UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[FiF]

don4l said:

I wonder if I am alone in finding this to be a deeply unpleasant post.

We should be able to disagree about politics while celebrating our shared love of cars.

While we don't have common ground re UKIP I have to agree.

For a post with a start saying this is without malice, to end with a coldly calculated unpleasant bit of useless triumphalism demonstrates the mealy mouthed nature of the opening.

True colours shown there. Shame.

[allergictocheese]

don4l said:

I'm typing this very slowly in the hope that you might understand.

It is the job of the Police to provide secrity.

You can type as quickly as you like. It has no bearing on the coherence or accuracy of your post.

The Police are not obliged to provide security. They are, however, duty bound to prevent breaches of the peace. In doing so they may feel it necessary to impede one party or another. It Farage doesn't want the Police to impede his own actions, he ought to get himself sufficient security that a breach of the peace becomes unlikely and the police do not have to intervene.

[allergictocheese]

don4l said:

I'm typing this very slowly in the hope that you might understand.

It is the job of the Police to provide secrity.

You can type as quickly as you like. It has no bearing on the coherence or accuracy of your post.

The Police are not obliged to provide security. They are, however, duty bound to prevent breaches of the peace. In doing so they may feel it necessary to impede one party or another. It Farage doesn't want the Police to impede his own actions, he ought to get himself sufficient security that a breach of the peace becomes unlikely and the police do not have to intervene.

[NoNeed]

allergictocheese said:

don4l said:

I'm typing this very slowly in the hope that you might understand.

It is the job of the Police to provide secrity.

You can type as quickly as you like. It has no bearing on the coherence or accuracy of your post.

The Police are not obliged to provide security. They are, however, duty bound to prevent breaches of the peace. In doing so they may feel it necessary to impede one party or another. It Farage doesn't want the Police to impede his own actions, he ought to get himself sufficient security that a breach of the peace becomes unlikely and the police do not have to intervene.

Crime prevention is a duty the police cannot ignore. If they have any reason to suspect that a breach of the peace is even going to happen they are duty bound to prevent it.

[allergictocheese]

NoNeed said:

rime prevention is a duty the police cannot ignore. If they have any reason to suspect that a breach of the peace is even going to happen they are duty bound to prevent it.

The police can only act to prevent a breach of the peace that is imminent (both in time and location). They can't, for example, suspect a breach of the peace might happen in the future if two sides are to meet and prevent one or the other from doing so.

In any case, preventing a breach of the peace does not constitute providing security to one side or the other. It's an impartial duty to society. Hence, if Farage feels unsafe because of rowdy protesters, absent any likelihood of an imminent breach of the peace, the Police are not obliged to do anything (and if they do become obliged, they may choose to impede Farage, rather than those protesting against him). Farage should engage suitable personal security if he wants to avoid feeling outnumbered, as his personal security is not the job of the police.

[NoNeed]

allergictocheese said:

NoNeed said:

rime prevention is a duty the police cannot ignore. If they have any reason to suspect that a breach of the peace is even going to happen they are duty bound to prevent it.

The police can only act to prevent a breach of the peace that is imminent (both in time and location). They can't, for example, suspect a breach of the peace might happen in the future if two sides are to meet and prevent one or the other from doing so.

In any case, preventing a breach of the peace does not constitute providing security to one side or the other. It's an impartial duty to society. Hence, if Farage feels unsafe because of rowdy protesters, absent any likelihood of an imminent breach of the peace, the Police are not obliged to do anything (and if they do become obliged, they may choose to impede Farage, rather than those protesting against him). Farage should engage suitable personal security if he wants to avoid feeling outnumbered, as his personal security is not the job of the police.

Actually they can. It has been known for past events to be used to allocate [police resources. They even go to football matches for instance, just in case.

They use powers of stop and search for instance to prevent crimes and lay charges of such things as going equipped to commit crime as a result.

If the police know Farage is coming to town they should send people there, no question as past events show there will be a likely breach of peace.

Every bodies personal safety when in public is a police issue.

[allergictocheese]

You have a poor understanding of police powers and responsibilities. Perhaps you are not alone, which is why you take the view that you (and others) have?

[NoNeed]

allergictocheese said:

You have a poor understanding of police powers and responsibilities. Perhaps you are not alone, which is why you take the view that you (and others) have?

I have a view told to me by police officers.

I go to football matches and I am regularly shepherded along police approved routes for reason of safety/security when I ahve not committed a single crime nor am I likely to.

