UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
brenflys777 said:
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!
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.
Don't care for Farage but this whole episode stinks. As a minimum Miliband should have censured the Rotherham MP for that tweet.
Anyway in terms of security what was Labour's excuse for Deputy PM Two Jags getting egged and then him brawling in the street. No class.
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.
Your post is a superb example of why UKIP are gaining popularity.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.
Most people in Britain feel they have the right to free speech. This "right" is guaranteed, and protected, by the state.
One shouldn't need to hire private security guards to safeguard one's right to free speech. In fact, the only way that private guards could protect one's free speech rights is through violence - or vigiliantism.
The police should have asked the protesters to move to the other side of the road. This would have ensured that everyone's rights were respected.
don4l said:
Most people in Britain feel they have the right to free speech. This "right" is guaranteed, and protected, by the state.
Fine words. Except that he wasn't actually stopped from saying anything. He was stopped from going where he wanted at a particular time for his own safety and to avoid a breach of the peace.Just as various NI political groups have been banned from marching at certain times and places
Extreme left and right groups have been restrained to avoid them clashing
Did you complain about their rights? Or is it just Farage you think has such rights.
FWIW I think the labourites were wrong. I also think Farage was deliberately creating a political "scene" in going there. He has not been stopped from making a speech elsewhere, nor even from opening an office in Rotherham at another time.
He was stopped under the same rules that have been applied to many other political groups on several occasions. There is no need to look for a conspiracy or feel persecuted
don4l said:
Most people in Britain feel they have the right to free speech. This "right" is guaranteed, and protected, by the state.
Would you be making the same argument if had been the EDL or the BNP who's representative had been stopped from making an appearance?"Free speech" cuts a number of ways...
rs1952 said:
don4l said:
Most people in Britain feel they have the right to free speech. This "right" is guaranteed, and protected, by the state.
Would you be making the same argument if had been the EDL or the BNP who's representative had been stopped from making an appearance?"Free speech" cuts a number of ways...
FiF said:
Anyway in terms of security what was Labour's excuse for Deputy PM Two Jags getting egged and then him brawling in the street. No class.
Egging politicians has been considered legitimate protest in this country for a very long time; it's unlikely to cause harm beyond annoyance and embarrassment and so is not (generally) regarded as assault. Prescott's short-arm jab in response to such a protest was also considered a fair response, and even engendered grudging respect from those not politically aligned with the then deputy PM.NoNeed said:
The only law we have to safeguard our free speech is article 10 of the European convention of human rights. UKIP want out of that one don't they?
Really?ECHR Article 10 said:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
A 'freedom of speech' that can be curtailed by so many broad and disparate restrictions is no freedom at all. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Any freedoms we have in this or any other state is guaranteed solely by the absence of laws restricting them.
NoNeed said:
handpaper said:
Really?
Do you know of another law for our free speech?http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/government/constituti...
Its not like we did not have it till 1998.
allergictocheese said:
I see UKIP think the PC's death was 'karma'. Ironic on so many levels. A bunch of racist misfits, supported by the hard of thinking. What an embarrassment to the country.
You make me laugh, really.YOU are the embarrassment
Shooting off your mouth time and again, with nothing to support it.
When I asked you for specifics on Mr Farage's 'security' earlier, you just moved on to your next bigmouth post.
Instead of pointlessly whining about UKIP, give us a laugh with the politicians you support.
Edited by NicD on Sunday 8th February 08:09
Yes that's not acceptable and needs investigation, assuming it's a proper UKIP account which I think is the case, i.e. the genuine account.
Many have been setup that aren't including some that are frankly just for the giggles eg UKIP Trumpton etc. Clear parodies aren't an issue imo.
Many have been setup that aren't including some that are frankly just for the giggles eg UKIP Trumpton etc. Clear parodies aren't an issue imo.
Edited by FiF on Sunday 8th February 08:54
TKF said:
NicD said:
Instead of pointlessly whining about UKIP, give us a laugh with the politicians you support.
This is the UKIP thread. Why would another party get discussed?So, back to the classy UKIP
hanging offence? - get real!
yet another example of people faining offence over basically sod-all.
be honest, if what's in the public domain about him is remotely correct, then I for one will not be shedding a tear.
rs1952 said:
don4l said:
Most people in Britain feel they have the right to free speech. This "right" is guaranteed, and protected, by the state.
Would you be making the same argument if had been the EDL or the BNP who's representative had been stopped from making an appearance?"Free speech" cuts a number of ways...
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
As it happens, I have never heard a BNP or EDL speech. On what grounds could I attempt to stop them speaking?
TKF said:
NicD said:
Instead of pointlessly whining about UKIP, give us a laugh with the politicians you support.
This is the UKIP thread. Why would another party get discussed?So, back to the classy UKIP
UKIP has apologised for a tweet which said the death of a police officer under investigation in relation to the Rotherham abuse scandal was "karma".
The tweet from @PlymouthUKIP said: "South Yorkshire police says PC Hassan Ali who was under investigation in relation to child abuse in Rotherham has died in a car crash KARMA!"
PC Ali, 44, died in hospital nine days after he was hit by a car in Sheffield.
A UKIP spokesman said the tweeter had been rebuked.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-3119460...
Btw this is the 'UKIP - The Future' thread.
So if you would say I prefer Mr Clegg, or Mr Cameron, or Mr Milliband over Mr Farage, for these policy reasons, this may encourage useful debate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff