't hold it up as the be all and end all while simultaneously saying that the EDL have the right to say anything they want but Anonymous don't have the right to say that person X is a member of the EDL."

        Free speech doesn't mean I get to take your bank details and publish them for general use. It's commonly understood to mean, "being free to make a political statement no matter what that is". So I could say I believe I should have the undeniable right to publish your bank details but that doesn't mean I can do so and say it's my right because of "free speech". Unless I could argue your personally identifiable details are political but I don't see that as likely to be considered valid.

        Anyone else labouring under the idea it's anything else needs to get aboard the clue train.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Results Desired and Obtained

    The warped bits of trash who conducted their hate crime in Woolwich hoped for an outpouring the hate, so must be rubbing their hands with glee. I have no time for any extreme group, though I have yet to see the EDL running round with knives and killing people directly, but perhaps I missed those news reports. However, sadly, their actions add to the heat, without adding much light to the scene.

    Perhaps the strongest argument is in favour of banning all religions, though as a close second choice removing the rabid, psychopathic hate mongers of ALL types would be a very good alternative. Sadly I see a few posters on here are in favour of the hate mongers and against any attempt to restrict their killing sprees. In this case I would include the stupid script kiddies who have allegedly exposed the EDL details in order to keep the hate pot boiling a little longer.

    How many people are they hoping to kill by their stupid activities?

    Why did we waste NHS resources on treating the Woolwich scum should they not have simply preyed for recovery?

    Multi-multiculturalism has turned out to be little more than competing 'cults' of hate for anyone else. It has simply resulted in advanced xenophobia

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Results Desired and Obtained

      "have yet to see the EDL running round with knives and killing people directly"

      Nonetheless, a mosque has been firebombed and a 76yo man on his way home from prayer was stabbed from behind so violently that the knife went completely through his chest.

      If this was Myanmar I'd suspect that the military was stirring up trouble in order to reimpose martial law, however this is england - and I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone inside the government was stirring up extremists on both sides in order to justify more control laws.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Results Desired and Obtained

        Yes, I covered some of that in my original post when I spoke of the build up of xenophobia.

        I have not seen anyone tie the EDL to the stabbing in question, but if you have the evidence I am hopeful that the local police would welcome your information, so would I along with a lot of the rest of us.

        I remain surprised at how much popular support there is here for the thug elements of our fractured society and how little there is for removing the driving wedges being forced into society to increase and perpetuate the schisms.

        Hate crime is hate crime and even more simply is CRIME, get over it. Crime needs to be stopped along with all of its xenophobic machinations.

        Or is some xenophobia more acceptable than other xenophobia?

    2. Thomas 4
      Stop

      Re: Results Desired and Obtained

      "Why did we waste NHS resources on treating the Woolwich scum should they not have simply preyed for recovery?"

      Because we still believe in justice. You remember justice, right? It's when a person is called to account for their actions, when a crime is carefully examined to ensure that the right perpetrator has been found, to offer them a chance to explain their reasons and to sentence them appropriately. Justice is done with logic and reasoning.

      We are not savages. The moment we lynch someone in a fit of rage, we *are* no better than those we claim to fight. Justice can be corrupted. Justice can make mistakes. But I wouldn't want to live in a world without it.

      1. My Alter Ego

        Re: Results Desired and Obtained

        Absolutely. We should wait until they're sentenced, and then revoke NHS privileges.

        A friend and myself (after a few pints) came up with an idea - Human Rights points. When you are convicted of a crime Human Rights points are deducted from your account (proportional to your crime). The convicted person is allowed to chose which rights should be taken away (thus they are responsible for their own punishment).

        I've now decided that NHS treatment should be added to my list.

        Personally, I wish that stupid woman who filmed what-his-name hadn't decided to make a quick buck from selling the footage to the media. She and the other fools have helped these two maniacs succeed in their task.

      2. boltar Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Results Desired and Obtained

        "We are not savages. The moment we lynch someone in a fit of rage, we *are* no better than those we claim to fight."

        Oh utter bollocks. If someone deliberately hurt my wife or child I'd hurt them very very badly, possibly even kill them, and screw logic, reasoning, the law and sanctamonious twats like you living your easy life on your fluffy little liberal cloud where justice is nothing more than an legal accounting exercise because you've never encountered anything worse in your life than a parking ticket.

        1. Greg J Preece

          Re: Results Desired and Obtained

          If someone deliberately hurt my wife or child I'd hurt them very very badly, possibly even kill them, and screw logic, reasoning, the law and sanctamonious twats like you

          Then I hope you never work for the police. Though you'd probably fit right in with the Met.

          I'm also rather depressed that you have offspring to pass on this crap to.

          1. Triggerfish

            Re: Results Desired and Obtained

            "If someone deliberately hurt my wife or child I'd hurt them very very badly, possibly even kill them, and screw logic, reasoning, the law and sanctamonious twats like you"

            Different things.

            Thats personal feelings because your family has been hurt.

            The others what we should do as as society so we don't all end up smacking each other with axes, dispensing vigilante justice, encouraging summary execution by the government without trial, things like that y'know.

          2. boltar Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Results Desired and Obtained

            "Then I hope you never work for the police. Though you'd probably fit right in with the Met."

            "I'm also rather depressed that you have offspring to pass on this crap to."

            Oh grow up FFS. The law and justice are not the same thing.

          3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Greg J Santimoniousprick Re: Results Desired and Obtained

            ".....moral superiority....." With the limited resources available to the NHS I'd be quite happy if they refused the two "gents" in question any medical aid and instead used it for someone more deserving. You can stick your moral superiority, these people cannot consider you as equal, so you're just wasting oxygen trying to convince them "we are better because we are nicer".

            "Then I hope you never work for the police. Though you'd probably fit right in with the Met......" What you mean is you are a gormless twat that likes to believe (I won't use the word think as that is far beyond your capabilities) that all coppers are racists. This is no doubt to your closeted upbringing and complete lack of experience of real coppers, combined with a gutter desire to come across as "street, innit!" Maybe that will change when you eventually leave school.

            ".....I'm also rather depressed that you have offspring to pass on this crap to." That probably doesn't even come close to the general public's upset with your parents' decision to procreate.

      3. YARR
        Thumb Up

        Re: Results Desired and Obtained

        @Tomas4

        "Because we still believe in justice. You remember justice, right? It's when a person is called to account for their actions, when a crime is carefully examined to ensure that the right perpetrator has been found, to offer them a chance to explain their reasons and to sentence them appropriately. Justice is done with logic and reasoning."

        Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. Such a shame Bin Laden wasn't called to account for 9/11, nor those who poisoned Litvinenko, nor the Israeli's who murdered the Iranian nuclear scientists or those who sank the USS Liberty and strafed the survivors etc. etc. etc.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Really?

      "Perhaps the strongest argument is in favour of banning all religions"

      I'd go for banning the hatemongers. Including the ones who hate anyone religious. Oh, look, we've found one.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Really?

        Wonderful things mirrors, I assume you were using one?

        If the sole point of a religion is find a reason to hate, what value does it have?

        Religion kills millions, just look at the world, or those 'religious' loonies who want to stop vaccinations intended to prevent polio, etc.

        Or would you like to bring back smallpox as well?

        1. Triggerfish

          Re: Really?

          I cant think of many religions having no purpose but to find hate. Admittedly I don't have a religion and I may be wrong.

          But it strikes me generally speaking that most of the problems we have come from people who want to hate and want violence, or power then find an excuse to justify it maybe so they don't seem like psychopaths to themselves or others, mixed with some of the easily led.

          If there wasn't religion we'd probably be having wars when the extremist stir clockwise tea drinkers fight the extremist anticlockwise followers. As it is they end up rallying behind a cause be it anti abortion, Islam, or immigration.

          Beware the demagogues.

          1. WatAWorld

            Re: Really?

            Most successful and many unsuccessful religions and sects of religions exist to create a "them" (out-group) and an "us" (in-group).

            You join the religion because you get favours for being in the in-group.

            Nothing new about a religion burning out-group members at the stake. It wasn't something Christians invented.

            Or was it?

      2. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

        Re: Really?

        "I'd go for banning the hatemongers. Including the ones who hate anyone religious. Oh, look, we've found one."

        Hating people for their beliefs and hoping for an end to the institutions that indoctrinate people with those beliefs are two very different things.

        1. WatAWorld

          Hands up anyone who thinks they belong to a religion that has never persecuted us?

          I'm an atheist. Hands up anyone who thinks they belong to a religion that has never persecuted us?

          To Christians I'm an apostate and to Muslims an unprotected Infidel.

          Persecution, it is what people do, it is a natural tendency to perversion, and we need to constantly combat it.

          They blame all Christians for what some Christians did.

          Then the Christians blame all Muslims for what some Muslims did.

          Everyone says everyone else is not human.

          The sad thing in the UK is the Christians have done so much bombing and terrorism against other Christians.

          Canada, the USA, Western Europe, terrorism is historically a Christian endeavour.

          True, Muslims and Jews have been terrorists, but in the Middle East, not here. Being active here is a new thing, caused by us being active there.

    4. Greg J Preece

      Re: Results Desired and Obtained

      Why did we waste NHS resources on treating the Woolwich scum should they not have simply preyed for recovery?

      Because that's how you demonstrate that you have the moral superiority to call them scum?

      Seriously, I get really fucking sick of having to point out basic morality to fuckwits.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I was having a gander at this last night.

    One of the things they released was a bash script to use the BNP's webserver in an amplification attack against the EDL's.

    Irrespective of whether it would be particularly successful in bringing either down, it did make me think 'nice'.

    http://pastebin.com/4ECmdMRW

    1. WatAWorld

      Re: I was having a gander at this last night.

      Maybe your clients be their next target and the rest of us can say, "nice" about your misfortune.

  9. The BigYin

    Oh FFS

    The EDL are a bunch of hate-filled, knuckle-dragging troglodytes who think all their ills are caused by someone else (I suggest they try looking in the mirror to discern the cause of any problems they may have).

    However

    They have every right to be a bunch of hate-filled, knuckle-dragging troglodytes and publishing their names is just encouraging some other hate-filled, knuckle-dragging troglodyte to do something stupid.

    If the EDL break the law (e.g. ABH, incitement to riot etc etc) then let the police deal with them.

    If you meet a member of the EDL and they try to engage you in debate, remember that they still deserve respect and it's their ideas that do not. (I strongly suggest that you only do this with an escape plan as their concept of "debate" is often "he who punches hardest and fastest, wins").

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh FFS

      'They deserve respect.'

      No, they don't; I'll choose not to respect who I bloody well like. I might not lunge kicking and screaming at people I don't respect, however.

      I reckon they have a right to say what they think, however I have just as big a right to say I feel their views are abhorrent and they're a bunch of congenital imbeciles for harbouring them.

      I also have little sympathy for them.

      1. WatAWorld

        Re: Oh FFS

        Any one who escalates words to violence has:

        1. Lost the argument.

        2. Proven they are a lower form of life than whatever their opponent is.

        Right-wing scum, left-wing scum.

        Being scum is not on the right-wing / left-wing axis, rather it is on the mutual respect/psychopathic axis.

    2. Thomas 4

      Re: Oh FFS

      No.

      Freedom of speech allows you to say what you think. It does not grant you the right to act on those thoughts. Far too often I see religious folks saying horrific things about the LGBT community and when people try to call them to account, they claim religious persecution and oppression.

      Freedom of speech allows you to say hateful and bigoted things. It does not grant you the right to *act* as a hateful bigot.

      1. Ben Tasker Silver badge

        Re: Oh FFS

        Freedom of speech allows you to say what you think. It does not grant you the right to be a hateful bigot.

        Quite right too. I'd throw in there though (as some seem to miss this) that there's no right not to be offended by someone saying what they think.

      2. The BigYin

        Re: Oh FFS

        "Far too often I see religious folks saying horrific things about the LGBT community and when people try to call them to account, they claim religious persecution and oppression."

        Yes. But ideas are not people. Their ideas can be slammed and ground into the dirt (under weight of evidence one would hope), ridiculed, mocked and derided. The people still need to be treated with respect (as in, basic courtesy) OR one becomes just like the EDL. And I for one certainly wish to hold myself to higher standards than that crowd.

        "Freedom of speech allows you to say hateful and bigoted things. It does not grant you the right to *act* as hateful bigot."

        Quite right. Which is why I said that if the EDL (or whomever) break the law with ABH or whatever, they should be dealt with by the correct authorities.

      3. WatAWorld

        Re: Oh FFS

        If by *act* you mean speak and write, yes it does.

        But if by *act* you mean phone at 3 AM and harass, or try to get fired from job, or beat up like a neo-nazi or stalinist thug, then no it does not and you are correct.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The irony of this whole situation is that even 'moderate' muslims have fairly dodgy right wing views, concerning things like homosexuals and womens rights, so the EDL actually have quite a lot in common with them.

    1. The BigYin

      "even 'moderate' muslims have fairly dodgy right wing views, concerning things like homosexuals and [women's] rights"

      So do many Christians. I give, as one example, gay marriage (still rumbling through the process). As a further example, I give you "Intelligent Design". If you want to see real Christian extremists, go look at the USA with the Westboro Baptists etc.

      This isn't a Muslim problem, this is a "fuckwit" problem (or a "lacking in education and societal enlightenment" if you prefer). But "fuckwit" covers all bases nicely (EDL, sky-fairy zealots et al).

      1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

        this is a "fuckwit" problem

        We're glad you liked this post? I loved this post. On the nose, BigYin.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        What have fundamentalist Christians got to do with anything? they aren't the subject at hand, so enough with the straw men, please.

        And comparing the Westboro Baptists (lunatic, fringe group) to the Wahabbi Sect, Taliban, etc is a bit spurious. These kinds of views are far more mainstream in the Muslim world than most like to admit.

        1. Maharg
          Mushroom

          euphemisms

          If two PIRA men did this they would be called ‘Dissident Republicans’ if some white guys killed a Muslim it would be because they are ‘Fascists’ or ‘Nazis’, if a couple of Christians did this they would be called ‘mentality disturbed’ regardless if they said it was done for the baby Jesus or not, at a push maybe ‘Religious extremists’, but not Christians, never the word ‘Christians’.

          But it was two Muslims, therefore it’s not because they are ‘mentally disturbed’ or they are ‘Al Qaeda sympathisers’ or they are just evil scum, We don’t care about making up a euphemism to excuse their actions and distance ourselves from identifying with them.

          It’s because they are Muslims.

          Is that right?

          Two things need to happen.

          More coverage needs to be given to those in the Islamic Community who are against these actions, and more people in the Islamic community need to stand up and say they are opposed to these actions.

          At the same time ‘we’, as in the White British Christian community need to stop calling these people ‘Muslims’, and start using the same BS language we use when a white Christian does something evil, because as long as we keep judging all people of the same faith by the actions of a few, the members of that faith are not going to side with us in a hurry.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: euphemisms

            just the other way around: if Christians are responsable it is al over the news, especially Catholics, if the culprits are islamists they talk about "religious extremists" and avoid the word "Muslim"....

            1. WatAWorld

              Re: euphemisms

              "if the culprits are islamists they talk about "religious extremists" and avoid the word "Muslim"...."

              Not in Canadian, American or British newspaper websites.

              The IRA are IRA Terrorists. ETA are terrorists.

              Al Qada are Islamic Terrorists.

              1. This post has been deleted by its author

            2. Maharg
              WTF?

              Re: euphemisms

              What newspapers are you reading?

        2. WatAWorld

          What have fundamentalist Christians got to do with anything?

          How can anyone ask, "What have fundamentalist Christians got to do with anything?"

          The issue is fundamentalism and terrorism and whether

          a) Muslims are the only ones to ever do it?

          b) Muslims are the only ones doing it now?

          How can we discuss if Muslims are subhuman compared to Christians without examining how much Muslims are exactly where Christians were 100 or so years ago?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: What have fundamentalist Christians got to do with anything?

            I suppose that It'd be fairer to say that the religious in general are sub-human, rather than any specific cult.

            The propensity for extreme religiosity tends to suggest mental illness or at least psychological problems of some sort, which can of course be hereditary , which, thinking about it, might explain the continuing existence of those stupid enough to believe any of the religious bullshit.

            1. Cipher

              Re: What have fundamentalist Christians got to do with anything?

              Exactly! Islamic Haters are out blowing people up and killing innocents nearly everyday and what do we get? Anonymous defending them, as the Press mostly does, and a deflection to the evils of Christianity.

              The topic is Islamic murder worldwide. Stay on topic...

    2. WatAWorld

      It goes with being an Abrhamic religion

      "The irony of this whole situation is that even 'moderate' muslims have fairly dodgy right wing views, concerning things like homosexuals and womens rights, so the EDL actually have quite a lot in common with them."

      The same is true of all the 3 Abrahmic religions.

      Look at Orthodox Jews and Born Again Christians -- not actually the extremists of their respective religions (which are the ultra-orthodox and fundamentalists)

      That we don't persecute LGBT folks in Common Law countries is due to us having a legal system that evolved from Germanic pagan beliefs (look at how only 3 of 10 Abrahamic Commandments are in our laws) that has further progressed by adopting agnosticism.

  11. TwoWolves
    Black Helicopters

    Its war Jim, but not as we know it...

    Did any of you actually read the article before you reached for the keyboard to blow-off your righteousness?

    It's not clear where the leaked data came from but two hacktivist crews - ZHC (ZCompany Hacking Crew) from Pakistan and TeaMp0isoN - claim to have lifted membership lists after cracking into the EDL's website and forum, respectively.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Megaphone

      Re: Its war Jim, but not as we know it...

      When I first read the article, my conspiracy meter went off, I could not help but think this is the work of the secret services, just as the "hack" of the BNP members.

      Not that I condone either group but it does make one wonder.......

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: Its war Jim, but not as we know it...

        The 'hack' of the BNP members was no such thing. It was leaked by some internal people being annoyed, for some reason. Now we could go all 'conspiracy nut' here, and say they were sleeper agents. But I think I'll go with the most likely hypothesis. Which is the BNP has had internal troubles for a while. Some of it over party funds - who knows about the rest. Extremist parties tend to be prone to this kind of internal fun-and-games, so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'll go with that.

  12. This post has been deleted by its author

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Whilst the EDL are a bunch of swivel eyed loons

    This kind of vigilante action is totally irresponsible. These people have family and friends who are now placed at risk.

    "You have angered us considerably, and summoned our wrath irrevocably."

    FFS, what utter childish bollocks. Been watching too many downloaded fantasy films have we? Why can't the kids of today protest properly. Might actually achieve something then.

  14. Xenobyte
    IT Angle

    thugs

    "...by two thugs who had apparently converted to Islam."

    So... Did they convert *because* they were thugs or did they become thugs from their exposure to Islam?

    Either way, it seems that the EDL has valid grounds to link Islam with this bestial and utter evil act.

    Sure, some Islamic clerics have condemned the attack while a lot others are silent or (worse) 'understands' the motivations of the thugs and that makes the EDL even more relevant. Sure they are thugs themselves but they bring up some valid points about Islam and especially those that more or less accept or condone any form of violence in the name of Islam. The Islamists are loud and easy to spot (and watch), but all those just behind are just as bad. They teach their children that violence may be okay, that any fight by Muslims against other faiths are good fights etc. and that is extremely scary.

    1. Triggerfish

      Re: thugs

      " The Islamists are loud and easy to spot (and watch), all those just behind are just as bad. They teach their children that violence may be okay, that any fight by Muslims against other faiths are good fights etc. and that is extremely scary."

      Balls :)

    2. Don Jefe

      Re: thugs

      I have to say I don't agree that the EDL have valid grounds to link this to Islam. They have every right to link the people responsible for the killing but that is all. Even if Islam did expose them to violence it is the person who is responsible for their own actions, not their God.

      Man is responsible for his actions. It's a core tenant in all the major religions: Mankind was given the power to choose the good and upright path or choose the base and evil path.

      1. Triggerfish

        Re: thugs

        So all those downvoters did you actually read the original post, do you actually believe that ALL (the above posters words) Muslims are plotting our downfall, that they are teaching their kids right from the pram to be a bunch of murderous jihadists?

        Do you actually when you're walking the street imagine that all those little Mulsim kids in prams are actually like a version of Stewie from family guy, but y'know like brown and believe in Allah. At night being taught by them mum and dad how to McGuyver a pipe bomb from baby toys.

        In fact do you feel nervous when there's all these brown skinned people near you in the street? Just waiting for one of them to go bang, you must near shit yourself if one of them trips incase they accidently go off?

        I admire the posters ability to make a judgement that all Muslims are just waiting for the global jihad, it must have taken fucking ages to go round and question every Muslim on the planet, especially when you are to worried to approach within more than thirty yards without being in some form of armoured vest.

        Good grief.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's all good

    I see lots of Iron Bars in the future of more ASSnonymous members who are in deep, deep denial.

  16. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Facepalm

    A cautionary tale.....

    A few years back an activist created a dummy email account and personal details for a "Dick Right", which she used to post taunting messages on the BNP forums. When the list of BNP members was released, sure enough Dick Right was on there. Now, you and I may see the obvious reversed pun in "Dick Right" but apparently the Anti Nazi League couldn't, and - even more ironicly - there happens to be several online webpages, Facebook accounts and email accounts in the name of "Dick Right" which actually belong to real people completely unassociated in any way with the BNP. Amongst the scatter-gun of "righteous abuse" sprayed at all the online presences of the Dick Rights of the World was one Richard Wright in Australia, who was subsequently "outed" as a member of the BNP, despite being half-Chinese!

  17. Maharg
    Angel

    Religion

    While not being religious myself, I do have to disagree with this notion that religion causes death, destruction and hate, it’s just not true.

    People cause death destruction and hate, they use religion as an excuse a reason or as a way to get more people on their side.

    The majority or evil things that are done in the world are due to power, greed, hate and ignorance

    Banning religion will not turn the world into a peaceful place, people will still kill other people, it doesn’t matter if they use race, sexuality, politics, football teams or the correct way to eat boiled eggs as the excuse.

    1. WatAWorld

      Re: Religion

      It is not guns that kill people, it is people that kill people.

      But I do not buy that with religion any more than I do with guns.

      Guns and religion make it easy to kill people, which causes more killings.

      Guns remove the physical effort.

      Religion allows one to dehumanize the out-group. Look at what the Christian commenters above wrote and understand that if this thread was on an Iraqi or Israeli website it would be Muslim or Jewish commenters dehumanizing the out-group.

      You dehumanize your enemies and it makes it removes the emotional effort in killing our fellow humans.

      And that is what religion is, an emotional gun that makes some things easier to accept or easier to do, including killing.

      1. Maharg

        Re: Religion

        I see your point but I have to disagree, Religion was not created to kill people, it they are ideas made up a long time ago to explain the world and try to make people behave a certain way, while it has been used as a reason for killing it is not a tool for killing.

        A gun on the other hand is a tool used for killing or at least hurting living things, sure I can kill someone with a screwdriver, but if someone asks “hey what’s a screwdriver for?” not very many people will answer ‘stabbing things’, but ask the same question of a gun, and everyone will say it’s for shooting.

        A gun is a tool, religion is an excuse, I support a football team, but I don’t use my support of that team as a reason to attack supporters of other teams, but some people do, that doesn’t make supporting football teams bad or evil.

  18. Steve Martins

    pythonesque...

    BRIAN: Are you the English Defence League?

    REG: Fuck off!

    BRIAN: What?

    REG: English Defence League. We're the Defence League of England! English Defence League. Cawk.

    FRANCIS: Wankers.

    BRIAN: Can I... join your group?

    REG: No. Piss off.

    BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate people with different race/religion/nationality as much as anybody.

    JUDITH: Are you sure?

    BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the people with different race/religion/nationality already.

    REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the DLE., you'd have to really hate the people with different race/religion/nationality.

    BRIAN: I do!

    REG: Oh, yeah? How much?

    BRIAN: A lot!

    REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the people with different race/religion/nationality are the fucking English Defence League!.

    P.F.J.: Yeah...

    JUDITH: Splitters.

    you get the idea.....

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm not familiar with EDL. From the comments here I can only imagine that they must be something like WBC, only targeting Islam instead of homosexuality. In other words, utterly abhorrent.

    That said, there is something to consider regarding Islam. There is no more violent religion in the world. Even at its worst Christianity never said that you'd get to Heaven by killing as many people as possible, and centuries later Christians still frequently have the Inquisition thrown in their faces. But somehow Islam, a religion which CURRENTLY encourages its adherents to kill indiscriminately (in some branches anyway -- I'll admit that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, but then so were the majority of Inquisition era Christians), gets a free pass.

    So will someone please explain to me why a religion which long ago learned the error of its ways and repented from killing 'heretics' is still vilified but one which still has several significant branches killing as many people as possible in the name of their religion is heavily defended from anyone who would dare say it might be dangerous by the same people?

    Anon because I forgot my flame retardant underwear today.

    1. Greg J Preece

      Even at its worst Christianity never said that you'd get to Heaven by killing as many people as possible

      Not read much of the old testament, then? Unless you're suggesting that the commands to kill other tribes, apostates, unruly children, disobedient slaves, wives, homosexuals, etc don't count as "as many as possible"?

      and centuries later Christians still frequently have the Inquisition thrown in their faces.

      You're right. We should be throwing their much more recent atrocities at them.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Not read much of the old testament, then?

        Christianity didn't exist yet in Old Testament times. Those were Hebrews, and Christian teachings are much different than the ones you reference.

        We should be throwing their much more recent atrocities at them.

        Such as what, exactly? To my knowledge it's been centuries since there was any widespread violence in the name of Christianity.

        1. Greg J Preece

          Christianity didn't exist yet in Old Testament times. Those were Hebrews, and Christian teachings are much different than the ones you reference.

          Aaaah, that Christianity. The "the old testament is kinda embarassing so let's ignore two thirds of our own holy book" kind of Christianity? I take it we're also ignoring the parts of the new testament where Christ re-affirms the old laws, and in fact specifically states that he hasn't come to change them?

          Such as what, exactly? To my knowledge it's been centuries since there was any widespread violence in the name of Christianity.

          Hahahahaha, what? We'll just ignore, say, Ireland then? Or half of Africa? Or have you not heard of the Lord's Resistance Army? It was fairly well popularised a year or two back (admittedly by another complete nutcase).

          Nice try, but there are still plenty of people out there to cause war and misery in the name of that particular sky fairy.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Don Jefe
            Happy

            @Greg J Preece

            When Christ reaffirmed the 'old laws' he was talking about secular laws and the Roman occupation, not specifically the Old Testament (which also didn't exist at the time of Christ - what you know as the Old Testament is post edit compilation of 'historical' documents). One of the main reasons the Jews were angry with Christ was that they were disappointed he wasn't going to propel Judiasm/Israelites to the top of the pile. It's also one of the major issues that created Islam, everybody wants a God will kick ass in their names, they aren't happy with a son of God who creates Heaven, they want Earthly rewards. They want a God who'll let them act like dicks, basically.

            His reaffirmation of social order and law equal to even the law of God, has been conveniently overlooked. There's an argument that adherence to social law was so important to God that's why Jesus didn't attempt to bail out before his trial & crucifixion, he could easily have escaped...

            At the end of the day almost all atrocities committed in the name of religion are politics in disguise where a terribly unscrupulous person has cloaked his aspirations with the cloak of 'Holy' and taken advantage of the less learned. Politicians kill more people than religion.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Aaaah, that Christianity. The "the old testament is kinda embarassing so let's ignore two thirds of our own holy book" kind of Christianity? I take it we're also ignoring the parts of the new testament where Christ re-affirms the old laws, and in fact specifically states that he hasn't come to change them?

            Christ also says 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. My belief is that we are meant to follow the laws, but, as none of us are sinless, not enforce them. But you go right on ahead and mock me with your partial understanding of my faith. I know how important it is for some people to feel superior, and if railing against Christianity helps your ego go right on ahead.

            Hahahahaha, what? We'll just ignore, say, Ireland then? Or half of Africa? Or have you not heard of the Lord's Resistance Army? It was fairly well popularised a year or two back (admittedly by another complete nutcase).

            My keyword was 'widespread'. You're talking about two very, very fringe groups, loudly condemned by basically all of Christianity. Contrast that to Islam, where someone sets off a bomb in the name of their religion and 90 percent of the Muslim clergy in the world either says nothing or actively praises them.

            1. Mayor Boris

              "My keyword was 'widespread'. You're talking about two very, very fringe groups, loudly condemned by basically all of Christianity."

              The Roman Catholic Church is a "very fringe group" now?

            2. Greg J Preece

              But you go right on ahead and mock me with your partial understanding of my faith.

              You can try that line of wounded condescension if you like, and assume that it adds something to your rather flimsy argument, but it used to be my faith also, so please don't try and tell me that I have a partial understanding of Christian bullshit. I was a victim of it for many years.

              My keyword was 'widespread'

              And mine was not, but you slipped it in as another fragile defence, and I knew you would try and use it as such. I even turned to the man sat next to me and made a bet on it. Thanks very much, you just made me five quid.

              I don't care whether or not - on your judgement - the violence and hatred is "widespread" (and if you don't think that destabilising at least a half dozen nations is widespread, fuck off). I care that it exists, and that is it justified by the crap in an ancient set of texts written by nomadic thugs.

            3. Greg J Preece

              By the way, it didn't nearly pass me by that you dodged your complete dismissal of two thirds of your holy book (the part that also includes the ten commandments) by retorting with condescension and bullshit. I simply expected nothing less.

    2. cyborg
      Headmaster

      Those abortion clinic bombings - those guys presumably weren't true Christians?

      "There is no more violent religion in the world"

      Religions can't be violent - a religion is just a collection of abstract stuff with no vital force.

      "Even at its worst Christianity never said that you'd get to Heaven by killing as many people as possible,"

      A lot of people thought otherwise during the Crusades.

      "So will someone please explain to me why a religion which long ago learned the error of its ways."

      Look it's simple: allowing your thought processes to be dictated to you by someone else claiming to speak on the behalf of a divinity - because face reality, most people calling themselves Christian have for the most part of history not been aware of the scripture for one reason or another - is an idea that lets sociopaths dictate society.

      Christianity's tennets are wholly irrelevant for the most part but the idea that X or Y is a worse or better religion because passage A subsection 7 can be said to be dictated by a slightly better kind of ignorant, illerate sociopath doesn't moral high-ground make.

      So again: religions don't learn because they're not an agency. Plenty of people calling themselves Christian are doing some horrible shit around the world.

      "but one which still has several significant branches killing as many people as possible in the name of their religion is heavily defended from anyone who would dare say it might be dangerous by the same people?"

      Can someone please show me a statement along the lines of, "I'm not a Muslim but I believe it is their right if they wish to kill me in the name of Allah because to do otherwise would be to surpress their beliefs and I cannot in all good conscience so that as a liberal" or stop repeating this absolute nonsense? Thanks.

  20. Graham Marsden
    Happy

    17 creative ways...

    ... to mock the EDL...

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/creative-ways-to-mock-the-edl

    1. Graham Marsden

      Re: 17 creative ways...

      Hmm, looking at the pattern of Downvotes, it seems there's a member of the EDL on here...

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anonymous need to stay just that

    Should this list turn out be real, and should the people on it find out who leaked it, I suspect that the leaker(s) will get a visit and a bloody good kicking from the leakees.

    I also suspect that certain elements of plod will have rather more sympathy with the EDL when it comes to doing any possible reciprocal leaking of the names of the leakers.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Footy

    The EDL are actually football hooligans looking for a new outlet. Please stop referring to them as an organization.

  23. Daniel B.
    Alert

    Hm...

    People wearing Guy Fawkes masks are taking on a Fascist organization. Where have I read this before?

    EDL is probably close to Norsefire, even though it isn't an actual political party.

  24. MissingSecurity
    IT Angle

    Maybe I'm wrong...

    but I am pretty sure Muslim is a culture and Islam is religion and are not technically interchangeable.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Maybe I'm wrong...

      A Muslim is a follower of Islam. The word itself means "one who submits to God".

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm one of the 130,000 of the EDL facebook likes and know quite a few members.

    I've never been arrested for any violent crime, i've never been to a football match, I don't drink smoke or take drugs and I'm as far from racist as possible. I am not in the slightest bit racist, I don't care what colour your skin is as that is not what defines a person.

    I am sick of the liberal left wing nonsense that the EDL is a far right organisation, what exactly makes it far right, read the mission statement there is nothing far right about it. Now when you look at Islam it ticks all the boxes to be classed as far right but no one seems to point this out.

    Islamophobia doesn't exist, a phobia is an irrational fear and there is nothing irrational fearing Islam, a political based religion that wants to have me killed for being a non-muslim.

    Muslim's are the fist victim of Islam and my problem is with Islam itself.

    1. Matt Piechota

      "I'm one of the 130,000 of the EDL facebook likes and know quite a few members.

      I've never been arrested for any violent crime, i've never been to a football match, I don't drink smoke or take drugs and I'm as far from racist as possible. I am not in the slightest bit racist, I don't care what colour your skin is as that is not what defines a person.

      I am sick of the liberal left wing nonsense that the EDL is a far right organisation, what exactly makes it far right, read the mission statement there is nothing far right about it. Now when you look at Islam it ticks all the boxes to be classed as far right but no one seems to point this out."

      So what you're saying is the EDL is being unfairly labelled based the actions of a few of your members and the media is going along with it? Please, do go on.

      1. Maharg
        Thumb Up

        Hahahaha

        I doth my hat

    2. ThomH Silver badge

      The EDL is considered, rightly or wrongly, to be far-right because of its deeds rather than because of its words. On several occasions, the EDL has planned a protest only for it to descend into hooligans who self-associate with the EDL smashing up private property. People like those caught on video here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=794_1369521652

      The public perception has therefore become that EDL marches are likely to descend into hooligans destroying private property. People also generally associate hooliganism with right-wing sentiments, probably because of the serious problems football has had with both hooliganism and with racism, tying the two things together in the public imagination.

      Even taking your argument as accurate, and starting from the premise that the connection is a misperception, EDL supporters like yourself further cement the conclusion by blaming it on "the liberal left wing". Where is a group that despises the liberal left wing most likely to be on the political spectrum?

      To a much lesser extent there's the 'English' in 'English Defence League'. Where do groupings that explicitly reference England, Britain or the United Kingdom in their name tend to fall on the political spectrum?

      Those are the reasons that the EDL is perceived, and continues to be perceived, as right wing. If, as an EDL supporter, you want to shed the label, those are the problems you want to address.

      Here's a test: I strongly dislike the EDL. From that statement in isolation, where would you assume my political beliefs lie?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        > The public perception has therefore become that EDL marches are likely to descend into hooligans destroying private property. People also generally associate hooliganism with right-wing sentiments,

        So that would make the tuition fee protesters, the G-20 protesters and the austerity cuts protesters all far-right?

        I've watched one of the EDL protests (I could see it from my home) and it consisted of a couple of dozen EDL protesters and a couple of hundred "anti-fascist" protesters. It did descend into violence, but not because the heavily outnumbered EDL decided to attack the other protesters, it was because the other "peaceful" protesters attacked the EDL.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Violence

          EDL may well be fascists. But it is Unite Against Fascism (UAF) who seem to be far worse for intimidating behavior, and violence.

          1. The Jase

            Re: Violence

            The UAF and EDL are the same, just different political leanings.

            As for the EDL not being a right wing group and "against extreme Islam", well, what about attacking occupy because "they're unwashed lefties".

            The EDL is a right wing group (and a bunch of customers for Tommy's wares). The EDL is a violent group.

            This is the EDL

            http://youtu.be/zXlUoKSzbkU

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Boffin

              Re: The Jase Re: Violence

              "The UAF and EDL are the same, just different political leanings....." Thumbs up for seeing that, but then that in itself is not an issue. Society can survive having political groups with differing views, in fact it is probably beneficial to have opposing views aired and examined. What is bad is when one or other of these groups commit criminal acts or incite others to commit criminal acts. As far as I can see, the EDL has carefully kept inside the law, so - regardless of their political outlook - they deserve protection from criminal acts like this one by the Anonyputzs. It might be less of a risk to have the membership of the Unite Against Fascism plastered all over the Web, but it would be no less of a criminal act to interfere with the UAF's computers to gain the information.

              1. The Jase

                Re: The Jase Violence

                "As far as I can see, the EDL has carefully kept inside the law,"

                I see otherwise, from their carpark fights, causing trouble in KFC, and that train video I posted.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Violence

              The EDL is a right wing group

              So what are their economic policies? Without economic policies you don't occupy a position on the left-right scale.

              The BNP, for the record, are left of Labour. Their economic policies consist of taking from people they don't like to prop up the fact that they don't have a clue about economics. Meanwhile, Ghandi and Mugabe occupy almost exactly the same position in the center left, disagreeing only on issues which aren't on the left-right scale, which is pretty much everything.

              1. The Jase

                Re: Violence

                right wing GROUP not right wing POLITICAL PARTY.

                And its more than just economic policy to consider.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Out of curiosity, how does EDL propose fixing your problem with Islam? Inquiring minds want to know.

    4. Graham Marsden
      FAIL

      "I am sick of the liberal left wing nonsense that the EDL is a far right organisation, what exactly makes it far right"

      Umm, how about all those pictures of EDL members giving Fascist salutes for one thing!

      "when you look at Islam it ticks all the boxes to be classed as far right"

      That's because you're only looking at the extreme end of Islam and trying to claim that it is representative of the whole religion. I have a Muslim family living next to me but, curiously, I'm not worried about one of them leaping over the garden wall yelling "Allahu Akbar!" (it's usually their kids saying "can we get our ball back?"

      But, of course, you don't want to hear this, you only want to hear things which agree with your biased views and pander to your entirely irrational and ill-informed opinion of Islam.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I doubt the EDL has enough cohesion to be anywhere on the left-right scale as a group. It's a misnomer to call organised racism "far-right" since the far right end of the scale is the point where everyone is owned by a megacorporation, while the far left has everybody owned by their government. But then, the left-right scale has never been good for anything anyway so feel free to abuse it.

        1. cyborg
          Boffin

          Anon - this is enitrely correct and will be entirely ignored.

          But then I'm on the far imaginary orthogonal plane of politics so I would sya that.

  26. This post has been deleted by its author

  27. This post has been deleted by its author

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well

    So, the bunch of skids strike again.

    Who stored all these details online anyhow?

    At least we know one thing, these Anonymous assclowns support terrorism and beheading of our soldiers!

    I have never supported these children and the sooner they get locked up LulzSec style the better.

    1. ThomH Silver badge

      Re: Well

      Yeah, that's how it works. If I see a Conservative Party political broadcast that tells me they'll fix the economy but then don't vote Conservative then that must mean I want to break the economy?

      1. WatAWorld

        Re: Well

        Yes exactly, if your willful inaction leads to consequences you are individually responsible.

        It is like those people who voted for Blair and voted to re-elect him, some of whom promoted him to friends, some of whom donated time and money to his campaign.

        The alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity -- if you support a war criminal's re-election by action, or by inaction, you are individually responsible for the results of your actions and inactions.

  29. BornToWin

    Ouch !

    A few more anonymous members to bite the dust. These people must want to get into prison really badly. Did someone tell them they get 21 virgins when they go to prison or something?

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What is worse, the EDL or anonymous?

    200 names, so Anonymous made 200 people neighbourhood heroes.

    Was that their intent?

    EDL might be extremist, but anonymous is law breaking Stalinist/Maoist/Neo-nazi end degree extremist.

    signed,

    Anonymous C.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Windows

    Sign of the times

    I see the video is no longer there........

    Hahahaha...wankers......Teen script kiidies and nothing more,,,,

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021