Talk:Battle of Cable Street

Protocols

Please remove the disinformation about the BUF believing in the "Protocols". Mosley firmly discouraged all forms of conspiracism; his motivation for opposing certain Jewish elements within British society was quite clear: he and his party members didn't want England to engage herself in another war perceived as suicidal, and most Jews, of course, sympathized with their mistreated kin in Germany and were actively pushing for engagement. I don't see how this makes Mosley some irrational monster of prejudice.

You can remove that yourself, but you should reference this talk page in the edit summary when you do it. silsor 18:27, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

You are familiar with the advertising for sale of the 'Protocols' in BUF literature? I would not remove this statement without further research.

As for Mosley being against conspiracies - well, 'Anti-Semitism and the British Union of Fascists' by W. F. Mandle' is informative on this subject. Also,the swing from Mussolini to Hitler as a model, and the corresponding reliance on conspiracy theory is laid out very clearly in 'Mosley's Blackshirts: The inside story of the British Union of Fascists, 1932-1940'.

Reference to either of these scholarly works would help the Cable Street article. 66.238.90.187 (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsubsantiated sentence

I've removed the following sentence which is not substantiated:

The B.U.F. regarded the march as a show of strength, and insisted on proceeding in spite of widespread opposition.

The British Union of Fascists article states that the party had considerable support in the East End. Marches were used as a means of increasing support, attracting certain types of people who found the structured and discipled organisation, with its military-type hierachy, appealling, particularly given the quite poverty-striken and chaotic life in this area of London; that was the point of them. No reason is given how the BUF thought it would benefit from a 'show of strength', and the original (copyright-violated) text gave the impression that the party over-estimated its support in the area ("The battle of Cable Street showed Mosley and his blackshirts that their political beliefs were generally opposed in that area of London"), which doesn't sound like proceeding in spite of widespread opposition, which implies that the extent of this opposition was fully appreciated beforehand. All in all, this seems a POV comment, which at least needs more explanation and sources. 80.255

March route

I'm tempted to change the current page as it gives the impression that the Blackshirts were always going to try to march along Cable Street, which is not the case. It was the police who wished to divert the march along this street. Also this was NOT a jewish area i.e. the jews were a majority. Del Trotter

London History template

Added 'London History template', standardised the citation and 'rich linked' the text. Hopefully nothing contentious. I heard that the mural had been under threat - due to a change of use of the old library, but it appears to have been protected for the foreseeable future. Kbthompson 10:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

BBC soundbites

Sorry folks, while somethings have a certain 'dwell time' on the BBC sites, can you note that somethings - broadcast programmes - tend to have a seven day life. Can you please bear that in mind when linking to them. Cheers Kbthompson 23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Violation of Copyright

Removed the following:

Eyewitness Bill Fishman, 15 at the time of the battle, recalls, "I was moved to tears to see bearded Jews and Irish Catholic dockers standing up to stop Mosley. I shall never forget that as long as I live, how working-class people could get together to oppose the evil of racism."

This has been lifted from the Guardian Newspaper. They "own" the quote.

The conditions of which clearly state:

You must not reproduce any part of Guardian Unlimited or the material or transmit it to or store it in any other website or disseminate any part of the material in any other form, unless we have indicated that you may do so.

http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Redzen (talk • contribs)

It's not a violation of copyright to quote a source, this constitutes fair use. It should be apparent to anyone with any experience of academia that it is common practice to quote sources, and this is never considered a copyright violation. What would be illegal would be not to attribute the source, because to claim it as one's own would be plaigiarism, but the source is clearly attributed, and Wikipedia doen't alow original research anyway. It's also obvious that the Guardian itself is quoting someone else here. Alun 04:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. For all you know, the Guardian may have paid for the interview. Wikipedia is not an essay or dissertation. The conditions set by the Guardian seem clear enough. As to what constitutes 'fair use' is certainly debateable in this context considering the Cable St. article is quite small. That quote (hardly essential either) looks like it constiutes about 10% of the entire article! Unless Wiki has permission from the Guardian I suggest the quote in question be kept off the article until this matter can be clearly resolved.