[FiF]

Don't let the fact that it's George Monbiot stop a few unpalatable truths be handed out to the one eyed.

http://www.monbiot.com/2005/10/04/protesters-are-c...

[egor110]

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.

[allergictocheese]

NoNeed said:

I have a view told to me by police officers.

I go to football matches and I am regularly shepherded along police approved routes for reason of safety/security when I ahve not committed a single crime nor am I likely to.

That police attend large scale events does not mean they are providing security to any one party. It is common sense to attend to maintain public order. You would also know that the Police can and do charge some football clubs for their attendance.

You will also know that the Police were in attendance in Rotherham when Farage chose not to leave the confines of his party office. What they didn't (and couldn't) do, was to stop the protesters from protesting. In which case, they advised Farage not to carry out his planned ribbon cutting. The police were not there to provide Farage (or the protesters) with security, but to maintain public order (which they did).

[Axionknight]

egor110 said:

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.

Some, but not an army of them.

[Zod]

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.

I think there are millions of closet LibDem voters who daren't admit that they are going to vote LibDem and confound all predictions.




(see, you can say that for any party)

[allergictocheese]

Axionknight said:

Some, but not an army of them.

For this election I think there'll be the same issue for all the main parties. Long standing Labourites will not particularly want to admit they want Miliband as PM, nor will Conservatives all feel comfortable with Cameron and I'd have thought Liberals will be left flailing a bit.

If I were to put my head above the parapet, I'd possibly go for a collapse in Labour votes as those who want to vote labour don't, as they really don't see Miliband as PM material. Scotland will see them worse than decimated and parliament will be far less a two party institution than it is now as a result. I don't think the current polls give a clear picture because people's intentions and ultimate actions can be two very different things.

[DeanR32]

There will most likely be just as many people intending to vote ukip, and change their minds at the last minute, as there will be people voting ukip at the last minute.

So in turn levelling itself out.

[Username888]

The Police won't let protestors ANYONE NEAR Islamic fundamentalists preaching hatred and violence. And I am not just referring to EDL thugs, - even well behaved protestors won't even be allowed on the same side of the street.

In regards to the police intervening if they believe that there may be an a law broken, - they got it wrong in this instance as Nigel Farage was hit over the head with a placard.

Time and time again we see two-teir Police system here in the UK.

Edited by Username888 on Tuesday 10th February 14:04

[NoNeed]

allergictocheese said:

NoNeed said:

I have a view told to me by police officers.

I go to football matches and I am regularly shepherded along police approved routes for reason of safety/security when I ahve not committed a single crime nor am I likely to.

That police attend large scale events does not mean they are providing security to any one party. It is common sense to attend to maintain public order. You would also know that the Police can and do charge some football clubs for their attendance.

You will also know that the Police were in attendance in Rotherham when Farage chose not to leave the confines of his party office. What they didn't (and couldn't) do, was to stop the protesters from protesting. In which case, they advised Farage not to carry out his planned ribbon cutting. The police were not there to provide Farage (or the protesters) with security, but to maintain public order (which they did).

They have been known to move protesters many many times in the past and use tactics such as kettling to do so. There are many videos on youtube of protesters be moved.


All in the name of security/safety.

[NoNeed]

NoNeed said:

allergictocheese said:

NoNeed said:

I have a view told to me by police officers.

I go to football matches and I am regularly shepherded along police approved routes for reason of safety/security when I ahve not committed a single crime nor am I likely to.

That police attend large scale events does not mean they are providing security to any one party. It is common sense to attend to maintain public order. You would also know that the Police can and do charge some football clubs for their attendance.

You will also know that the Police were in attendance in Rotherham when Farage chose not to leave the confines of his party office. What they didn't (and couldn't) do, was to stop the protesters from protesting. In which case, they advised Farage not to carry out his planned ribbon cutting. The police were not there to provide Farage (or the protesters) with security, but to maintain public order (which they did).

They have been known to move protesters many many times in the past and use tactics such as kettling to do so. There are many videos on youtube of protesters be moved.


All in the name of security/safety.

These are the same people that hate cameron, why don't they get as close to him as they do Farage?


You are my friend, talking bks, The police can and do this sort of thing all the time I even remember reports of them keeping protester away from Muslim preachers in London when they were doing some sort of open air service, closing local roads.

[NoNeed]

Police don't stop protests lol I have heard it all now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W77mnfAM2uk


It is a daily occurance

[allergictocheese]

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...