UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
allergictocheese said:
NoNeed, you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I have said. I wonder if you and I are understanding the word 'security' differently?
The police have a duty to maintain public order. Sometimes that will involve attending events and demonstrations where opposing groups are present. The Police, in their duty (and I mean duty as in what they're legally obliged to do) to prevent breaches of the peace, sometimes must make a judgement call and act. By acting, they will sometimes impinge on the lawful activity of others. Occasions when they can do this are limited and, in relation to breach of the peace, especially so.
When they do act, such as keeping rival groups separated, they aren't choosing sides, they're acting in what they perceive to be the best way of maintaining public order (bearing in mind they cannot unduly interfere with people's right to freedom of expression). They are not acting as security for one side or the other, they are maintaining the peace.
In Rotherham, my understanding is that the Police were present at the demonstration against Farage, and that they advised him not to cut the ribbon in the presence of the protesters outside. Farage chose not to go outside. If he had, and the protesters had threatened an imminent breach of the peace, they could have asked them to desist or otherwise allow Farage to do his thing. If the protesters refused and it looked like trouble was imminent, they could have arrested anyone who obstructed the police from doing their job (there is no offence of 'breach of the peace', so obstructing an officer in his duty is the normal charge).
Of course, in the event, Farage didn't feel he had sufficient security (I expect the police quite rightly told him it was not their job to provide him security), and so he didn't go and do his ribbon cutting. Of course, I would also expect that cutting the ribbon with a backdrop of angry protesters would not make such a good PR photo opportunity, though of course I wouldn't be sol bold as to suggest that influenced his thinking at all...
The police should not be advising him to NOT do something that is perfectly fine reasonable and above all legal, they should however and have a legal duty to ensure that he is able to to what they are advising him NOT to do. They should make sure he is safe to go about his business and if necessary move the protesters as they would do if it was a high ranking Tory or labour politician.The police have a duty to maintain public order. Sometimes that will involve attending events and demonstrations where opposing groups are present. The Police, in their duty (and I mean duty as in what they're legally obliged to do) to prevent breaches of the peace, sometimes must make a judgement call and act. By acting, they will sometimes impinge on the lawful activity of others. Occasions when they can do this are limited and, in relation to breach of the peace, especially so.
When they do act, such as keeping rival groups separated, they aren't choosing sides, they're acting in what they perceive to be the best way of maintaining public order (bearing in mind they cannot unduly interfere with people's right to freedom of expression). They are not acting as security for one side or the other, they are maintaining the peace.
In Rotherham, my understanding is that the Police were present at the demonstration against Farage, and that they advised him not to cut the ribbon in the presence of the protesters outside. Farage chose not to go outside. If he had, and the protesters had threatened an imminent breach of the peace, they could have asked them to desist or otherwise allow Farage to do his thing. If the protesters refused and it looked like trouble was imminent, they could have arrested anyone who obstructed the police from doing their job (there is no offence of 'breach of the peace', so obstructing an officer in his duty is the normal charge).
Of course, in the event, Farage didn't feel he had sufficient security (I expect the police quite rightly told him it was not their job to provide him security), and so he didn't go and do his ribbon cutting. Of course, I would also expect that cutting the ribbon with a backdrop of angry protesters would not make such a good PR photo opportunity, though of course I wouldn't be sol bold as to suggest that influenced his thinking at all...
NoNeed said:
The police should not be advising him to NOT do something that is perfectly fine reasonable and above all legal, they should however and have a legal duty to ensure that he is able to to what they are advising him NOT to do. They should make sure he is safe to go about his business and if necessary move the protesters as they would do if it was a high ranking Tory or labour politician.
They can advise someone if they think it's necessary to provide that advice. Whether that advice was followed or the police had any lawful way of stopping him proceeding if he chose to ignore it was another matter. Had Farage arrived with suitable security it might be that the advice from the Police would have been different.The protesters were not committing any offence and were exercising their right to protest. Without there being grounds to suspect an imminent breach of the peace, the police could not lawfully move the protesters on and stop them from continuing their protest. Why should one man's right to ceremonially cut a ribbon be preferred over the rights of many people to protest and express their opinions (a rhetorical question)?
The answer we keep returning to is that the police did not prevent Farage from cutting the ribbon. Nor were they duty bound to act as a security detail for him against the protesters. Having experience numerous similar experiences over the past 10 months, you would expect that a person of Farage's intelligence would have realised there are likely to be protesters and that his security may become an issue. Having that knowledge, an intelligent person wishing only to arrive and cut a ribbon, showing support for his local party, would ensure he had sufficient security to do so without personal risk.
What transpired was that Farage turned up ill equipped. He then (wrongly) blamed South Yorkshire Police, a cheap and easy shot considering the flack they are currently enduring, that would appeal to those who don't like to think too hard, without considering the actual obligations and rules that govern the police that meant they couldn't simply act as security detail.
allergictocheese said:
They can advise someone if they think it's necessary to provide that advice. Whether that advice was followed or the police had any lawful way of stopping him proceeding if he chose to ignore it was another matter. Had Farage arrived with suitable security it might be that the advice from the Police would have been different.
The protesters were not committing any offence and were exercising their right to protest. Without there being grounds to suspect an imminent breach of the peace, the police could not lawfully move the protesters on and stop them from continuing their protest. Why should one man's right to ceremonially cut a ribbon be preferred over the rights of many people to protest and express their opinions (a rhetorical question)?
The answer we keep returning to is that the police did not prevent Farage from cutting the ribbon. Nor were they duty bound to act as a security detail for him against the protesters. Having experience numerous similar experiences over the past 10 months, you would expect that a person of Farage's intelligence would have realised there are likely to be protesters and that his security may become an issue. Having that knowledge, an intelligent person wishing only to arrive and cut a ribbon, showing support for his local party, would ensure he had sufficient security to do so without personal risk.
What transpired was that Farage turned up ill equipped. He then (wrongly) blamed South Yorkshire Police, a cheap and easy shot considering the flack they are currently enduring, that would appeal to those who don't like to think too hard, without considering the actual obligations and rules that govern the police that meant they couldn't simply act as security detail.
You live in a fantasy world. The Police had advised Farage not to go outside. At this point Farage is on a hiding to nothing, if he goes outside and it all kicks off then the Police can blame Farage for ignoring them. If Farage had brought a team of bouncers for security, chooses for confrontation and allows his men to take on the protesters there is no upside for him. Either his team wins, in which case he gets compared to Moseley and his 'Biff Boys', or they lose, looking bad and the Police get to say 'told you so'. Nope Farage did the only sensible thing, the criticism must get laid at the Police for not dispersing the crowd, or forcing them to protest at a distance.The protesters were not committing any offence and were exercising their right to protest. Without there being grounds to suspect an imminent breach of the peace, the police could not lawfully move the protesters on and stop them from continuing their protest. Why should one man's right to ceremonially cut a ribbon be preferred over the rights of many people to protest and express their opinions (a rhetorical question)?
The answer we keep returning to is that the police did not prevent Farage from cutting the ribbon. Nor were they duty bound to act as a security detail for him against the protesters. Having experience numerous similar experiences over the past 10 months, you would expect that a person of Farage's intelligence would have realised there are likely to be protesters and that his security may become an issue. Having that knowledge, an intelligent person wishing only to arrive and cut a ribbon, showing support for his local party, would ensure he had sufficient security to do so without personal risk.
What transpired was that Farage turned up ill equipped. He then (wrongly) blamed South Yorkshire Police, a cheap and easy shot considering the flack they are currently enduring, that would appeal to those who don't like to think too hard, without considering the actual obligations and rules that govern the police that meant they couldn't simply act as security detail.
Zod said:
egor110 said:
Axionknight said:
I'm voting for 'em and I don't think they'll get anywhere near that, as every opinion poll so far has shown. Polls can be wrong but seldom are they so wrong.
You don't think there are loads of 'closet' ukip voters keeping there cards and opinions close to there chest's until election day?I think there are far far more silent ukipers compared to those prepared to shout about it.
Except they posses off all there 1st time voters last time by bri going in tuition fees after they all started uni.
Hence why the young vote seems to be heading green.
(see, you can say that for any party)
egor110 said:
Zod said:
egor110 said:
Axionknight said:
I'm voting for 'em and I don't think they'll get anywhere near that, as every opinion poll so far has shown. Polls can be wrong but seldom are they so wrong.
You don't think there are loads of 'closet' ukip voters keeping there cards and opinions close to there chest's until election day?I think there are far far more silent ukipers compared to those prepared to shout about it.
Except they pissed off all there 1st time voters last time by bringing in tuition fees after they all started uni.
Hence why the young vote seems to be heading green.
(see, you can say that for any party)
This argument is confusing me; is the suggestion that:
1. the Police are anti-UKIP;
2. the government or LibLabCon (same thing to some of you) ordered the Police to behave in this way;
3. Farage should be provided with similar security to the Prime Minister's;
4. the Police made a mistake; or
5. something else?
