I'm going to start by briefly talking about my sexuality. I am a heterosexual male. I find women attractive. My partner is female. My previous relations have been with females. When I settle down and raise a family, it will most probably be with a female. I am comfortable with my sexuality. Now, if I happened to find males attractive, physically or emotionally, then I would embrace it, as would, I'm sure, my friends and family, as they are mature and have sense and reason. But as it is, I do not. I happen to be straight. I was born this way.
What is the point of the above, you may ask? The above is the sort of statement many heterosexual people feel they have to make when they publicly claim to support gay rights, have homosexual friends, or even exhibit "gay" behaviour themselves, such as, say, enjoying music by LGBT-friendly artists, almost in a bid to justify themselves. Statements that I myself have felt that I have to make to some people, because I am strongly in favour of gay rights, and also enjoy music by Lady Gaga and the Scissor Sisters, swing dancing, and other things that may not be classified "macho".
There seems to be this mindset which says that, if you're pro-LGBT, you must be gay yourself. "Oh, why else would you care otherwise?" Now, I myself don't care about being labelled so. It can get annoying if people constantly say you're something you're not, but generally it doesn't bother me. I think I know myself pretty well.
However, there are many out there who feel the same way. People who are straight and believe homosexuals don't deserve the bullying, the name calling, the discriminating, the ostracising, the disowning, and even the violence they suffer on a day to day basis. But they're worried that, by actively taking a stand against LGBT discrimination, people will start questioning their sexuality and maybe they'll start experiencing ostracism and discrimination of their own.
In the public zeitgeist, racism is seen as outdated, hateful and ignorant. The majority of people acknowledge this and condemn it, and when they do, nobody says "why are they speaking out against racism? They're not of that race." We need to get to a point where the exact same applies for homophobia.
When South Africa declared apartheid rule in 1948, it wasn't long before the international community condemned the white minority government, and in the 1960s, imposed such sanctions as trade embargoes and exclusion from international sports tournaments, which were only lifted after the demise of apartheid in 1991. I doubt many asked why millions of white people across the world were condemning a system of law which would have benefited them were they living in South Africa. Sometimes, injustice and unfairness are plain and clear for all to see.
Helen Suzman, a white South African from a wealthy background, actively stood up against apartheid during her 36 years in parliament.
Things are looking up. It's been a very big week for LGBT rights worldwide, with Hillary Clinton explicitly stating that gay rights are human rights, and that reform will be encouraged using foreign aid and diplomacy. The likes of Iran, Zimbabwe and all other countries where homosexuality is illegal will have plenty of food for thought. In Belgium, Elio Di Rupo became the first homosexual head of state in the EU, and the second worldwide, after Icelandic Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir.
Closer to home, England Rugby World Cup winner Ben Cohen launched his foundation, StandUp, in May 2011, which raises awareness against bullying and homophobia. He has been touring the United States, where it has proved incredibly popular. This week he announced on the BBC his plans to launch a UK wing in early 2012.
Ben but is aware of how prevalent bullying and homophobia is worldwide, and how it wrecks lives, and has decided to use his high profile to raise awareness of it.
On the related BBC article, Ben says: "We are looking to affect the next generation. We want to create cultural change and we are doing that by using our StandUp brand to communicate that it is not cool to bully, but it is cool to stand up... we want to engage the masses, those who stand by whilst others are suffering."
Crucially, Ben himself is heterosexual. He has a wife and children.
So, are we going to question why Ben is investing so much time and effort combating homophobia and bullying when he himself isn't gay? Should we stand by while others are suffering and collectively say: "Why should I care? It's nothing to do with me"? Should we look suspiciously at other straight people who speak up for LGBT rights, and simply assume that "they must be gay as well"?
Or, like Ben, are we going to acknowledge that many people who are gay, lesbian, bi, transgender and queer, who just want to get on with their lives, are being tormented, bullied, hurt and even killed because of their sexuality, agree that it's not right, and actively stand up and speak up against it?
Modern football is, on the whole, a large melting pot. It's played in virtually every country worldwide, by all different kinds of people. If you look at the English Football League, you will find players of all colours, nationalities and creeds. Whites play alongside blacks, Catholics alongside Protestants, Muslims alongside Jews.
However, when it comes to sexuality, then the picture becomes very vague. In all ninety-two clubs of the Football League pyramid, there isn't a single openly gay player.
Statistically, about 6% of the UK population are gay or lesbian. Although it's not as simple as applying this statistic to football and assuming that 6% of all League players are gay, it still means that, in a sport where each team has 41 players on average on their books, not to have one gay player from a pool of nearly four thousand doesn't match up.
The unwillingness for gay players to come out is for a simple reason: football is steeped in homophobia. Many figures in the media, such as PR advisor Max Clifford - who claims to represent several gay footballers - and former Ireland footballer Tony Cascarino, believe a player's career would be ruined if he came out. He'd be singled out for abuse from the crowd, ostracised by his team-mates in the dressing room, bullied by the manager, and made subject of vicious gossip in the media.
There is a tragic precedent in Justin Fashanu, the only player in British football ever to come out. Even before he came out publicly, Brian Clough, who found out he was gay while at Forest, barred him from training with the first team, and condemned him for going to "bloody poof's clubs". Fellow professionals also castigated him, claiming a homosexual has no place in football, he was disowned by his own brother, and later on, accused of sexually assaulting a seventeen-year old in the US, which eventually led to Justin's suicide.
For all the problems British football has with homophobia, two things need to be considered: one is the culture of the sport itself within the country, and the other is the country's stance on homosexuality. Although football itself in the UK suffers from homophobia, our society, when compared to many other countries, is quite tolerant of the LGBT scene. Openly gay politicians exist (Peter Mandelson. Chris Bryant), as do media personalities (Stephen Fry), and even professionals in other sports. Gareth Thomas, one of Wales' greatest rugby players, came out in 2009, and the reaction to this was incredibly positive. Circulations such as Gay Times and Attitude are sold without problems, and the gay scene is thriving, with bars, clubs and Pride events operating and running smoothly.
Anton Hysen, only the second active high-level footballer ever to come out.
It may take several years, but I believe it's a matter of when, rather than if, a popular football figure in Britain, perhaps in the twilight of their career or retired from playing, decides to come out, which could very well set the ball rolling for the FA to relaunch the Kick Homophobia Out Of Football campaign (aborted because no player was willing to appear in it), to gradually change the zeitgeist of football fans, and to eventually convince many players, young and old, that being openly gay will not hinder their careers as footballers.
Now, the problem is convincing everyone on the international scene.
I believe the first active player to come out in the UK will be from a small team at the lower end of the Football League, because the media exposure won't be as great there. Initially, it may well garner interest from many countries, but it will die down quickly, just like the Anton Hysen story did, and because the fans of small clubs are usually tight-knit, almost a part of the club itself, it won't be a big deal for them - many may have even known it for a while already. Chances are they won't be playing in a European tournament, so all league and cup matches will be in England and Wales, where the FA and the League can monitor the games and promptly punish any instances of homophobic abuse.
Now, imagine if a first team player at a huge club like Manchester United, capped for his country, came out as gay. It would explode as global news and remain global news that would make front pages everywhere - including countries where homosexuality is reviled or forbidden. In eighty countries worldwide - around two fifths of the world - it's against the law. Seventy-two of those punish consenting adults with inprisonment, while five, including regional footballing powerhouses Saudi Arabia and Iran, have the death penalty. Would the player be issued with an arrest warrant upon touching down at the airport for an away game or international tournament? How viciously would the player be abused, verbally or even physically, by large groups of fans who may view him as sub-human or as an enemy of God? And what punishment would the likes of UEFA and FIFA, whose very own president Sepp Blatter advised gay football fans to "refrain from any sexual activity" at the Qatar 2022 World Cup (where homosexuality is illegal), administer to clubs and associations whose fans are guilty of homophobic abuse?
The customs and laws of certain countries, and subsequent reactions of its leaders and subjects, prove to be a strong enough deterrent against coming out, but even in countries and regions where things are generally more liberal, the football world manages to keep a high level of animosity and hatred towards homosexuals. If a major player or manager made a racist comment, they would be condemned by virtually everybody in the industry, and rightly so, but important, respected individuals, from players to managers to directors, regularly criticise homosexuals, and get away with it.
