EDL supporters jailed for attack on Mosque

in

Four racist youths were jailed for their attack on a Mosque and hurling a brick at the Mosques’s Imam.

The gang pelted the Mosque with bricks and stones before trying to storm their way in screaming racist obscentities at worshippers.

Rocky Beale, 19, of Purleigh Avenue, Woodford Green and Eliot Jones, 19, of Keswick Gardens, Redbridge, pelted the centre with bricks, along with 18-year-old Matthew Stephenson, of Burrow Road, Hainault.

Harry Deluca, 16, whose name can now be revealed after an order was lifted by the judge, also pelted the centre and repeatedly screamed “EDL” throughout the assault on March 24.

All four denied violent disorder but were convicted by a jury last month after just 90 minutes of deliberation.

Judge Timothy King sentenced Beale, Jones and Stephenson to three-and-a-half years each in a young offenders’ institution during the hearing at Snaresbrook Crown Court.

Deluca, of Manford Way, Hainault was given a two-year detention and training order.

The judge told them: “It is difficult, it seems to me, to imagine a case of violent disorder more serious than this one.”

Cllr Shoaib Patel, cabinet member for community safety on Redbridge Council, stated,

This shows that Redbridge will not tolerate racial abuse after the community has worked hard to promote strong cohesion

Anti racist campaigners have long argued this is the net effect when racist organizations such as the English Defence League are given legitimacy by the media and the police.

Simon Woolley

Picture: Damaged Redbridge Mosque

Archived Comments

We've changed to a new commenting system - comments below are preserved for archive purposes

Media Parabola.

Conversely, the same effect also occurs when mainstream media, or the police, suggest illegitimacy towards such organisations, suggesting that whatever stance the media take will have little effect (and it is probably best to find the way in which the media has NO effect rather than the converse effect above), meaning that the problem occurring is something that has not been factored in the equation: a sense of perspective and balance.

I don't have a desire whatsoever to commit an offense such as the above, given that I see that no benefit is bought to anybody and because I am relatively comfortable with society in its present state (as much as one can be in order to live a normal and socially acceptable life without transgressing other people's boundaries).

It appears as if the people above (EDL supporters) do not share the same sense of wellbeing and, through logical fallacies, have decided that they can act in an unreasonable fashion with unreasonable manners simply because they believe that whatever 'point' they have outweighs the concerns of others and cannot understand that such an idea is fundamentally flawed, definitely so in this case.

Quite obviously, it would be better for such people to not commit any acts in the first place but things do happen for reasons that I neither understand nor can control and it is therefore best to find ways to avoid repeats - in the most effective way that can be found.

I don't think that people are affected by divisive political rhetoric in general, and not much with the EDL. What is a concern is when people allow THEMSELVES to be spirited away by a speech etc. and invite feelings of (what is ultimately) shaudenfreude into their lives and then it is worse when such a person begins to act upon these cheap feelings and then become an activist. Fringe politics is simply an extreme version of an effect that already exists in mainstream politics.

Political rhetoric is simply an enabler to a deep-rooted concern that people already have. Like any good phychiatrist, it is of prime importance that those concerns are tackled and regulated/marginalised and kept in balance.

I think that a lot of people are too fixated in what is right/ideal at the expense of what is practical. What is practical, rather than wide-psread reforms at the drop-of-a-hat, is to give people the tools and knowledge necessary to be aware of and to tackle their own problems/concerns. Paradoxically, the people responsible for the founding of the EDL have, in their own way, tried to do just the above - it just hasn't worked and is detrimental to others.

True colours

You sound like a an apologist for thuggery.
You're always slamming OBV about our rhetoric, but what ever we say never incites this behavior. On the contrary we inspire individuals to become magistrates, school governors, councilors and MP's.

Don't get confused between a cry for equality and the gorging of hatred for others.

Apologist for nothing.

I'm not an apologist for violence in the slightest and excuse me if I am at least trying to find ways to avoid these sorts of things happening again... rather than simply moaning about it. Do I really have to consistently use gratuitous words such as 'disgust' in order to show distain for an action.

You've tried to ascertain the one element that a reserved blogger may be concerned about, in this case an 'apologist for violence', and have labled me as such without any grounds for doing so. I simply take objection to your notion that thuggery is directly caused by political activism. I also think that you are fixated with your ideals above pragmatism. You, and OBV, live in the same world, the same country, even perhaps the same streets as a member of the EDL so it is a strange idea, and a slight breakdown of social cohesion, when an invididual such as Nelson Mandela, from South Africa, (whose righteousness consisted of targeting buildings to blow-up) is closer to both your heart and mind than some people who may live in your street who have not spearheaded a paramilitary operation - the essence of a divided society. What are you going to do about it? Ironically, both OBV and the EDL' gorge on hated' towards what each group considers an enemy to their visions of 'equality' (as often in human nature, a byword for sense of comfort found within and between groups). We all enjoy laying in to others, it's just that some people take it to levels that cannot be tolerated (such as the crime documented by the above article). Both groups are essentially a dividing line and 'two sides of a coin' - a coin that should land on its edge (third option).

Phrases such as "Judge not, lest ye be judged" do not mean having to forgive or let people get away with a crime (this is bible times, not softie) but it means realising that people are not as far removed from ourselves as sometimes we would wish. This can be viewed as both a weakness in the self (believing that anybody can follow the same course) and as a positive element of being not necessarily able to understand nor reason but merely to COMPREHEND the actions of others.

I think you have tried to find an agenda in my writings that is just not there. I 'slam' OBV for its rhetoric because, ultimately, rhetoric is useless. OBV cannot appear to occupy the 'golden-spot' between pure rhetoric and heavy-handed conservative-based political measures: an example being Ethnic short-lists and 'calls for reform' that appear to be a by-word for 'get my friends and people I know/associate with into prominent positions of employment' - that's hardly a game-changer of a social idea.

Can't a person agree with an aim, yet disagree with the methods to enforce an aim? I don't think that slums should exist but it doesn't mean I'd support the government or a property-developer knocking slums down with little evidence of a situational improvement. Getting more people to vote would be excellent; forcing a 100% voter-turnout by using the army would be abhorrent.

And, by the way, I think that Lee Jasper totally 'incites this behaviour' when he encourages people to shout about ideas and 'get voices heard' at the expense of argumental-clarity. OBV was also one of the only elements of media that suggested the London-Rioters should be 'understood' about 'what they're goung through'. I never said that the people above should be 'understood' , only that I am interested in finding ways to avoid a repeat of the situation - just like a lot of other people, unsurprisingly.

It strikes me as a bizarre notion that you do not appear to find any agreed interest in avoiding a repeat, even shunning those that have offered at least something.

Is it me, or is everything about 'Colour' with you, Simon... given that you have written the phrase 'True Colours' consistently... perhaps there's an element of your subconscious which focuses on 'Colour' a bit too much...

True colours

I don't expect you to understand! Although it's a pity.

'Is it me, or is everything about 'Colour' with you, Simon... given that you have written the phrase 'True Colours' consistently... perhaps there's an element of your subconscious which focuses on 'Colour' a bit too much...'

Emily Pankhurst fought for the emancipation of women, Malcolm X, Dr Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and many others including myself have fought for emancipation and equality for Black people around the world.

I'm sorry, but not altogether surprised you have a problem with that.

Enjoy your weekend Josh

Weird science

"I don't think that people are affected by divisive political rhetoric in general, and not much with the EDL".

Which seems to be at odds with the facts. Whether it is white supremacist or Islamic supremacist (lets dispense with far right and fundamentalist and be accurate). I did post a report for you Josh, when we were debating these issues just after the Oslo tragedy. It was about Lone Wolves. I didn't hear back. Which is another frustrating thing I could take up with you.

You may feel maligned by Simon Woolley's / OBV's stance about you. Look at it like this instead: I find it a 'bizarre notion' that someone so in objection to OBV's stance or solutions or guest writers is such a passionate and prolific commenter. Why engage so heavily with what you disagree with, why not use that time to get out there with your own solutions?

That's not to say that OBV should be beyond criticism - of course not - I too engage with bloggers who invoke my ire too, but not in an almost obsessive fashion (i.e. the odd comment now and again. I'm not on James Delingpole's blog day in day out, or at more than weekly).

Your claims that all you are doing is "trying to find ways to avoid these sorts of things happening again... rather than simply moaning about it" seems hollow and bordering on self-delusion. The most laughable part of your protest that "trying to find ways to avoid these sorts of things happening again... rather than simply moaning about it" is pretty much the opposite of what you do. Instead of organic moaning though, you moan about a perceived moan.

It would be fascinating if out of 100 of your posts OBV could find 5 that endorsed, supported, or upheld their stance. Much may be disagreeable (I don't agree with Simon's analysis of the Kercher case) but there surely must be the odd one or two you can warm to. It's not though is it, it's constant harping and carping.

I saw the line "OBV was also one of the only elements of media that suggested the London-Rioters should be 'understood' about 'what they're goung through'. I never said that the people above should be 'understood'" and had a little chuckle.

Firstly because I thought "yeah, but how you have enough hours in the day to scrutinise the broader press when so much time is devoted to OBV-watch!" and secondly because 'understood' does not mean condone, agree, endorse, or justify. If you wanted to solve the problem why wouldn't you seek to understand? Which muppets embark on projects with an ignorance of the people that will be their target group? In your rush to paint OBV as riot-apologists, you end up looking like you advocate ignorance and misunderstanding. That's a recipe for a waste of money.

In conclusion, the answer to your question "Can't a person agree with an aim, yet disagree with the methods to enforce an aim?" is a resounding yes. The problem is that's hardly what you've been up to is it. Don't be coy now, if Lee Jasper were the incite-o-tron you paint him as, where is the evidence of people associated with him engaging in acts of extremism and terrorism (I refer the right honourable gentleman to the Oslo tragedy and Lone Wolves document I sent him months ago). Here it is again: http://www.lonewolfproject.org.uk/resources/LW-complete-final.pdf

4000
3000