1. the Police are anti-UKIP;
2. the government or LibLabCon (same thing to some of you) ordered the Police to behave in this way;
3. Farage should be provided with similar security to the Prime Minister's;
4. the Police made a mistake; or
5. something else?
s2art said:
You live in a fantasy world. The Police had advised Farage not to go outside. At this point Farage is on a hiding to nothing, if he goes outside and it all kicks off then the Police can blame Farage for ignoring them. If Farage had brought a team of bouncers for security, chooses for confrontation and allows his men to take on the protesters there is no upside for him. Either his team wins, in which case he gets compared to Moseley and his 'Biff Boys', or they lose, looking bad and the Police get to say 'told you so'. Nope Farage did the only sensible thing, the criticism must get laid at the Police for not dispersing the crowd, or forcing them to protest at a distance.
Spot on.This needs to be put in perspective. Around 40 'protestors' including former Labour councillors, congregate outside a UKIP office and the Police say that Farage can't leave for his own safety. On this thread some posters have suggested its Farage's fault for campaigning, he is a politician for a party that represents a significant proportion of the UK population, a party that won the last national election in the UK at the EURO's. This is about thuggish behaviour being allowed to prevent civilised democracy. The timing of Farage campaigning is always going to upset Labour supporters in Rottherham unless he waits until after the election.
The fact that this has happened before and the Police have failed to protect Farage or his ability to speak or appear publicly because of an aggressive minority is appalling. I've been a Policeman and I am fully aware of what the Police can do. In this case they chose the easy route of restricting the 'victim' rather than controlling the aggressor. Its weak and sets a precedent that is unacceptable.
Zod said:
This argument is confusing me; is the suggestion that:
1. the Police are anti-UKIP;
2. the government or LibLabCon (same thing to some of you) ordered the Police to behave in this way;
3. Farage should be provided with similar security to the Prime Minister's;
4. the Police made a mistake; or
5. something else?
It's confusing me, too. It appears to be that South Yorkshire Police should have interrupted the protesters (who were doing nothing illegal) and removed (unlawfully) their right to (lawfully) protest in order to allow Farage his right to cut the ribbon. The basis for removing all these peoples' rights at the expense of Farage appears to be that he is a very important person and his cutting the ribbon should not be interfered with by smelly protesters.1. the Police are anti-UKIP;
2. the government or LibLabCon (same thing to some of you) ordered the Police to behave in this way;
3. Farage should be provided with similar security to the Prime Minister's;
4. the Police made a mistake; or
5. something else?
Zod said:
This argument is confusing me; is the suggestion that:
1. the Police are anti-UKIP;
2. the government or LibLabCon (same thing to some of you) ordered the Police to behave in this way;
3. Farage should be provided with similar security to the Prime Minister's;
4. the Police made a mistake; or
5. something else?
1 - I've seen no suggestion that individual Police are anti-UKIP.1. the Police are anti-UKIP;
2. the government or LibLabCon (same thing to some of you) ordered the Police to behave in this way;
3. Farage should be provided with similar security to the Prime Minister's;
4. the Police made a mistake; or
5. something else?
2 - The direction the Police are given in how to deal with protests is a function of senior officers/home office and political instruction.
3 - Farage isn't entitled to the same level of protection as the leader of the winning UK Euro party, that Cameron is given as PM. The depth of protection Cameron has needs to be greater, but the protection afforded to Farage has proved inadequate. The other Leaders should be demanding Farages right to campaign without being barricaded away, the fact they are endorsing this behaviour shows a lack of principle.
4 - The Police have made mistakes. Otherwise the instances of Farage being physically prevented from peaceful political campaigning wouldn't be a re-occurance.
5 - Possibly. The local Labour MP considers it hilarious and one of my local MP's Mark Pritchard put a mocking tweet out saying that Farages continual cancellations mean he should buy event cancellation insurance.
Username888 said:
They struck him on the head with a placard??? Is that not assault?
The placard assault was from a previous incident where Farage was prevented from campaigning. It followed back surgery on Farage and was also welcomed by opponents of ukip as being perfectly reasonable. It could be considered supportive of the Police assessment that Farage is at risk of attack if he is allowed near the protestors. In my opinion it is also supportive of the fact that Police protection of Farage has been inadequate.Zod said:
This argument is confusing me; is the suggestion that:
1. the Police are anti-UKIP;
2. the government or LibLabCon (same thing to some of you) ordered the Police to behave in this way;
3. Farage should be provided with similar security to the Prime Minister's;
4. the Police made a mistake; or
5. something else?