Quotes include:"A bunch of faggots is what you have in French football. There are so many homosexual players there, they always provoke you, they touch your thighs, your bum, to see if you will give some kind of signal", which was the reason given by former Argentina international Eduardo Berizzo for leaving Olympique Marseille in 2000, while in 2002, Brazil World Cup winning manager Luis Felipe Scolari said: “If I found out that one of my players was gay I would throw him off the team.” Steaua Bucharest owner and Romanian MEP Gigi Becali, stated in 2007 that if he became president of Romania, he would "get rid of all homosexual and lesbian clubs, and create special neighbourhoods for homosexuals and lesbians, so that they can stay there and leave us [alone]", while Croatian Football Federation president Vlatko Markovic declared in 2010: "while I'm... president of the Croatian Football Federation, there will be no homosexuals playing in the national team".Again, criticism didn't come from the footballing authorities, rather from gay rights groups.
The FA's Kick Homophobia Out Of Football video. This campaign was aborted because no player could be found to support it.
And aside from the player's wellbeing and safety being potentially affected, coming out would impact the player's and the club's marketability. While the likes of Macclesfield Town aren't looking to sell shirts abroad, the likes of Man Utd or Chelsea are, and any mass boycott of a club's merchandise or tickets in a lucrative country where homosexuality is illegal, because of one of the club's players coming out, would severely impact their income and their reputation, leaving other clubs open to exploit the market in their place.
Disgraceful as the above sounds, football is an international business where reputation is key - witness how many top clubs speak of being "brands" and just how much merchandise they have out - and bearing in mind how prejudist and close-minded the marketing industry is, and how breaching sponsorships is seen as a bigger issue than racism (from the Observer's Said and Done column from Dec 12 2004: "£6,769 - Real Madrid's fine for racist chanting and Nazi salutes during their Champions League match with Bayer Leverkusen. £34,500 - Arsenal midfielder Robert Pires' fine for wearing the wrong sponsored T-shirt on French television in October."), it wouldn't be surprising if gay players at top clubs were forced to keep their sexuality hidden until, at best, well after leaving the club.
Charlie Brooker exposes just how cynical the marketing and advertising industry is.
How could we expect a young, lone player to come out against such a torrent of hatred, ridicule and vitriol?
Because football is a global sport, it reins in all cultures and viewpoints of the world, which is a joy to witness, but unfortunately, it's the most bigoted aspects which cause the most noise and disturbance. This, combined with indifference from the establishment, and a desire for chairmen, directors and owners for whom their "team" is actually just a "brand", to carry on cynically targeting those markets where institutional homophobia is rife, at the expense of the wellbeing of one of their own players, render world football a very inhospitable arena for the LGBT community.
Gareth Thomas' homosexuality has been widely accepted and respected. Would this happen in football?
The key to combat this is to ensure that every aspect of British football, from the suits in charge of the establishment, to the international clubs who contest for the top trophies and target overseas markets, all the way down to the Sunday leagues and the fans and spectators, stamps out homophobia in the way racism has been, to the point where any displays of abusive behavour are swiftly condemned by all, and openly gay players become another ingredient in our melting pot, regardless of pressure and ridicule from the outside. And if we can then convince the likes of UEFA and FIFA to also condemn homophobia across the whole game and toughen their stance on all forms of abusive behaviour, including suspension from competitions, then we may be able to ensure a safe playing environment and private life for any footballers who just so happen to love members of the same sex.
It is such a shame regarding the current state of affairs because football, in its purest form, the game itself, doesn't have a sexuality. It doesn't hold any prejudice. It doesn't discriminate. The problem is, those involved in it do.
In the media, few professions (bankers and politicians aside) collectively cause as much ire as that of the footballer. Each day he gets up, goes to the training ground, does some light training, has a rest, some more training, then goes home. He often travels to other cities, sometimes to other countries, trains there, then once or twice a week he has to put his training into practice and play a full game of football, where he will be scrutinised by the crowd and the various media outlets. Some retrospective analysis, a shower and a meal and some drinks later, he will head home. A few press conferences to attend, some community activities to partake in, and if he’s particularly good, the odd awards ceremony. Not so much a job as part holiday, part exercise. His weekly exploits are regional news, sometimes national or even global. Okay, they have to work weekends and bank holidays, but it’s a tiny price to pay for all the perks.
The average person has to pay a few hundred pounds a year for the same exercise and many hundreds of pounds to rack up the same air miles. And on top of all this, the top league footballer gets thousands of pounds for the troubles. Not a year, not a month, not even a week, but daily. In October 2010, Wayne Rooney signed a deal at Manchester United worth around £160,000 a week basic, and features a “break clause” where he can leave for as “little” as £30m if Manchester United doesn’t meet its targets. You read that right - whereas in the real world, people lose their jobs if they don’t meet targets, in the world of football, it’s the employer that has to meet targets to stop losing its employees!
