britain first attacked in east london

I come from a generation where there were NO non-white children at my school

and looking back at past schools photos it had always been this way until about half way through the 90's when we had an Asian Doctor move his family into the village.

I come from a generation where there were NO non-white children at my school

and looking back at past schools photos it had always been this way until about half way through the 90's when we had an Asian Doctor move his family into the village.

This is not a survey or some poll.

It's just reporting on statements made by people, how can this be false when the officers, name, location and job status were cited in the article?

I could always just find another news outlet that's reporting this same news story which would destroy your already flawed argument, unless you think that Every news outlet in the UK is corrupt.

So your proof is two police officers saying a) "Islamification is happening" and b) "we have to ask for permission to patrol in some areas".

And this somehow proves that there are no-go zones? Lmao

Give up, you lost this the second you thought the Daily Express is a reliable source, lmao. And it magnifies some statements from three police officers lmao

You truly are clueless. What does the reliability of the Daily express have to do with anything here, if you just agreed that the two officers said that islamification is happening?

You just contradicted your self LOL.

And like i said already, I'll take the words police officers who actually visit these areas and make frequent arrests, over that of corrupt politicians who stay in their million pound house all day doing nothing.

And like I've already said, I rather take the words of credible police men and detectives over lying politicians that only say what the people want to hear.


The things the police said weren't based on opinions, it was based on crime rates, and regular visits.

You said you proved that there were no-go zones.

All I see is two police officers saying "Islamification is happening" and "we need permission to patrol some places"

two police officers making indirect claims does not prove there are no-go zones. Lmao

Funny how these credible policemen are all unnamed except for the one exdetective who was giving an unsupported opinion.

I already pointed out the difference between an area that people tend to avoid due to a high crime rate and an area that people avoid because of it is some so-called Shariah zone. Nobody denied that the former exists, the latter has yet to be proved.

Actually there were 3.

One from London, one from Lancashire and another from Yorkshire. I see apart from being completely clueless you also can't count.

And that isn't true, the officers narrated how they are scared to visit various parts of the country because of the presence of many potential terrorists.

”There has been a time when it's been advised not to wear half-blues or uniform to and from work.
"“I’m not allowed to travel in half blues to work anymore IN MY OWN CAR as we're ’All at risk of attack’ - yet as soon as someone points out the obvious it's 'divisive.'"


He added: “In this instance he (Trump) isn't wrong. Our political leaders are best either ill-informed or simply being disingenuous.“He's pointed out something that is plainly obvious, something which I think we aren't as a nation willing to own up to - do you think a US Police Department would ban officers from wearing their uniforms under jackets etc due to FEAR of their cops being killed by extremists?“We implement half measures such as ‘No-one is allowed to come into work half blues, even in your own cars because if you get beheaded it'll be your own fault’.“It would be seen as un-American, un-democratic, not the done thing... In the UK though we accept it”.

""It's like damage limitation. You try to do the most you can to prevent anything bad from happening."All intelligence is around you and you do the best with that to essentially stay safe. And if that means taking measures to not identify yourself off-duty too much then so be it."It's covering your backs. It's a common sense approach"


It's no surprise that all you read was Islamification is happening. You are the least most sensible user on TSR.

They caused the aggression by provoking them, so technically yes they were the aggressors. Without Britain First's presence, no violence would have occurred that day in that location.

victim blamer

Do you honestly believe that Britain First came to that Mosque hoping that anything other than the Muslims retaliating would happen?

Still doesn't give the muslims the right to attack them, maybe the muslims should practice restraint.

Britain first probably came there seeking a reaction, the muslims proved britain first's point; that they are violent.

Anyone, regardless of their religion or beliefs, would retaliate with violence if provoked enough. So yes, Britain First deserve a medal for proving that irritated humans can be violent - great job.

again with the victim blaming.

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression isn't supposed to be all flowers and sunshine.

Again the muslims were completely in the wrong, and this video, along with the actions of the muslims only serve to increase support for Britain first.

Maybe if those guys down in east london weren't aggressive and violent britain first may stop turning up

But it's not all of the Muslims responding violent.

If you take a sample of 250 people, of any race, ethnicity, origin, and throw some 50 protestors criticising their way of life, there is a chance that about 10 of the 250 people will retaliate and attack them.

So stop talking about the 'Muslims' like they did something wrong, its a tiny fraction of those present who retaliated violently, and its not like they're being violent because they are Muslim, its just because in any sample of people, there will be people with less temper. The fact that they are Muslim does not increase the chance of them being willing to attack, in fact, parts of the Quran arguably make it less likely.

And Britain First came there with no intention other than to make some of the Muslims attack them. They aren't protesting because they want to achieve anything political, they just wanted to achieve an aggressive reaction from them. When you have people going out the way to incite violence, they are just as bad as those who are responding.

Still doesn't give the muslims the right to attack them, maybe the muslims should practice restraint.

erm you have areas where people have tried to instigate muslim patrols also you have areas like bury in Luton which are yes essentially no go areas