by Paul Sagar

The mainstream media reporting on Saturday’s English Defence League and Unite Against Fascism demonstrations in Bolton has proved worryingly misleading. It indicates that important lessons must be learned by UAF and all those who oppose the growth of the far-right EDL.

Frustratingly I was stuck in a 2-hour tailback on the M6 on Saturday morning, so missed the first stages of the counter-demo. However, I’ve been able to piece together the following from speaking to people in the afternoon and from media reports (though more on whether to trust those later).

Essentially, the EDL and UAF demos were scheduled to begin around 1pm. Greater Manchester Police had established two distinct protest areas for each group, separated by barriers (and later by police with dogs standing between the barriers). However, UAF protestors attempted to occupy the entire protest area in the morning, in a bid to deny the EDL the ability to protest at all. The police response was one of zero-tolerance: riot police and horses were sent in, and the area cleared. The majority of UAF arrests – that have been so publicised in the media – were therefore made in the morning before the EDL had arrived. Certainly, I only saw one arrest in the entire course of the afternoon, and nothing like the 55 reported.

I must therefore say that it was a tactical mistake by the UAF organisers to attempt to take over the entire protest area. Police spokesmen had already been bragging about how the day would test their resolve, and that they were going to show zero-tolerance. By attempting to subvert the police’s plans for two controlled demonstrations, UAF invited the police firstly to initiate arrests, and secondly – as we shall see – to spin the day against the anti-fascist protest and in favour of the EDL. Let me be clear: I have no problem in principle with taking measures to prevent the EDL from being able to demonstrate at all. Yet tactics must be picked carefully, and yesterday they weren’t.

However, this does not excuse – though perhaps it helps to explain – the shockingly misleading reporting that has subsequently been carried in virtually all of the mainstream media.

Let’s start with the figures for participation. By late Saturday evening a uniform figure of 2,000 EDL and 1,500 UAF was being carried by most outlets. Yet this figure cannot possibly be correct. By my reckoning, the anti-EDL protest outnumbered its rival by at least 3-1. Indeed, the UAF and affiliates were contained in two separate “kettles”, versus the EDL’s one. Furthermore, the UAF “kettle” facing that of the EDL was manifestly and considerably larger in size, as anybody present could have seen. There is simply no way that the official figures being presented are correct.

Yet by carrying these figures – and by emphasising the greater number of arrests on the UAF side due to the morning attempt at taking over the entire protest area – a very disturbing thing has occurred: the anti-EDL/UAF protest has been represented as a minority of troublemakers. The EDL is now being portrayed as the bigger (i.e. more popular) group, and that causing the least trouble.

Yet, again, this is highly misleading. The anti-EDL/UAF-side of the protest was characterised by your normal myriad of leftist protestors. Old men in flat caps, girls in punk gear, trades unions representatives, middle-aged women with prams. Standard fare for anyone who has ever been on a leftwing demo. The EDL side, however, was difficult to distinguish from what most of its members are – a gathering of angry, drunk, football hooligans. Indeed, this assessment was backed up by more than just appearances. At about 2.30pm, missiles started to be launched from the EDL side of the barriers. Starting with cigarette lighters, those on the UAF side soon found themselves under a rain of coins, half-filled plastic bottles, crushed beer cans and, eventually, glass bottles. In the end I counted at least 5 glass bottles smashing to the ground, narrowly avoiding the heads of people on the anti-EDL side. This continued for over an hour, until the police finally responded to calls of “do your job!” and cleared the EDL out of the protest area.

It’s worth repeating: although some UAF protesters picked up the missiles thrown at them and returned the favour to the other side, the vast majority of missiles were being thrown by the EDL. Indeed, the situation started to become so dangerous that the police had to clear the EDL away. Not the UAF/anti-EDL protesters. And it’s worth noting that this also gives good indication of the relative size of each group: the police cleared out the thugs first, because there were fewer of them.

Yet you will search high and low to find reports of how the protest ended in the mainstream news reporting. Some stories state that two UAF protesters suffered minor head injuries – but where are the accompanying clarifications regarding how those head injuries were (likely) received, and why this resulted in the protest being cleared? I don’t know if the girl I saw take a lucozade bottle in the face was one of the reported injured, but she was lucky not to lose an eye.

What appears to have happened is that the mainstream media has taken its news reports – which show a suspicious uniformity given how few journalists were present – from wire agencies, and from (surprise surprise) police statements. Certainly, the police must be issuing the (manifestly wrong) participation figures.

The result is that an incredibly skewed image of the protests has emerged. This is made worse by the media focusing especially on dramatic images such as this. To the unsuspecting eye, that looks photo like a raving, snarling, out-of-control rioter. Of course, if the context was that the woman had been snatched at random (as happens at protests) and was having her arms twisted behind her back, that could simply be a look of pain and outrage. Without the context, we don’t know. But using that image and similarly confrontational depictions of the anti-EDL/UAF protest, along with reports of anti-fascist demonstrators being arrested, re-enforces the impression that the anti-EDL protest constituted a minority of troublemakers.

Yet as those of us who were actually there will tell you, the exact opposite was the case.

Those who oppose the rise of the EDL must learn important lessons from this. Although the UAF/anti-EDL demonstration won the protest on the day (it was the EDL that was forcibly cleared for its violent behaviour) it looks like the EDL have won the battle nonetheless. The news reporting – helped by misleading police figures and emphasis on the early UAF attempt to occupy the entire protest area – has, if anything, allowed the EDL to come off best. Given the now clear bias of the police against the UAF, and the media’s supplicant willingness to uphold that interpretation, we must all trend incredibly carefully from now on. This is not an even battlefield we find ourselves upon.