No. 41. the Police are anti-UKIP;
2. the government or LibLabCon (same thing to some of you) ordered the Police to behave in this way;
3. Farage should be provided with similar security to the Prime Minister's;
4. the Police made a mistake; or
5. something else?
The police should have moved the protesters to the other side of the road.
don4l said:
Zod said:
This argument is confusing me; is the suggestion that:
1. the Police are anti-UKIP;
2. the government or LibLabCon (same thing to some of you) ordered the Police to behave in this way;
3. Farage should be provided with similar security to the Prime Minister's;
4. the Police made a mistake; or
5. something else?
No. 41. the Police are anti-UKIP;
2. the government or LibLabCon (same thing to some of you) ordered the Police to behave in this way;
3. Farage should be provided with similar security to the Prime Minister's;
4. the Police made a mistake; or
5. something else?
The police should have moved the protesters to the other side of the road.
allergictocheese said:
They can advise someone if they think it's necessary to provide that advice. Whether that advice was followed or the police had any lawful way of stopping him proceeding if he chose to ignore it was another matter. Had Farage arrived with suitable security it might be that the advice from the Police would have been different.
The protesters were not committing any offence and were exercising their right to protest. Without there being grounds to suspect an imminent breach of the peace, the police could not lawfully move the protesters on and stop them from continuing their protest. Why should one man's right to ceremonially cut a ribbon be preferred over the rights of many people to protest and express their opinions (a rhetorical question)?
The answer we keep returning to is that the police did not prevent Farage from cutting the ribbon. Nor were they duty bound to act as a security detail for him against the protesters. Having experience numerous similar experiences over the past 10 months, you would expect that a person of Farage's intelligence would have realised there are likely to be protesters and that his security may become an issue. Having that knowledge, an intelligent person wishing only to arrive and cut a ribbon, showing support for his local party, would ensure he had sufficient security to do so without personal risk.
What transpired was that Farage turned up ill equipped. He then (wrongly) blamed South Yorkshire Police, a cheap and easy shot considering the flack they are currently enduring, that would appeal to those who don't like to think too hard, without considering the actual obligations and rules that govern the police that meant they couldn't simply act as security detail.
You keep saying that Farage should have suitable security, he has, it's called the police.The protesters were not committing any offence and were exercising their right to protest. Without there being grounds to suspect an imminent breach of the peace, the police could not lawfully move the protesters on and stop them from continuing their protest. Why should one man's right to ceremonially cut a ribbon be preferred over the rights of many people to protest and express their opinions (a rhetorical question)?
The answer we keep returning to is that the police did not prevent Farage from cutting the ribbon. Nor were they duty bound to act as a security detail for him against the protesters. Having experience numerous similar experiences over the past 10 months, you would expect that a person of Farage's intelligence would have realised there are likely to be protesters and that his security may become an issue. Having that knowledge, an intelligent person wishing only to arrive and cut a ribbon, showing support for his local party, would ensure he had sufficient security to do so without personal risk.
What transpired was that Farage turned up ill equipped. He then (wrongly) blamed South Yorkshire Police, a cheap and easy shot considering the flack they are currently enduring, that would appeal to those who don't like to think too hard, without considering the actual obligations and rules that govern the police that meant they couldn't simply act as security detail.
Just because somebody has an operation in a private hospital it's doesn't mean the NHS can wash their hands of him. IN the same way as some may choose private security but that doesn't remove any of the responsibility of the police to maintain law and order which is their job.
Private security is a choice that he can decide on, law and order in an obligation the police have taken a vow to maintain.
Zod said:
think that's in the "Oh dear, what a pity, never mind" and it turns out Nigel was right catagory.
Finished that sentence for ya
As a Tory I can't help but think people spouting lies and inaccuracies about UKIP are just making me think I should be in UKIP. I have said it before, I have never ever come across a party that has so many lies told about it and the the ruling/political classes just don't get.
At this rate I could end up being the first pro-EU kipper.
The police attestation that a new officer takes.
I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.
I have made the relevant part bold.
I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.
I have made the relevant part bold.
Scuffers said:
At what point do we say SYP are a failed police force?
How about sacking every officer above the rank of sergeant?
(And that should not preclude criminal charges being brought against them)
They could have done more and most probably should have. Maybe in trying to hard to look impartial they have unwittingly acted in the interest of the main rival and all the Labour Councillors and MP's in that area.How about sacking every officer above the rank of sergeant?
(And that should not preclude criminal charges being brought against them)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff