Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Britain First Conference Halted
46 Answers
On what legal grounds could Kent Police call an immediate halt to this event behind closed doors?
Is this not another attempt at stifling freedom of speech and enforcing political prejudice?
Is this not another attempt at stifling freedom of speech and enforcing political prejudice?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
PP,
It is true that all we know is that the Police have confirmed that they reacted to a report of a disturbance.
I am aware that several large police vans turned up at the scene as well as a Dog Unit. This is the interesting part, police officers pushed a listening device to a side door to the main room where the members were seated. The police have admitted that only one harassment warning was issued and no other offences were committed.
Under these circumstances is it not reasonable to assume that such disruptive action would cause a premature end to proceedings?
OG,
BF is a registered political party who stood for the first time in a by-election last week. Their campaign was seriously undermined by the authorities already referred to. Their first conference was to discuss a strategy for 2015.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by stating it is a 'borderline thing to do'? Seems reasonable to do as any party would do or were you referring to the police's actions?
Maybe the police didn't close the event down but the resources they deployed and tactics used meant that the organisers had no choice but to end it.
It is true that all we know is that the Police have confirmed that they reacted to a report of a disturbance.
I am aware that several large police vans turned up at the scene as well as a Dog Unit. This is the interesting part, police officers pushed a listening device to a side door to the main room where the members were seated. The police have admitted that only one harassment warning was issued and no other offences were committed.
Under these circumstances is it not reasonable to assume that such disruptive action would cause a premature end to proceedings?
OG,
BF is a registered political party who stood for the first time in a by-election last week. Their campaign was seriously undermined by the authorities already referred to. Their first conference was to discuss a strategy for 2015.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by stating it is a 'borderline thing to do'? Seems reasonable to do as any party would do or were you referring to the police's actions?
Maybe the police didn't close the event down but the resources they deployed and tactics used meant that the organisers had no choice but to end it.
// Under these circumstances is it not reasonable to assume that such disruptive action would cause a premature end to proceedings? //
er no not really - if there is a fight in a fish shop they dont close down the fish shop....( pub, club, supermarket, shebeen, crack house ) - that is not me speaking as a pub-"lawyer" but as a householder walking up the street in N Manch
What they CAN do for a private function - is 'advise' that the party holders close it down. and it is wise to do so. This occurred at my niece's daughters 21st when a cousin started a fight ( keep it in the family- huh ? ) and of course the party holder was ..... a retired policeman. I was made to sit at the 'naughty table' along with 'fighter' and his pals at a later function, to act as 'senior monitor'.
er no not really - if there is a fight in a fish shop they dont close down the fish shop....( pub, club, supermarket, shebeen, crack house ) - that is not me speaking as a pub-"lawyer" but as a householder walking up the street in N Manch
What they CAN do for a private function - is 'advise' that the party holders close it down. and it is wise to do so. This occurred at my niece's daughters 21st when a cousin started a fight ( keep it in the family- huh ? ) and of course the party holder was ..... a retired policeman. I was made to sit at the 'naughty table' along with 'fighter' and his pals at a later function, to act as 'senior monitor'.
.
Oxygen of publicity to Britian First.
page here: https:/
Jayden Thingey accepts she broke the law if she accepted a caution....
It was a god-send to a political party of 20 -30 as far as I can see
If anyone was reminded of the rhetoric of Dave Spart in Private Eye, so was I .
Oxygen of publicity to Britian First.
page here: https:/
Jayden Thingey accepts she broke the law if she accepted a caution....
It was a god-send to a political party of 20 -30 as far as I can see
If anyone was reminded of the rhetoric of Dave Spart in Private Eye, so was I .
PP,
Your analogies aren't a realistic comparison. BF have been under increasing pressure and scrutiny by the authorities and judging by the police response, which appears heavy here, it would not have been feasible to continue. If BF are to be believed that the police did cut the power supply then the agenda would have been curtailed anyway.
One of several anomalies is whether Jayda Fransen received a police caution as claimed by BF but denied by Kent Police.
It doesn't appear to be the case to me that the operators were advised by police to shut the event down, in view of their own comments.
The trouble BF have had in staging a conference maybe should result in an 'impartial monitor' to be present!
Bit low on your estimate by the way, more nearer 100 than 20-30.
Your analogies aren't a realistic comparison. BF have been under increasing pressure and scrutiny by the authorities and judging by the police response, which appears heavy here, it would not have been feasible to continue. If BF are to be believed that the police did cut the power supply then the agenda would have been curtailed anyway.
One of several anomalies is whether Jayda Fransen received a police caution as claimed by BF but denied by Kent Police.
It doesn't appear to be the case to me that the operators were advised by police to shut the event down, in view of their own comments.
The trouble BF have had in staging a conference maybe should result in an 'impartial monitor' to be present!
Bit low on your estimate by the way, more nearer 100 than 20-30.
-- answer removed --
I don't know. You turn your back for a moment and the friendly British bobbies don riot gear and becomes a militia doing the bidding of their political masters under the guise of keeping public order.
What are they putting in the water that makes us accept constant abuses of power regarding trumped up offences?
What are they putting in the water that makes us accept constant abuses of power regarding trumped up offences?
Jordyboy,
Well said indeed. I wondered if anyone would make the very point that you have. As you say, it's all or nothing. For some reason I can't view the clip at the minute.
Douglas,
Another point well made. BF are based in Kent and the police there have their cards well and truly marked and there are no jokers.
Well said indeed. I wondered if anyone would make the very point that you have. As you say, it's all or nothing. For some reason I can't view the clip at the minute.
Douglas,
Another point well made. BF are based in Kent and the police there have their cards well and truly marked and there are no jokers.
@agchristie
you're worryingly knowledgeable about the activities of this group. Is this purely journalistic interest or are you their PR?
@PP
I like the phrase ''pub "lawyer"''. Can we launch a campaign to have the "Pub Law" justice system instituted in this country, as a satire of Sharia Law, which amounts to roughly the same thing:- bunch of self-appointed geezers, dispensing justice as they see fit.
Oxygen of publicity is right. Extremists always shout loudest about infringements of - or limitations on - freedom of speech. Those who spout repellant views are the first to bump into the glass door of other people's tolerance limits and be told to STFU.
you're worryingly knowledgeable about the activities of this group. Is this purely journalistic interest or are you their PR?
@PP
I like the phrase ''pub "lawyer"''. Can we launch a campaign to have the "Pub Law" justice system instituted in this country, as a satire of Sharia Law, which amounts to roughly the same thing:- bunch of self-appointed geezers, dispensing justice as they see fit.
Oxygen of publicity is right. Extremists always shout loudest about infringements of - or limitations on - freedom of speech. Those who spout repellant views are the first to bump into the glass door of other people's tolerance limits and be told to STFU.
Hypo,
No, not the PR officer. I have noted with much interest the attitudes from various authorities towards BF.
I covered a number of issues in my previous thread about whether Paul Golding can be considered guilty of the two charges he faces in January, namely, the wearing of a political uniform and harassment as well as the Royal Mail leaflet matter.
I think these are pertinent issues in considering whether the group are right to feel persecuted. We shall know soon enough.
No, not the PR officer. I have noted with much interest the attitudes from various authorities towards BF.
I covered a number of issues in my previous thread about whether Paul Golding can be considered guilty of the two charges he faces in January, namely, the wearing of a political uniform and harassment as well as the Royal Mail leaflet matter.
I think these are pertinent issues in considering whether the group are right to feel persecuted. We shall know soon enough.
@ag
"No, not the PR officer. "
Carfully worded? You realise I left the door wide open there - for you to disavow any connection with them whatsoever and you didn't take it. My curiosity is irked by this.
Before anyone takes you to task though, I must confess ignorance about what they actually stand for. Going on just the name alone, I figure they are either BNP-lite or BNP are BF-lite.
For Britain to come first, something must be defined as "un-Britain" and then made to be second. To them, it is perceived as "looking after one another", against a rising tide of "other". To the rest of the planet it has shades of 1930s Germany.
"No, not the PR officer. "
Carfully worded? You realise I left the door wide open there - for you to disavow any connection with them whatsoever and you didn't take it. My curiosity is irked by this.
Before anyone takes you to task though, I must confess ignorance about what they actually stand for. Going on just the name alone, I figure they are either BNP-lite or BNP are BF-lite.
For Britain to come first, something must be defined as "un-Britain" and then made to be second. To them, it is perceived as "looking after one another", against a rising tide of "other". To the rest of the planet it has shades of 1930s Germany.
> I must confess ignorance about what they actually stand for
Here are a few links to start you off:
* http://
* http://
* http://
* http://
* http://
* http://
* http://
* http://
* http://
* https:/
* http://
* http://
Here are a few links to start you off:
* http://
* http://
* http://
* http://
* http://
* http://
* http://
* http://
* http://
* https:/
* http://
* http://
Ellipsis,
All your links may go some way to answering your own question.
Hypo,
I'm not sure why you added the word worryingly to knowledgeable when all the facts are in the public domain. My interpretations, I believe, are based on sound logic. You asked me, strangely, if I was a PR officer, which I answered and then qualified by adding my interest to attitudes adopted by the authorities. As Naomi pointed out in the last thread, I am not on trial or any political allegiance I may have is of no consequence.
You stated you did not know what BF stood for and then tried to unravel the party name and then made a comparison to 1930's Germany!
BF stood in a by-election for the first time last week on one issue only. The controversial approval of a mega mosque in Gillingham which faced much opposition. The same issues apply in Dudley. It is worth investigating these. It seems that campaigning against proposals like this is deemed as racist but that is a parochial outlook. The Royal Mail came to the same conclusion regarding the election material but had there been time to challenge that decision in the High Court the outcome would have certainly been in BF's favour.
I think an organisation like BF whose main issues are not a million miles from UKIP's, such as EU and immigration, will face continued attention but it is likely to strengthen their resolve amid all the adversity.
People may take me to task over such a comment but tell me I am wrong?
All your links may go some way to answering your own question.
Hypo,
I'm not sure why you added the word worryingly to knowledgeable when all the facts are in the public domain. My interpretations, I believe, are based on sound logic. You asked me, strangely, if I was a PR officer, which I answered and then qualified by adding my interest to attitudes adopted by the authorities. As Naomi pointed out in the last thread, I am not on trial or any political allegiance I may have is of no consequence.
You stated you did not know what BF stood for and then tried to unravel the party name and then made a comparison to 1930's Germany!
BF stood in a by-election for the first time last week on one issue only. The controversial approval of a mega mosque in Gillingham which faced much opposition. The same issues apply in Dudley. It is worth investigating these. It seems that campaigning against proposals like this is deemed as racist but that is a parochial outlook. The Royal Mail came to the same conclusion regarding the election material but had there been time to challenge that decision in the High Court the outcome would have certainly been in BF's favour.
I think an organisation like BF whose main issues are not a million miles from UKIP's, such as EU and immigration, will face continued attention but it is likely to strengthen their resolve amid all the adversity.
People may take me to task over such a comment but tell me I am wrong?
Right. That must explain why BF polled about a third of the votes of the Monster Raving Loony Party, and about 1/300th of the votes of UKIP ...
Maybe at the next General Election BF can once again field their own candidates and recommend to their supporters that they vote for UKIP instead, then claim some kind of Pyrrhic victory!
Maybe at the next General Election BF can once again field their own candidates and recommend to their supporters that they vote for UKIP instead, then claim some kind of Pyrrhic victory!
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
When Exactly Was Louise Haigh's Fraud...
News34 mins ago
Oooh My Christmas Present Just Came
ChatterBank41 mins ago
ChatterBank54 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.