It's not only perfectly acceptable to use quotes as fair use, but this is American copyright law, these servers are based in America, fair use is based on US law. There is absolutely no reason not to use this quotation in this article. Any short quotation is acceptable in any article as long as it's attributed. This is common practice and your reasoning is merely a rather feeble excuse, you only don't want to include the quotation due to your POV. Please do not revert this article again or I shall attempt to get it protected. Alun 09:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

From fair use

Brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked as an ellipsis ([...]) or insertion ([added text]) or change of emphasis (emphasis added). All copyrighted text must be attributed.

Alun 09:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Guardian attempted to sue Wikipedia in US courts based on copyright violation because of this quote it would be laughed out of court. Your reasoning is also ludicrous. I would think it was a joke if I hadn't taken a look at your edit history and seen that you obviously have a none too savoury POV to push here. Far from being genuinely concerned about copyright, you are just attempting to keep this quote out because of your own POV. Your arguments are paper thin and are not based on any sound understanding of either copyright law or Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Alun 16:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The quotation constitutes fair use under UK law. Where it would be wrong is if a substantial part of the original article were to be lifted. Less than 2 paras is generally considered fine for academic, review or other writing purposes. The quotation must be attributed - and it is fully. Editors should be aware that the 3R rule applies. UK & US courts are in agreement on this one. Kbthompson 19:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Blackshirts

dressed in uniforms styled on those of Nazi Blackshirts

I'm not sure what "Nazi Blackshirts" are. SA-troops were Brownshirts, some SS-troops wore a black uniform at that time but I don't think they were known as Blackshirts, and the Italian Fascists with their black shirts weren't Nazis. I'm no expert though; were there "Nazi Blackshirts"? I'm considering rephrasing this to avoid inexact connotations, unless someone can shed some light here. Naphra 17:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and I've changed it, wiki'd to Blackshirt article. Kbthompson 19:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

'Anti-semitic nature of the BUF'

As the article on the BUF points out, it's position was always non anti-Semitic, despite being obviously fascist. Is there any substance to the labelling of them on this page? --Breadandcheese 06:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the assertion, since there is a preponderance of BUF sources expressly denying the anti-Semitic stance with which BUF opponents characterised them (and at that time in history, if a group as outspoken as the BUF were anti-Semites, they really would out and say it, unlike today where "white nationalist" groups try to hide their anti-Semitism under multiple layers of transparent rationalisation). Using propaganda from any political party/movement is problematic, but it certainly is unacceptable to use propaganda published by a group's political opponents to label that group in an encyclopaedia article. --41.243.221.52 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Far be it from me to hold up The Guardian as anything other than a trashy gossip rag, but despite their usual (from my perspective) anti-Jewish and anti-Israel tripe, on this question they take a decidedly different stance, as can readily be seen here. Tomer^talk 03:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's possible, of course, that The Guardian was simply attempting to revive the old canard about "Jewish Communists" in their coverage, by juxtaposing mention of Jews with mention of Communists... So, same old Guardian after all... Tomer^talk 03:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right not to conflate the issue. From what I was told in my youth, however, the BUF attempted to carry out anti-Semitic activities from their headquarters in Cambridge Heath Rd. While the rhetoric may have been that of a political party, their followers beat up overtly Jewish people and trade unionists. The whole thing is confused, in the 1930s the national socialists, and then an emerging pro-Palestinian left consensus after the 1968 war. There were still many communist, anarchist and radical Jews around in Stepney in the 1970s and 1980s - including Max Levitas. I wonder where they all went? Anything that goes into the article should be well cited, Fishman, for instance, is an impeccable source, being a professor of social history at Queen Mary. Kbthompson 10:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Mosley was notoriously antisemetic. Duckmonster (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

no pasarán

Is there any connection between the banners statement "They Shall Not Pass" and Gandalf's cry to the Balrog ("You shall not pass!"). Anyone familiar with Tolkein know of a connection? Tomer^talk 03:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That phrase dates back to the Battle of Verdun. It may well be assumed that Tolkien was familiar with that one.  :) And on a slightly different tangent, I must say that it's more than a bit surreal to read about how Communists fought against a police escort for a political rally because they didn't agree with the views being presented, and they whoop it up as a big victory. They seem to be the sort who like freedom of speech so long as they approve of what is being said. Afalbrig 05:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. This seems to say that anyone can be shut up if you get a big enough mob together. Brownshirt tactics, really. The irony is that Moseley and his BUF were likely glad to see this principle established; no doubt they figured they would just come back with a bigger mob next time. 66.238.90.187 (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This happened at a time where pogroms had swept Europe. This had nothing to do with free speech; people thought that they were going to be harmed.

Celebrating tyranny

It seems to me the "celebration" of this event is to glorify a mob attack on a group of peacefull, unarmed political protesters. Maybe Alabama should erect a plague commemorating Bull Connor's "they shall not pass" activities? John celona (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Wow, a plaque to honour communists using violence to deny others freedom and coming out (yet again) looking like the "good guys"

"Seems to you" maybe. The BUF "Defence Force" were antisemitic, racist, violent thugs just like their counterparts on the mainland of europe. They were not "peaceful, unarmed" political protesters as your attempt at revisionism suggests. Paulzon (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to ME that the only reason for said march was to incite fear and terror amoung the populace of the East end, that is not free speech, that is terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.183.230 (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The fascists badly misjudged the British working class of the time, they thought that they would rise up and join in the "Jew bashing", but they didn't, they turned on the fascists instead. Paulzon (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If simply existing as a movement is 'inciting fear and terror' and a cause to ban something, I vote we ban the Communists, and all Marxist parties. Their body count and record of class hate and violence is unequaled in human history. Not to mention their long record of racial intolerance before the 1930's.

Yep, don't see what a communist 'victory' is something worthy of celebration. This wasn't a victory for democrats against fascists, it was totalitarians versus totalitarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.75.214 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No? Ok, lets talk about the subject of this article. The BUF was a 'shirt' movement and ready to fight in the streets, we know that. What's more, they were anti-Jewish, which is why they came to to a Jewish neighborhood like Cable Street, to demonstrate against the supposed menace of Jewry. But if they were going to march peacefuly, they would have had the same rights as anyone else. Say, some Communist-dominated trade union, marching against importing coloured labour, as was done in the 1920's. Or, for a more savoury example, some Jewish organization outraged at the anti-Semitic libels put out by the BUF. So tell us, were the BUF armed? Were they planning to attack or merely defend themselves if attacked? I don't know, but the answer could be a useful thing to put in the article. 66.238.90.187 (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm al-Fahm, Israel 2009

The right to march in a district despite potential opposition from residents has been played out many times since, the Orange Parades in Northern Ireland being a typical example. In Israel in 2009 another group wished to march in a legal fashion, in the predominantly Israeli Arab town of Umm al-Fahm. How history repeats itself!
Dean Armond (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In the 1970's in the USA, there were Nazis trying to march in Skokie, IL, a town containing many Holocaust survivors. Many of the same issues were played out there, freedom of speech, municipalities regulating marches through residential districts, etc.

What was NOT done was seeing who could get the bigest mob together. No one benefits then ,except un-democratic movements. 66.238.90.187 (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

The talk page is for discussion on how to improve the article, not for general discussion of its subject matter. Off-topic discussion may be removed by any editor.FrFintonStack (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted part

Eyewitness Bill Fishman, 15 at the time of the battle, recalls, "I was moved to tears to see bearded Jews and Irish Catholic dockers standing up to stop Mosley. I shall never forget that as long as I live, how working-class people could get together to oppose the evil of racism."

I deleted this, because it is from the point of view of the anti-fascists and not objective. If this is in the article we must also look up a quote from a fascist saying how beautiful it was to see united people in black uniforms marching proud for their Fatherland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.80.216 (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but, in an encyclopedia, I think it's fair to leave the reader with an impression of how the event is viewed in history, and, when I've heard discussion on this event, the 'moral' of the story has always been how great it was that the ease end working class stood shoulder to shoulder with local Jews in solidarity. The article as it stands doesn't give that impression, in fact, if anything, slightly the opposite. I think the quote should be reinstated. I don't believe it needs to be balanced with an opposing quote, because I don't think the opposite view really exists. I admit to some partiality on the matter, so I won't make any edits, but would welcome discussion. Pollythewasp (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

eyewitness accounts should be from both sides of a camp. More so if there are unique statements.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There were over 100,000 anti-fascist demonstrators at the Battle of Cable Street, and only around 2,000 Blackshirts. Anti-fascists have left behind copious memoirs and other sources; British fascists far less so. And the BCS has gone down in history as Britain's most significant anti-fascist event. I therefore don't think it's unreasonable to give a quote from an anti-fascist (especially one as prominent as Fishman, who became a professional historian) without a balancing one from a fascist (though if anyone finds and wants to add a fascist statement, they should of course be free to do so).192.166.203.10 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Political Iconography

This event is used as a piece of left wing political iconography and propaganda. So it's important to examine it objectively. As the article doeos point out this wasn't in fact a battle between fascists and the decent fair-minded working class folk of the East End of London. Rather it was a large scale riot, a fight between the largely slum-dwelling inhabitants of the roughest and most crime-infested part of London and the police. How the event has been used for propaganda purposes is as important as what really happened. The socio-political context of the time is a key issue. As is the subsequent post-holocaust revison of history. Before the war anti-semitism was a more a less respectable view, commonplace, unremarkable, not just in Germany but in almost every western country not least in both Britain and the USA as well as in most, probably all, European countries. Meanwhile, politically, the two extremes of communism and fascism (and its German variant, Nazism) were very hot issues for most people, especially the British working (and, given the very high unemployment, non-working) classes. The Spanish Civil War had recently seen well-intentioned international volunteers joining both sides (fascist and socialist/communist) depending on their political views. The Battle of Cable Street was really a case of a disaffected, impoverished, and in part (left-wing) politicised, mob of mixed origins, and with mixed motives, seizing on a good excuse to have a fight. The event has since been 're-written' to make it a glorious 'socialist' example of the community, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, (despite the latter having participated in anti-Jewish riots themselves on previous occasions!) collectively rising up to fight shoulder to shoulder against fascism and anti-semitism. If only history were quite so simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.2.26 (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you not think your own point of view is somewhat politically motivated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonlit321 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Header

"Jewish, socialist, anarchist, Irish and communist" Why is Irish specified here? There were no specific Irish groups per se (ie ancient Order of Hibernians) and I'm sure a great many nationalities were present, so why not list them all? Incidentally Oswald Mosley was also of Irish origin. Jewish are arguably an ethnic and religious group demonstrably targetted by the BUF, the rest are political movements opposed to Fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.212.218 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Category for Renaming

Cottonshirtτ 10:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath

I notice the articles requires a citation for the statement that the Public Order Act 1936 "is widely considered to be a significant factor in the BUF's political decline prior to the Second World War." The Wikipedia article on the Act cites G. C. Webber's "Patterns of Membership and Support for the British Union of Fascists," in Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Oct., 1984) that it "had the indirect result of actually improving the stance of the BUF." http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/anl/trent1.htm using Webber's figures has the low point of BUF membership as October 1935, with it having increased more than four-fold - to 22,500 by the outbreak of WWII. Can something be considered a significant factor in the non-existent? Kmitch87 (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Military conflict?

The infobox used here is military conflict. I noticed there is an infobox for civil conflict. Which is more appropriate?--Darrelljon (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox civil conflict is a spin off of the template Military conflict and far younger. To make it complicated: you have also the template Template:Infobox civilian attack The Banner _talk 18:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Lumping fascists with police under combatants

Removed Kiko4564's lumping fascists with police. Kiko4564 mentions no fighting between police and fascists. This isn't sufficient grounds to lump them together as some other conflicts involving more than two combatants can be split three ways.--Darrelljon (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

All cited sources make clear the conflict was two-sided, with the police and fascists united in defense of the march from the antifascists attempting to stop it. Unless you can present a conflicting scholarly reference indicating that this was in any meaningful way a three-way conflict, you should keep your opinions out of the article.2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:82 (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Does this really need an article on this site?

