Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

EDL watch

Talking of bad jackets, this brum lad had a ralph lauren quilted jacket on in bristol, the whole left hand side was a stiched in version of the bloke playing polo. Embarrassing. One in the cap here. (Made a bit of dick of himself at the station too by calling for his dad then forcing his 13-14 year old mate/brother to walk out first)

bristol2.jpg


edit: the little kiddy is right next to him in this pic
edit 2: he had the most brilliant danny dyer walk i've ever seen as well.
 
malatesta32 said:
yeah steps, given the reports from the weekend plod have had enough and were none too gentle. the EDL cost a lot of money to police and with cuts and budget worries they are a waste of resources if nothing else as far as CC's are concerned. the EDL, as we have said so many time, do not go where they want but where plod tells em. hope yr well mate!
Click to expand...

Fine thanks. Its not just the cost to the Police there is also a huge cost to the local council and the weeks of contingency planning that goes into these events.Pretty much the line is to 'facilitate' their march with the minimum risk to public order.I think this is the norm now hence the lack of Council petitions to stop the marches.
There are two ways of looking at it and pragmatically it depends on their numbers and capacity: on one hand if they have a hard time they might want to come back with more just out of indignation but if they haven't got the numbers then that is unlikely. There are places where there is something going on ie Oldham, Tameside, Rochdale where the rest of the far right will compete politically with them and this is where you get repeat flash demos, campaigns or events. Don't think there is anything for them in Walthamstow.
 
they certainly wont be going back to bristol according to them! i forgot that the council also has to facilitate these things. the flash demos get round all this but like in hebden - sorry manny - they just look like piss artists and achieve nothing but a wee bit of inconvenience. it is on the local level politically that is the main worry. tho not fancying bnp, nf or fluffies much really. and there is defo nowt in E17 for the EDL!​
 
if anyone's interested there is a bit of an exchange here between Hoffman and myself (towards the end) where he seems to get his story somewhat tangled up - I have him on tape asserting to a Trading Standards official that Searchlight denied passing on any of these pictures, yet on that blog post when I revealed what the Searchlight letter really said, he claims the opposite and that he knew Searchlight had passed the photos on in the first place, despite claiming initially that they had been stolen from him

the guy's a lying prick
 
love detective said:
if anyone's interested there is a bit of an exchange here between Hoffman and myself (towards the end) where he seems to get his story somewhat tangled up - I have him on tape asserting to a Trading Standards official that Searchlight denied passing on any of these pictures, yet on that blog post when I revealed what the Searchlight letter really said, he claims the opposite and that he knew Searchlight had passed the photos on in the first place, despite claiming initially that they had been stolen for him

the guy's a lying prick
Click to expand...
Excellent work.
 
LD. re below. there is nothing wrong with asking a fee and protecting copyright but in certain circumstances, ie, freedoms financial situation, there is a larger issue. this as well as the claim joe that hoffman made threats re: compromising pix of AFA. solidarity etc! (nice blog tho!)

Hoffman is now coming under at times vitriolic attack in anarchist blogs and web sites for asking for his due, with many suggesting that he should have waived the fee.
 
malatesta32 said:
that plod looks like he's charging him for possession of an offensive anorak or going equipped to commit a fashion crime.
Click to expand...
Do you mean the chap with the red button fetish who was clearly a carpenter going about his rightful business when he was unlawfully S&Sed, or the geezer in the leather who shares an uncanny resemblance with comic strip writer Pat Mills?
 
malatesta32 said:
LD. re below. there is nothing wrong with asking a fee and protecting copyright
Click to expand...

the story is much wider than that - the 'disputed' pictures had been used in various publications by AFA over a period of twenty odd years without a peep from Hoffman or Searchlight, they were passed on to AFA by Searchlight (in exchange for information) for use as they saw fit. It's not like when the book was being published Hoffman's photos were stolen from his site to use, what happened was that photos that were physically in the AFA archive and had been used in the past for various publications were used in the book (if you read the posts on that blog it goes into the chain of events in more detail)

in any case, it was never about the narrow issue of copyright anyway, that was just a proxy for something somewhat more political
 
love detective said:
the story is much wider than that - the 'disputed' pictures had been used in various publications by AFA over a period of twenty odd years without a peep from Hoffman or Searchlight, they were passed on to AFA by Searchlight (in exchange for information) for use as they saw fit. It's not like when the book was being published Hoffman's photos were stolen from his site to use, what happened was that photos that were in the archive and had been used in the past for various publications were used in the book

in any case, it was never about the narrow issue of copyright anyway, that was just a proxy for something somewhat more political
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is more about Hoffman's agenda in trying to get the book's authors named (by either Freedom or Brian Whelan) than the rights & wrongs of using some old photos.
 
yep, this comment from Hoffman (in a mail he sent to BW which he forwarded on to me) says it all really

David Hoffman said:
the action which I intend to take will bring these serious criminal acts to the attention of the authorities
Click to expand...

The 'serious criminal acts' he refers to is the activities described in the book, i.e. militant anti-fascism
 
love detective said:
the [photos] were passed on to AFA by Searchlight (in exchange for information) for use as they saw fit.
Click to expand...

If that were the case, and it were in writing, then Freedom should seek to recover costs from Searchlight, for misrepresenting the permission they had.

If it's not in writing, then Freedom was woefully ignorant of what being a book publisher involves...

love detective said:
what happened was that photos that were physically in the AFA archive and had been used in the past for various publications were used in the book
Click to expand...

...which seems likely given the apparent confusion between physical possession and permission to reproduce.
 
laptop said:
If that were the case, and it were in writing, then Freedom should seek to recover costs from Searchlight, for misrepresenting the permission they had.
Click to expand...

as i'm sure you'll appreciate, the nature of the environment meant that there was never going to be written contracts surrounding the movement of information & material between these kind of parties

If it's not in writing, then Freedom was woefully ignorant of what being a book publisher involves...
Click to expand...

Not true. As has been mentioned, the photos had been used in numerous publications over a period of 20 years without any complaint from the photographer, there was a de facto right (or at the very minimum a very good reason to assume the right ) to use them that had been established by precedent over the previous two decades. These photos had not been published or used by any other person or organisation other than AFA, there had never been any complaint from either Searchlight or Hoffman as to their usage (many of which had appeared on the front cover of magazines and pamphlets), and while they could claim, as they do, that they were not aware of them being used, this seems highly dubious given that both were 'active' in various (dubious) ways in anti-fascism in London at the time.

...which seems likely given the apparent confusion between physical possession and permission to reproduce.
Click to expand...

As per above, there was no confusion between physical possession and permission to reproduce - the permission to reproduce had been established by the actual reproduction of them throughout a twenty year period earlier
 
malatesta32 said:
LD. re below. there is nothing wrong with asking a fee and protecting copyright but in certain circumstances, ie, freedoms financial situation, there is a larger issue. this as well as the claim joe that hoffman made threats re: compromising pix of AFA. solidarity etc! (nice blog tho!)

Hoffman is now coming under at times vitriolic attack in anarchist blogs and web sites for asking for his due, with many suggesting that he should have waived the fee.
Click to expand...
I am sure hoffman's writing a nice big cheque to class war to show his appreciation after getting so much from the cops due to the 'wankers' poster
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TopCat
[Sat 16th Jul 2016] EDL march and rally (London)
Replies
19
Views
3K
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Fingers
Pegida UK Watch
2 3 4
Replies
106
Views
9K
nino_savatte
nino_savatte
Divisive Cotton
Tottenham Palestine Literature Festival attached this morning by "Zionists (in collab with EDL)""
Replies
7
Views
1K
Sludge
Sludge
stuff_it
Anti-EDL Demo in Birmingham Saturday 13th July
2 3
Replies
63
Views
9K
Red Sky
R
K
EDL not welcome in Leeds May 4th
Replies
10
Views
871
machine cat
machine cat
Back
Top Bottom