In addition to the wages and the job security, there’s bonuses, endorsements, sponsors and image rights - Rooney will become a wealthy man indeed, despite having contributed little to society. “Why do footballers get paid so much?!” moan the masses. “Why don’t soldiers or nurses get paid that much? They sacrifice their lives and/or save lives!”.
The simple reason why footballers get paid so much: it’s the nature of the industry.
Think about it: football is the biggest and most global single sport on the planet. The World Cup final in 2010 was watched by over 700 million people, with over 90% of Spain and the Netherlands’ viewing populations tuning in to watch their teams jostle for the trophy. The English Premier League’s overseas broadcasting rights deal between 2010 and 2013 stands at £1.4bn, and its games are watched in nearly 600,000 homes in 211 countries and territories worldwide. With so many people out there interested in football as a product, and willing to pay for it, this translates into astronomical sums of money to be made, and in turn, this means that football, by its very nature, will have astronomical sums swilling around in the industry.
The game has always been global. The first World Cup was all the way back in 1930, and with the advent of globalisation and technological advances facilitating communication and travel, it was always scheduled to become even bigger, but financially, it wasn’t always like it is. Back in 1968, the average wage in the English top division was £68 per week, although the wages of the standout superstar of his day, George Best, £1,000 a week, was an early sign of the impending marriage between football and global fame. Even as recently as 15 years ago, the average weekly wage was just under four grand. Today, it’s nearly thirty-four, and even this is offset by each year’s promoted clubs whose wage bills will be relatively modest - regarding the financially bigger clubs, Chelsea’s annual player wage bill is £174m, Manchester City £133m and Manchester United £132m.
On a side note, it’s only really top league footballers who get paid astronomical salaries - a BBC article in 2006 highlighted a substantial drop in wages down in the divisions. In England, League One players earned £67,850 pa and League Two £49,600 pa - that’s less than some doctors, managing directors or public servants. Also, footballers in England are lucky compared to other countries in Europe - third or fourth divisions in most other countries, Spain and Italy included, tend to be part-time or amateur, thus not making nearly as much money as their English counterparts.
Football, as a sport, capitalises on being simple to follow and to play, meaning it’s easy to take an interest in, and on the free-flowing, unpredictable, exciting nature of the game. Football means a lot emotionally to millions of people worldwide, who are prepared to invest a sizeable chunk of their income in order to follow and support their team. Stephen Tomkins of the BBC likened football to a religion in 2004, and seeing people’s faces contort from disbelief at the star striker’s penalty miss, to anger at the referee’s shocking decision, to tense agony at running down the clock on a 3-2 lead with 5 minutes to go, to euphoria when the referee’s whistle blows to signal the confirmation of the result, or despair when the opposition team bundles the ball in on the final kick of the game, it’s testament to how much it means to people. They identify with football.
Thanks to the above reasons, the money-minded of this world have figured out that such a captive, devoted audience is prime ground for profits, and thanks to such things as the formation of the Premier League in 1992, providing premium TV revenue for the top tier teams, advances in technology leading to saturation of football coverage, ie the voyeuristic nature of 24-hour football coverage on Sky Sports News and online sites, the front page headline-hogging, celebrity-mingling and scandal-perpetuating antics of the likes of David Beckham and Wayne Rooney, and the emergence of new global markets like China, India, the Middle East and Africa, football has snowballed into the global behemoth it is today.
David Mitchell's great satire of how Sky Sports sensationalises football just a bit too much.
Players which have marketability have a distinct advantage - Cristiano Ronaldo was bought for £80 million in 2009, and according to Real Madrid, his fee has already been repaid in merchandising sales alone. Likewise, whenever a major English player is traded in the transfer window, it’s like they’re in a market of their own, so skewed are the fees incurred by the “English Premium” (Andy Carroll for £35 million, anybody?). The reason? Big English players will more likely sell more shirts, as English fans will look up to them as England players as well as club players, the media will cover them more for the same reason, and also respect the club for “giving English players a chance”.
It’s got to a point where the actual competitive games, both in the league and cups, have become a bit of a distraction to the off-pitch aspects, like marketing, merchandise, transfer window activity etc. But, in the midst of all this, what it boils down to at the end of the day, both for the suits and the fans, is the 90 minutes (plus added extra time if necessary) of football between the two teams, the result which determines which team wins and which team loses, and the many possible permutations which determine, in the long run, who wins the trophy (and prize money), who ends up in which European competition (with varying degrees of TV and prize money), and who drops down a league and loses out on huge amounts of money. Money which, alongside being used as disposable income by everyone involved in the club, also ensures the future purchase and development of future players and staff, as well as paying back debts, and in some cases can keep a club in existence.
And although the managers, coaches, scouts etc play a big part in getting the teams ready, it’s the frontline troops, the players themselves, who have the last say on whether the above are or aren’t achieved. And as a result, it’s crucial to buy the best players, and because genuinely outstanding players are rare, it’s a case of who can bid the most, both in terms of transfer fees and in wages and incentives. And the more money there is to be made, the more money there is to lose, and with the stakes so high, paying £100,000 a week to a player whose twenty goals a season will ensure a club’s automatic qualification in the Champions’ League, or avoid a drop to the Championship, makes perfect financial sense.
In response to those who reckon a salary cap would be beneficial to football, I ask them to contemplate how such a scheme would be implementable worldwide, because if it was applied solely to the English leagues, then all the best players would simply move overseas to the highest bidder, as we are seeing with British rugby talent playing in the French league. Even a EU-wide ban would simply mean easy pickings for the likes of Qatar, the Emirates and Russia offering bumper contracts to players, who’d then move there en masse and preach about how competitive their league is, or how they’re proud to be part of a “new project” and “creating history”, and how they’re not in it for the money. And if money can persuade Samuel Eto’o, one of the most gifted footballers of his generation, to play in Dagestan, one of the most volatile regions in Russia, then what hope have we to convince other players to stay put in the UK or the EU if the money’s elsewhere?
Marquee players in the twilight of their careers have often opted for short-term contracts in leagues that offer high wages.
Football’s money does trickle down to communities. Typing in “Blackburn” in a search engine brings up several matches for the club before any article about the town, which makes you wonder if losing the club, and as a result the media interest, would severely impact the town’s economy. And likewise, Blackpool’s promotion into the Premier League in 2010 wasn’t only fantastic from a footballing sense, but it was also lauded by the town’s council, claiming their club’s top-flight status, and the visitors and media interest it would bring, would regenerate the whole town. As a result, we’re left in a position where people are rightly unhappy with the status quo and having footballers earn millions for doing something which isn’t greatly beneficial to society, but the only way of addressing that - enforcing a salary cap in the UK - would drive all the talent away, and with it the interest of the people and potential investors, and with it the money.
We can’t hate the players for accepting the money, we would do the same. We can’t hate the game of football, because it provides us with emotions. But hating what the game has become? The gentrification, the marketing, the hijacking from multinational corporations, dodgy tax-avoiding businessmen and even dictators, who abuse the masses’ love and devotion to line their pockets? The inability to enforce a salary cap, lest it destroys the quality of the league and deprives towns and cities of the trickle-down money which can revive enterprise and provide jobs and happiness? Yes, we have every right to hate that.
2009, which seems like so long ago now, was without a doubt one of the most successful years in recent times for the British far-right. Alongside the British National Party's Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons being elected to European Parliament, the former's appearance on Question Time, and the ensuing furore which only served to further publicise the party's cause, the English Defence League, formed in response to a protest by Islamic radicals against British troops returning from Afghanistan in March 2009, made the headlines throughout the year, when their marches were hyped up as the coming of the Fourth Reich, and led to unrest, near-riots and high policing costs.
The EDL, as a single-issue protest group, is a much smaller and nimbler body than the British National Party, so while the BNP has been besieged by infighting, continuous gaffes and legal action over their constitution since their “glory days” of 2009, the EDL remained largely unaffected in 2010, and appears to be making headway now in 2011.
The EDL professes to being a peaceful group who stands against radical Islam and terrorism. So far it sounds noble. Fair enough, one may say. However, having witnessed their rallies in Birmingham and Nottingham, you see the reality of it. They’re definitely intimidating - a large gathering of angry men, drunkenly shouting semi-coherent football chants and racist slogans (caring little whether it's Muslims they're insulting or Sikhs, Hindus, Poles or any other "foreigners") doesn’t exactly evoke the idea of calm rational debate. You wonder how many of its attenders are genuinely there to protest against Islamism, and how many just fancy the idea of getting drunk in the daytime with a large group of like-minded lads, where they can be as boisterous as they like - racism and xenophobia included - and they can pass it off as “being patriotic” and “making a stand”. They also get to wind up a load of middle class people, who fall for it every single time.
Which brings me to Unite Against Fascism. At front-line level, the main demographic appears to be mostly wealthy, middle class, intellectually arrogant people, many of them university students, who make no distinction between the words “fascist”, “racist” and “Nazi”, and band them around as if they meant the same thing. Their hearts may be in the right place but their heads certainly aren’t.
The majority of them have never properly suffered as a consequence of UK government, European Union or general free-market policies (though this is changing with the impending increase of tuition fees), and thus cannot empathise with any working-class people whose entire community has lost its livelihood as a result of a big employer moving overseas, or because their manager’s decided to hire people of overseas origin who will willingly do the same job for lower pay, sometimes even below minimum wage (really, the ones who are to blame aren't the migrants, who, like everyone else, is out to provide for themselves and their families - the managers and politicians, who put profit above ethics, are). Not that I’m justifying anger towards immigrants, but at least I’m trying to understand why and how people are led to support the likes of the EDL or BNP (those who aren’t drawn in by the beer, bawling and beatings).
The UAF, meanwhile, simply dismisses them all as “thugs” and “bigots”, as well as the three aforementioned superlatives, and at demonstrations, those on its side are encouraged to scream: “Nazi scum off our streets!” and: “Smash the BNP/EDL!”. Don’t words such as “smash”, “scum” and “Nazi” legitimise hatred and aggression? Somehow I doubt Aung San Suu Kyi would use such words towards her rivals.
The ensuing result is monochromatic politics of the highest order: on one side, well-off people of university stock, who’ve been led to believe that the EDL and BNP are the second coming of the Nazi Party; on the other, people of mostly working class who have misunderstood but understandable concerns about their future and livelihoods, whether it be regarding Islamism, general immigration or simply the sovereignty of the UK, who not only aren’t being reassured, but being arrogantly dismissed and vilified by a bunch of people who can’t even relate to them. Both groups end up screaming at each other, throwing things at each other and leave city centres trashed and communities divided.
Who wins in this case? The elite, as always. The politicians can sneak through legislations and law changes under the radar and away from the public's attention, while everyone's squabbling over which side is right; it's Team Multiculturalism versus Team Patriot. The populist media outlets are often the government's accomplice in this; they will print incendiary stories (such as the one involving a small group of radicals who burnt a poppy during the 2-minute silence for the dead troops of conflicts past) or even fuel hoaxes (not being able to wear England shirts during the World Cup as it may offend foreigners), knowing well that it will cause a chain reaction of xenophobia and knee-jerk anger, then develop support for the EDL, followed by the usual rabid UAF intolerance-is-intolerable mantra. It causes unrest and sells newspapers. And people fall for it every time.
Let’s get one thing straight: the BNP will never get in power. They’ve made so many gaffes in the past, and have so little proper support nationwide (as opposed to joining the BNP group on Facebook to look hard), that they will never earn anything more than protest votes, as in 2009. As of 2010, upon the closing of their Conference in Derbyshire, they still hadn't decided whether to tighten their stance (they promise "increased militancy in future”) or soften it (their new "heart" logo). Clearly not a political body with much of a clue (then again, you could say the same about Labour. And the Lib Dems. And the Tories... oh).
The EDL is also overestimated - they are not Oswald Mosley’s Blackshirts. The majority of them are football fans who want an excuse to be drunk and disorderly. Let them. Chances are, without the wall of opposition, in the form of the always ready and willing UAF and associates, they’ll get bored and scuttle off to the pub or stadium.
By the way, if anyone complains about immigrants and how "they come to our country, take our money and take our jobs", consider this: the EDL rally in Nuneaton last November totalled £250,000 in policing costs. The Luton "homecoming" cost £800,000. That's also YOUR money.
And as for radical Islam, this is a debate that should be tackled firmly and intellectually. Those who sympathise with the EDL because they’re genuinely sick of groups of “Muslims” insulting British troops and genuinely worried that Sharia law will replace UK law, as Islam4UK previously declared, need to be recognised, reassured, and re-educated, not dismissed as a “Nazi-racist-fascist” and alienated further. Until the UAF and its associates start recognising that radical Islam IS a threat, then this situation will never improve, and we’ll always be prey to sensationalist news reports and the ensuing pointless scuffles between the two groups.
