UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[allergictocheese]

Free speech is utterly fundamental to our values and society; if our ability to express opinions, positive or negative, is unduly restricted by the state, we no longer live in a democracy.

In this country politicians are given power by the people. Our right to free speech includes peaceful demonstration. Peaceful does not necessarily mean silent or subservient. A notion that the people should not be able to protest against politicians, who without their consent cannot achieve power, is an ill conceived one.

If you seek power in a democracy, you have to accept that there will be people with opposing views to your own. You have to accept they will have a voice and that they may even protest against you. That is their right, and it is a right we should reconsider at our peril. Those who wish to take that right away are telling the people they should not have freedom.

[don4l]

allergictocheese said:

Free speech is utterly fundamental to our values and society; if our ability to express opinions, positive or negative, is unduly restricted by the state, we no longer live in a democracy.

In this country politicians are given power by the people. Our right to free speech includes peaceful demonstration. Peaceful does not necessarily mean silent or subservient. A notion that the people should not be able to protest against politicians, who without their consent cannot achieve power, is an ill conceived one.

If you seek power in a democracy, you have to accept that there will be people with opposing views to your own. You have to accept they will have a voice and that they may even protest against you. That is their right, and it is a right we should reconsider at our peril. Those who wish to take that right away are telling the people they should not have freedom.

Nobody has suggested that the protesters don't have the right of free speech. However, they shouldn't express it in a way that deprives another person of their right to free speech.

If it had been Dave Cameron, Ed Miliband or Nick Clegg trapped in that office then you can rest assured that those "protesters" (SWP thugs) would have been moved across the street.

[NicD]

allergictocheese said:

Free speech is utterly fundamental to our values and society; if our ability to express opinions, positive or negative, is unduly restricted by the state, we no longer live in a democracy.

In this country politicians are given power by the people. Our right to free speech includes peaceful demonstration. Peaceful does not necessarily mean silent or subservient. A notion that the people should not be able to protest against politicians, who without their consent cannot achieve power, is an ill conceived one.

If you seek power in a democracy, you have to accept that there will be people with opposing views to your own. You have to accept they will have a voice and that they may even protest against you. That is their right, and it is a right we should reconsider at our peril. Those who wish to take that right away are telling the people they should not have freedom.

what point or question are you talking to?
certainly not the incident being condemned by the rest of us.

[wolves_wanderer]

don4l said:

Nobody has suggested that the protesters don't have the right of free speech. However, they shouldn't express it in a way that deprives another person of their right to free speech.

Is the salient point.

[smn159]

wolves_wanderer said:

don4l said:

Nobody has suggested that the protesters don't have the right of free speech. However, they shouldn't express it in a way that deprives another person of their right to free speech.

Is the salient point.

Described in the Telegraph as a peaceful protest and apparently included a mother breastfeeding her baby.

[Scuffers]

[FiF]

smn159 said:

wolves_wanderer said:

don4l said:

Nobody has suggested that the protesters don't have the right of free speech. However, they shouldn't express it in a way that deprives another person of their right to free speech.

Is the salient point.

Described in the Telegraph as a peaceful protest and apparently included a mother breastfeeding her baby.

Yet the Telegraph also used the words barricaded in the office, and escorted out by police, presumably for protection, following their advice to abandon his visit plans. Does that sound peaceful? Doesn't to me, peaceful: untroubled, undisturbed, quiet, tranquil, free from disturbance/ interruption / interference. Yep peaceful in the minds of the Labour thugs intent on keeping their little kingdom. The MP's tweet proves that you could stick a red rosette on a dead dog and it would be elected.

[allergictocheese]

The Police cannot use powers under the Harassment Act to move on protesters engaged in legitimate protest. They are however duty bound to prevent breaches of the peace (as are members of the public).

If the Police used their powers to prevent breach of the peace, they would have to balance that against the protesters' rights to freedom of expression. They have to balance that against Farage's right to the same. If the only possible way to prevent a breach of the peace, without unlawfully impinging on the protestor's rights to freedom of expression, was to prevent Farage from going outside and cutting the ribbon, then that is legally the right path to take.

There is significant case law on the subject of protests and the balancing of rights.

For those wishing to learn more, see judgment from the House of Lords in Laporte v Chief Constable Gloucestershire ( http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/55.html ).

Some views expressed by UKIP members and Farage himself are sufficiently unpopular with groups of society that they make themselves a target for vocal protests. They're not unique in that respect. By going to Rotherham at this time, there was always going to be an enhanced likelihood or such a demonstration. Did UKIP liaise with the Police on enhanced security beforehand? Did UKIP arrange for additional private security?

[Mojocvh]

allergictocheese said:

The Police cannot use powers under the Harassment Act to move on protesters engaged in legitimate protest. They are however duty bound to prevent breaches of the peace (as are members of the public).

If the Police used their powers to prevent breach of the peace, they would have to balance that against the protesters' rights to freedom of expression. They have to balance that against Farage's right to the same. If the only possible way to prevent a breach of the peace, without unlawfully impinging on the protestor's rights to freedom of expression, was to prevent Farage from going outside and cutting the ribbon, then that is legally the right path to take.

There is significant case law on the subject of protests and the balancing of rights.

For those wishing to learn more, see judgment from the House of Lords in Laporte v Chief Constable Gloucestershire ( http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/55.html ).

Some views expressed by UKIP members and Farage himself are sufficiently unpopular with groups of society that they make themselves a target for vocal protests. They're not unique in that respect. By going to Rotherham at this time, there was always going to be an enhanced likelihood or such a demonstration. Did UKIP liaise with the Police on enhanced security beforehand? Did UKIP arrange for additional private security?

No surprises [from the above post] at all.

[wolves_wanderer]

FiF said:

smn159 said:

wolves_wanderer said:

don4l said:

Nobody has suggested that the protesters don't have the right of free speech. However, they shouldn't express it in a way that deprives another person of their right to free speech.

Is the salient point.

Described in the Telegraph as a peaceful protest and apparently included a mother breastfeeding her baby.

Yet the Telegraph also used the words barricaded in the office, and escorted out by police, presumably for protection, following their advice to abandon his visit plans. Does that sound peaceful? Doesn't to me, peaceful: untroubled, undisturbed, quiet, tranquil, free from disturbance/ interruption / interference. Yep peaceful in the minds of the Labour thugs intent on keeping their little kingdom. The MP's tweet proves that you could stick a red rosette on a dead dog and it would be elected.

I'm far from a UKIP fan but this stinks.

[smn159]

FiF said:

Yet the Telegraph also used the words barricaded in the office, and escorted out by police, presumably for protection, following their advice to abandon his visit plans. Does that sound peaceful?

I guess that he could've tripped over a cameraman or an OAP on his way out.

[FiF]

wolves_wanderer said:

FiF said:

smn159 said:

wolves_wanderer said:

don4l said:

Nobody has suggested that the protesters don't have the right of free speech. However, they shouldn't express it in a way that deprives another person of their right to free speech.

Is the salient point.

Described in the Telegraph as a peaceful protest and apparently included a mother breastfeeding her baby.

Yet the Telegraph also used the words barricaded in the office, and escorted out by police, presumably for protection, following their advice to abandon his visit plans. Does that sound peaceful? Doesn't to me, peaceful: untroubled, undisturbed, quiet, tranquil, free from disturbance/ interruption / interference. Yep peaceful in the minds of the Labour thugs intent on keeping their little kingdom. The MP's tweet proves that you could stick a red rosette on a dead dog and it would be elected.

I'm far from a UKIP fan but this stinks.

Quite. As someone said, if this had been Cameron. He's probably as popular as Farage in Rotherham.

[allergictocheese]

I would expect were any of the three main party leaders planning to visit Rotherham and cut the office ribbon, they would look to arrange a suitable level of security beforehand. What liaison did UKIP have with SYP beforehand and what security did they bring with them? Does anybody here have this information?

[allergictocheese]

April 2014

Farage abandons visit to Swansea due to security concerns

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/55.html

May 2014

Farage hit by an egg in Nottingham

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukip-leader-nigel-farage-...

Farage barricaded in pub in Edinburgh

October 2014

Farage abandons visit to Cambridge

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/UKIP-leader-Nigel-...



Anyone with such a recent history of such problems should be properly considering their security.

[NicD]

allergictocheese said:

April 2014


Anyone with such a recent history of such problems should be properly considering their security.

what exactly are you suggesting?

'consider their security?' - what does that mean?

This is England, we don't go round with an entourage of heavies.

[Scuffers]

allergictocheese said:

Anyone with such a recent history of such problems should be properly considering their security.

so, you're advocating he has his own 'heavies' to do crowd control?

I can just imagine this going down well, cries of 'UKIP Thugs' would abound!

[allergictocheese]

NicD said:

what exactly are you suggesting?

'consider their security?' - what does that mean?

This is England, we don't go round with an entourage of heavies.

Farage has had repeated security problems last year, leading him to cancel or cut short visits. Other leaders have their own security as well as liaising with the Police.

To suggest that high profile people don't use security because 'this is the UK' is just plain wrong.

If Farage continues to have such security problems he is either incapable of organising himself properly, pig headed by a refusal to do so or just plain unpopular and unable to be secure. I suggest it's possibly a combination of all three.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

[Scuffers]

allergictocheese said:

Farage has had repeated security problems last year, leading him to cancel or cut short visits. Other leaders have their own security as well as liaising with the Police.

To suggest that high profile people don't use security because 'this is the UK' is just plain wrong.

rubbish.

Cameron/Clegg/Millipead all get police protection, none of them have private security.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlnl-ldMFUc

Edited by Scuffers on Saturday 7th February 14:45

[NicD]

allergictocheese said:

Farage has had repeated security problems last year, leading him to cancel or cut short visits. Other leaders have their own security as well as liaising with the Police.

To suggest that high profile people don't use security because 'this is the UK' is just plain wrong.

If Farage continues to have such security problems he is either incapable of organising himself properly, pig headed by a refusal to do so or just plain unpopular and unable to be secure. I suggest it's possibly a combination of all three.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Is it possible you can answer the question?
You keep soapboxing.

What in your opinion should Mr Farage do so that he can attend these sort of events, safely and with normal human dignity?

[brenflys777]

Scuffers said:

allergictocheese said:

Anyone with such a recent history of such problems should be properly considering their security.

so, you're advocating he has his own 'heavies' to do crowd control?

I can just imagine this going down well, cries of 'UKIP Thugs' would abound!

I would have thought Lab/Cons would be happy to provide a uniform too - probably with shirts of a certain colour...

Ukip do seem to have some private security up close to Farage, but they would have been little use dealing with 40 political intolerants including former Labour councillors. The Police took the path of least resistance and as a result they have highlighted that this kind of unpleasant attempt to silence political opponents works as well as the intimidation of abused children.

This isn't a problem ukip can solve. Last night would have been an ideal time for political leaders from the other main parties to state clearly 'this is not in my name' as they have asked moderate religious leaders to do about unpleasant extremists. Instead the local Labour candidate thinks it's hilarious and Cameron, Milliband and Clegg keep quiet. Pathetic.