This discussion was started by an editor who turned out to be a disruptive sockpuppet, so it has been collapsed

A peaceful march being called off due to violent demonstrations isn't really noteworthy. (CoryHilton (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)) What are you referring to? The Banner talk 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC) It was just a minor incident in a small section of the East End of London. It wasn't the attack on Pearl Harbor. (CoryHilton (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)) The political meaning of this riot, with about thirty thousand participants, is far bigger than the location suggested. The Banner talk 16:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC) The march wasn't a riot. (CoryHilton (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)) I hope you are kidding. The Banner talk 20:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Disruptive sockpuppet blocked... The Banner talk 01:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Was the march peaceful?

Thread started by banned editor User:HarveyCarter for his usual trolling purposes. Please ignore this kind of post. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I read that the march itself was peaceful until it was attacked by Communist and socialist demonstrators. (165.120.157.227 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)) The battle was between the police, trying to enable the march, and the anti-fascist protesters trying to prevent it. To that extent, the demonstrators didn't attack the march as such but stood their ground against the attempts by the police to clear them out of the way on the fascists' behalf so that the march could proceed. It's instructive that the law was changed as a result of the battle to ensure that future marches required police permission, though of course that hasn't prevented the continuation of what some communities in the UK would see as similarly provocative marches (for example, by the English Defence League and the Orange Order) JezGrove (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC) So only marches by white demonstrators are provocative? (81.132.48.136 (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)) Not white, proletarian. Muffled Pocketed 13:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC) I don't think that represents what I said at all! I simply chose a couple of the most prominent recent examples in the UK and you are, of course, welcome to name any others. In general, minority groups organising any mass protests in the UK will find it harder to intimidate the majority white population they live amongst by taking to the streets since, by definition, they will be outnumbered. So marches like those, say, in the wake of the publication of The Satanic Verses might be controversial, but they are unlikely to pose a direct threat to the residents of a particular residential area. (That isn't to say that the threat to Salman Rushdie wasn't real, or that a small subsection within any minority group can't find other ways to act in a manner that intimidates the majority population.) In terms of the Orange Order, Northern Ireland is 98.28% white (as of the most recent census in 2011), and so activists on both sides of the sectarian divide will be predominantly white. As for class (re User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's comment), I'm not sure which side he/she thinks the proletariat represent in Cable Street but it was the (BUF) marchers who were protected by the police. Of course, for the reasons given above about minorities, the 1% are unlikely to (directly) participate in any mass protests any time soon, though other means may be available to them, too. JezGrove (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC) JezGrove It is perfectly clear that the organised working class was attacked by the forces of the crown. Muffled Pocketed 07:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Cable Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209062940/http://www.thewallanalysis.com:80/main/waiting-for-the-worms.html to http://www.thewallanalysis.com/main/waiting-for-the-worms.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Real story

Isn't it true the march was peaceful until it was attacked by Communists? (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:E05A:7BA8:465C:A647 (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC))

Context

I was wondering if it might be helpful to have some more context? Covering the build up to the situation (e.g. the Olympia Rally) and the follow up? The riot was followed by the BUF committing the Mile End Pogrom (smashing shops, beating Jewish citizens), and led to the institution of the Public Order Act. (Which, interestingly, backfired because it gave the BUF more respectability and cachet in upper class society). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonlit321 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Participation of non-Jewish organisations

Anonymous IP editor 2A00:23C4:7F89:2600:517F:20E8:B6BF:6F8E has deleted all references to non-Jewish organisations which took part in the action in Cable Street. Nevertheless, the article's own infobox includes a reproduction of a flyer from the London Communist Party calling for people to "Demonstrate against fascism in Spain and Britain, the butcher General Franco, and the Jew baiter Mosely", which suggests that a more widespread antifascist presence was likely. For what it's worth, a BBC report cited in the article includes the quote that, "It was the solidarity between the Labour Party, the Communist Party and the trade union movement that stopped Mosley's fascists, supported by the police, from marching through Cable Street". Whatever the Labour Party's current problems with anti-Semitism may be, they are no justification for trying to erase the Left's part in the fight against fascism and anti-Semitism in the 1930s. JezGrove (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• CableStreetMural.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Find sources for refs

• The Men They Couldn't Hang's album How Green Is the Valley features a song called "Ghosts of Cable Street" that celebrates the battle.
• Terry Pratchett's novel Night Watch features a riot/battle on Cable Street against Ankh-Morpork's secret police.
• Ken Follett's novel Winter of the World, part of his Century Trilogy, features the battle.
• Oi Polloi's song Let the boots do the talking, from their 7" EP of the same name commemorates the memory of those who fought against the fascists.
• The Young'uns' 2017 album Strangers includes an original song, "Cable Street", telling the story of the battle.
• In EastEnders, Dr Harold Legg and Dot Branning watch a documentary about the battle on DVD and Dr Legg recounts the events of the battle, where he met his wife Judith.
• In the play East by Steven Berkoff, "Dad" mentions the Battle of Cable Street in his rage, referring to Sir Oswald Mosley as someone with the "right ideas".
• Heaven Shall Burn featured the song "They shall not pass" on their 2016 album Wanderer, which referred to this incident.

Maybe add back a reference when a suitable source is cited. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath

The march subsequently took place several days later without incident. The Battle of Cable Street increased anti-Semitism in the UK, and led to a surge in membership for the BUF. This should all be mentioned. (86.147.59.129 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC))

Original research? Personal opinion? Emeraude (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Emeraude:There does seem to be some evidence of this, according to facinghistory.org: "By late October 1936, membership in the BUF had increased by 2,000, with many joining East End branches of the organisation. In March 1937, Tilles notes that the BUF received 18% of the East End vote, and around 30% of the non-Jewish vote, in the three main areas of the Cable Street confrontation between demonstrators, police, and Fascists." This does seem to suggest that the claim might have some merit, though of course more discussion and sources. Alssa1 (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

But "increased anti-Semitism in the UK"? Tilles, as quoted, does give those figures, but he does not say that Cable Street was the cause of growth. Emeraude (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Causation of this nature is always going to be difficult to demonstrate categorically, if we choose to mention the fact that BUF support rose after the event we suggest a causation even if we don't necessarily mean it. Alssa1 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Clashes at Tower Hill, Mansell Street, Minories etc

My rather hazy comment about these clashes was removed as being possibly doubtful. The source (East London Advertiser) does describe these in a bit more detail, such as the field dressing stations opened by both sides near Tower Hill, the anti-fascist attempt to occupy Minories etc. I intend to improve the article by going by more clearly describing what happened where and a what time of day (at least at a high level). I believe it would be better if events at Tower Hill, Aldgate, Cable Street and points in between were more clearly indicated. Thanks

Signing my previous comment of 15\3 AlasdairDaw (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the wording that was removed was "and there were a number of clashes" another editor added as a note "with whom". I suggest that you specifically address that point when you make the improvements you are suggesting. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Afterwards

A week later Mosley addressed a large rally nearby and there was no violence. This should be mentioned. (Aardi18 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC))

Why? What is the relevance for this article that Mosley made more speeches? The Banner talk 17:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Paucity of images

I can only find one image of events on Wikimedia, are there any others?

File:Битва на Кейбл-стрит.png

Битва на Кейбл-стрит

Although the filename is in a script\language I can't read, some of the meta-data suggests this is Cable Street - but I think the contributor assumed. It looks a lot like footage of fighting at Tower Hill available on Youtube (I don't seem able to post a link)

I'd prefer to post it in context of the location so will seek confirmation of where it is.AlasdairDaw (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)