UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
yes, saw it on BBC at the time.
What did you hear the police officer say?

NoNeed

15,137 posts

199 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
allergictocheese said:
What do you mean by 'sorted the crowd problem'? How precisely do you propose they 'sort' a group of people lawfully protesting?

Ultimately, the impression you give is that the police were duty bound to interfere with the rights of the protesters in order that Farage could do his thing. As has been explained already, repeatedly, that is not what the police are here for or legally allowed to do, unless defined circumstances arise.

Unless you have anything new to add then there is little point going around in circles.
Like I have said before and you well know, the police can and do move crowds all the time, it is a daily occurrence and they obviously suspected the crowd was a problem as they gave Nigel advice.

You can carry on with your foolish attempts to exonerate the police but be aware it is that sort of behavior that is driving people towards UKIP as people can see the truth you and your friends are denying.

JustAnotherLogin

1,127 posts

120 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
s2art said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
s2art said:
allergictocheese said:
NoNeed said:
So please tell me why they advised him to not cut the ribbon?
They advised (not ordered or instructed or compelled), I presume on the basis that him doing so may have lead to a breach of the peace. Had he ignored them and done it anyway, they would have been unlikely to have had any lawful authority to stop him.
Yeah right. You can just see the MSM reports;
'A police spokesman states that the Police strongly advised Mr Farage not to proceed. Had he heeded that advice the ensuing problems and damage to property would not have occurred, and Mr Farage would have avoided the minor injuries he was subject to. Politicians must take Police advice more seriously'. A Ukip spokesperson is reported to have made disparaging remarks against the police, however this has yet to be confirmed.
So would you have the police use force to move on peaceful protesters who are taking the opportunity to disagree with UKIP so that Farage can cut a ribbon and has to say what he wants to say inside a warm room instead?
They could simply have instructed the crowd to move across the road where they could peacefully protest. No idea what you are on about regarding warm rooms, the ribbon cutting was to be outside and if he was going to speak inside then the protesters were irrelevant.
Fairly obvious I would have thought

Police only had to change the plans of a few people (fewer than if they had moved the protesters)
Everyone got to say what they wanted (protesters outside, Farage inside in the warm to Journos) so no free speech infringed
No breach of the peace

The only reason for complaining is if you think Farage's rights are more important than those of the protesters. Now I too think they are prats, but they still have rights

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
allergictocheese said:
Scuffers said:
yes, saw it on BBC at the time.
What did you hear the police officer say?
he was in the background speaking to one of Farages team, basically saying they did not think it would be a good idea for Nigel to go outside, the conversation went on a bit after this but was drowned out by the foreground interview with Nigel.


Timsta

2,779 posts

245 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
Fairly obvious I would have thought

Police only had to change the plans of a few people (fewer than if they had moved the protesters)
Everyone got to say what they wanted (protesters outside, Farage inside in the warm to Journos) so no free speech infringed
No breach of the peace

The only reason for complaining is if you think Farage's rights are more important than those of the protesters. Now I too think they are prats, but they still have rights
Would the same hold true if a group of protesters staged a protest where the queen was due to cut a ribbon?

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
allergictocheese said:
ou keep going around in circles. The protesters were not committing any offence. The police here had no right to discriminate against the protesters in order to help Farage.
Total tosh.

They were restricting a citizen expressing their views, ie, preventing free speech
Let's not forget that in that old piece on Monbiot's blog, linked earlier, there are many examples of various police actoons against individuals who had done significantly less than those protesters in Rotherham.

Some people really do need to open their other eye.


NicD

3,281 posts

256 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
Fairly obvious I would have thought

......

The only reason for complaining is if you think Farage's rights are more important than those of the protesters. Now I too think they are prats, but they still have rights
err NO,

the bullies with placards reason to be there was to inconvenience Mr Farage and his group . Don't try to conflate the two.

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
allergictocheese said:
Scuffers said:
Total tosh.

They were restricting a citizen expressing their views, ie, preventing free speech
It's only 'total tosh' because you don't understand the concept that they were not committing any offence and the police were not lawfully able to restrict their right to express themselves.
You don't appear to understand section 5 of the Public Order Act.

Here is the relevant bit:-

Public Order Act - 1986 said:
5 Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

[b](a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,[/b]

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a)he engages in offensive conduct which [F2a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
The Police clearly thought that the small crowd was "threatening", otherwise they wouldn't have advised Nigel to stay indoors. The placards that had the word "Bigatry"[sic] were clearly insulting.

So, the police had clear grounds to arrest some of the protesters. Yet they chose to keep Nigel trapped for two hours.

Shame on SYP.



Edited by don4l on Tuesday 10th February 21:06

JustAnotherLogin

1,127 posts

120 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
NicD said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Fairly obvious I would have thought

......

The only reason for complaining is if you think Farage's rights are more important than those of the protesters. Now I too think they are prats, but they still have rights
err NO,

the bullies with placards reason to be there was to inconvenience Mr Farage and his group . Don't try to conflate the two.
How does that mean they don't have rights? All Farage was stopped from doing was cutting a ribbon. Still no free speech infringed

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
You will notice the defence provided, that the conduct was reasonable.

For the final time, the police here were not a security force on behalf of one side or the other. They were not there to referee or to help one side because it was drowned out by the other. Their obligation was to maintain the peace, which they did within the bounds of the law.

NoNeed

15,137 posts

199 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
How does that mean they don't have rights? All Farage was stopped from doing was cutting a ribbon. Still no free speech infringed
He was stopped from leaving too.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
How does that mean they don't have rights? All Farage was stopped from doing was cutting a ribbon. Still no free speech infringed
Laughable!

NicD

3,281 posts

256 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
How does that mean they don't have rights? All Farage was stopped from doing was cutting a ribbon. Still no free speech infringed
whats with the 'free speech infringed'?
So if I am a deaf mute, its fine for bunch of bullies to surround and intimidate me and prevent my lawful enjoyment of whatever I want to do?


don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
allergictocheese said:
You will notice the defence provided, that the conduct was reasonable.

For the final time, the police here were not a security force on behalf of one side or the other. They were not there to referee or to help one side because it was drowned out by the other. Their obligation was to maintain the peace, which they did within the bounds of the law.
Why do you think that the police didn't ask the protesters to move to the other side of the road?



allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
don4l said:
Why do you think that the police didn't ask the protesters to move to the other side of the road?
How do you know they didn't?

Axionknight

8,505 posts

134 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
Presumably such upstanding and law abiding citizens, as you clearly think they are/were, would surely do as the officers requested without too much hastle.....

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
Axionknight said:
Presumably such upstanding and law abiding citizens, as you clearly think they are/were, would surely do as the officers requested without too much hastle.....
What makes you assume that?

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
allergictocheese said:
don4l said:
Why do you think that the police didn't ask the protesters to move to the other side of the road?
How do you know they didn't?
Don't be so obtuse.

There were less than 40 protesters. If the police wanted them to move, then it would have been easy to make them move. The police are accustomed to dealing with many thousands of people.

If you are being paid to write this drivel, then you should start looking for alternative employment - because when your paymasters see what a rubbish job you are doing, they will terminate your contract.

Now, let me ask you again. Why do you think that the police didn't ask the protesters to cross the road?

(This time, try to give a semi-intelligent answer.)


allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
How do you know they didn't? Which power do you believe they should have used to move them if they refused?

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Tuesday 10th February 2015
quotequote all
don4l said:
allergictocheese said:
Scuffers said:
Total tosh.

They were restricting a citizen expressing their views, ie, preventing free speech
It's only 'total tosh' because you don't understand the concept that they were not committing any offence and the police were not lawfully able to restrict their right to express themselves.
You don't appear to understand section 5 of the Public Order Act.

Here is the relevant bit:-

Public Order Act - 1986 said:
5 Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

[b](a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,[/b]

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a)he engages in offensive conduct which [F2a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
The Police clearly thought that the small crowd was "threatening", otherwise they wouldn't have advised Nigel to stay indoors. The placards that had the word "Bigatry"[sic] were clearly insulting.

So, the police had clear grounds to arrest some of the protesters. Yet they chose to keep Nigel trapped for two hours.

Shame on SYP.
allergictocheese, you appear to have missed this post.

Do you understand section 5 of the Public Order Act?

Can you see why your employers might be a little bit disappointed with your performance?



TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED