-4

The Guardian ran the following article:

Police condemn speculation about violence at Tommy Robinson rally

Supporters and counter-protesters clashed at far-right activist’s event in Oldham

However, the video recording presented by Tommy Robinson, even if we filter out all political ranting, shows a peaceful rally (even with kids invited) being attacked by some aggressive mob of mostly Arab young men who hurled stones and damaged random property.

Yes, I see that there is a serious flaw of taking at face value version of events that's being presented by one side, as they may be properly cherry picked. However, on the other hand are there actually any counterarguments?

I've seen the following problem:

  • the media describe it neutrally as "clashes", oddly trying to steer away from the seemingly important issue who attacked and who was attacked
  • all videos that I found were showing a peaceful rally attacked by a violent group of rioters.

Are there actually any recordings showing something opposite, that would justify the mass media, to show that there was indeed some controversy?

  • 1
    Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to discuss the subject matter of the question or trying to answer it. For more information on how the commenting privilege should and should not be used, please review the help article about it. If you would like to answer the question, please write a real answer. – Philipp Jun 10 at 13:10
1

I'm curious as to why this question was downvoted so much, as there isn't anything blatantly wrong or inappropriate about it (or any comments showing how anyways).

According to The Sun, which would probably sensationalize the rally if it could ("Robinson was attacked with milkshakes TWICE in two days"), "bricks, bottles, and eggs were thrown by both sides". As you have probably noticed, the video seems to cut out a lot after the counter-protesters finish doing throwing eggs or what not. An appropriate counterargument would be a full length, unclipped video showing both sides of the conflict, which has yet to be released by either party.

Also, for what it's worth, the counter protestor group(calling itself the "Muslim Defense League") does seem to embrace the violent nature of the protests more as it has published and then unpublished a video of them throwing objects and insults at the protestors, according to that Guardian Article, while the video mentioned in the OP, published by the protestor side, pictures the protestors protecting children while the counter-protestors threw objects. All of this however, does not mean that the violence was one sided, necessarily. There seems to be a lack of information on the actual extent violent activities occurred in the rally.

  • Do I get it right? So effectively we have one video, showing how the rally is being attacked, made by attacking side, taken down as damning for them. Then we have another video, showing the rally being attacked, possibly somewhat edited. From that a conclusion is reached that it were "clashes" and not "attack on a peaceful rally"? – Shadow1024 Jun 14 at 5:55
  • @shadow1024 If I'm not mistaken (I watched different videos in my research), much of the video from the protestor side was taken from the damning footage by the attackers. I didn't have time to watch the whole thing, but there was the same segment where the attackers called the protestors pigs and came up against the police barricades. Probably the only conclusion that one can really defend with evidence at this point is that there is only evidence from one side released. That doesn't mean that nothing else exists however. – ChickenWingGeek Jun 14 at 11:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .