Assaults on UKIP members follows incitement

Post Reply New Topic

There has been similar problems recently in Germany, with members of the new anti-€ party Alternative for Germany being violently assaulted by far-left members allied to the Young Greens.

Are you pushing a particular line here, or what.

Tequila, one of my best friends is a Brit. He seems to like UKIP a lot himself. You're lucky to have something more than the duopoly that passes for politics here in the States.

Terrible article, only 1 incident mentioned and yet uses "Assaults" for some reason.

Offers only 1 example of negitive media attention and yet this is held up as a "negative narrative".

This article makes UKIP look like they just can't deal with the full glare of the national media.

I'm not from the UK, and while it's none of my business, but the sound a lot like the lunatic fringe here in the US, from what I can make out from Wikipaedia.

Do you think it's ever acceptable for political representatives to be physically assaulted by their opponents?

(FWIW, I personally wasn't best pleased with Godfrey Bloom tapping Crick's head with the magazine.)



Don't you remember the incident this year with the UAF invading a meeting and trying to shout Farage down (UKIP have since banned HNH members from joining the party - as they consider them to be on the extremist fringes of people - like the BNP or NF - they don't want in its ranks)? Or the incident up in Scotland, where Farage was locked in a pub and screamed at for half an hour and had to be taken out under a police escort? Do you see the rudeness with which UKIP representatives are often treated with in the media? They ask them the same few questions over and over again about racism, about Godfrey Bloom's outburst, weeks after they occurred. Amjad Bashir (who I've met) was on The Daily Politics recently, and that's all they talked about for ten minutes. He suggested that they talk about other things too, but they weren't having any of it. (This is not at all the same as even quite tough and serious questioning; I want to see UKIP representatives put through the wringer on various policies. I don't want the media to resort to lazy accusations of racism.)

The constant demonisation of UKIP as a 'racist' party is fomenting this kind of reaction. I suspect we'll see more problems like this, just as members of the anti-€ Alternative for Germany party have suffered assaults from the far-left.



We can. The problem is that the media have been demonising us for years. You wouldn't see Labour treated in the same way that we do, and they don't mind having ex-BNP (et al.) in their ranks.



How do you work that out?

We're a party that stands for self-determination, national sovereignty and parliamentary supremacy. We believe in leaving the European Union (organising a simple trade agreement with them) and becoming an independent country once again that makes its own laws and that has full control of its borders. We believe in a reformed welfare state free of waste and that serves and protects those that need aid, an end to open-door immigration from the EU, a tough law and order policy, and a largely non-interventionist foreign policy that is predicated on global trade.

This kind of stuff isn't controversial in many Commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia or New Zealand.

UKIP is a bit like the Libertarians of the U.S., but in practical terms UKIP's policies are far more left-wing than the U.S. Libertarians are. The tiny Libertarian Party UK is much more like the U.S. Libertarians in policy.

People get assaulted all the time. Just because they may be associated with a group it does not mean that they deserve sympathy. I do not condone violence, but people of all groups would have been assaulted at one point.

One attack, while unexceptable, is not the same as multiple attacks. Its rather amusing that the author claims to be a UKIP supporter and yet can't use English correctly.



Your proving my point, the author didn't mention those events.



Anything to back up that statement, or is this another case of a multiple being confusing with a single.



Have you not heard about the Daily Mail article on Ed Miliband's father, or the Daily Mail reporter intruding on a family memorial service. The press behaving badly is not party specific.

So you were pushing a line, hmm.

You're a party that stands for power for the sake of power, like all parties end up. Your notions of being able to leave the European Union are farcical, given the Maastrict treaty and other agreements which are pretty binding. Given globalisation and the influence of multinationals, no country is independent. We cannot afford the welfare state system, waste or no waste - from 1909 onwards, it wasn't designed to support so many people in the way that we now expect it to. Tough law and order policies fail, because they don't deal with the root causes of crime (It makes a good soundbite for the upper middle classes, though). The largely non-interventionist foreign policy is pie in the sky.

Your post indirectly harps back to a golden age which never happened, or if it did, it happened for a certain class of people.

The UKIP party would prove to be about as useful as a chocolate fireguard. It's not operating in the real world.

Apparently fighting in parliaments is quite common in certain parts of the world. I stumbled on this picture from Kiev in 2012.

I don't know about UKIP. but from what you say it doesn't sound particularly extremist.

I did notice that you never answered my question as to whether unprovoked violence/assaults on political opponents is ever acceptable. That speaks volumes.

He forgot another attack on UKIP members that also happened recently:



So that's an assault on a UKIP councillor and a journalist alledgedly gatecrashing a private party and smacking the chairman of Young Independence Scotland in the face and pulling her hair, amongst other things. All within the space of a few weeks.



Nor, seemingly, can you:



Oh, and:



Sorry.

I'll answer your question by saying: yes, he could have researched his article much better.



Yes, of course. I mentioned it at the time.

This is from August 2013:





I think that the Daily Mail (or any newspaper) would have been perfectly in the right to run an article of some kind on Ed Milliband's father and his political views. If Miliband didn't want attention drawn to his father, he shouldn't have mentioned him as being a huge political inspiration at every opportunity.

Let's put it in a different context, shall we?

Let's imagine that Nigel Farage had a father who in his youth had supported Moseley in the 1930s and had publicly expressed his support (at the time) for some of the Nazi policies (anti-Bolshevism for example), and Nigel had made a number of speeches extolling his father's virtues, and the impact he had made on his political philosophy.

What do you think would be the left-wing reaction to all that? Do you think that the left would have ignored that story or not?

That said, the article itself was both rather dickish and a poor piece of journalism. There wasn't anything particularly juicy about it besides Ralph Miliband's comments on the Falklands War.

I take it you'd have been similarly outraged about, say, similarly brutal articles on Margaret Thatcher's dead father were she still alive?



That was absolutely foul and repellent behaviour. The reporter and the paper went against common human decency on that one. No argument whatsoever.



You'd have to see a branch meeting to see how non-extremist and how anodyne we really are. Honestly, they are boring half the time.



My main point is that people should not be assaulting representatives of political parties. It is an attack on the democratic process. I don't care whom it is carried out by - that part is irrelevant to me, although most of the political violence here in this country is carried out by the far-left (the ironically-titled UAF for example).



We can undo them using several methods (the ECA 1972 as well as possibly Article 50). There are ways to leave the EU. No parliament can bind its successor, and nothing can stop the UK leaving the EU should it wish to do so.

The main challenges as I see it would not really be leaving the EU, but a) negotiating a decent trade agreement with them [we'd be in a pretty strong position as it is - we buy more from them than they buy from us]

We could force our way out if necessary. The likes of Barroso seem pretty keen on getting rid of us in any case.



I'm pretty open about my UKIP membership and support. It's no secret.



I don't see why. I'm suggesting that we keep out of foreign conflicts, and maintain our army as a defence force for protecting the UK, the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.

I don't want to see continued British intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq or new UK intervention in Sytia.



And what are those, may I ask? Don't tell me, don't tell me...



It's quite a modern way of thinking. It reflects Britain as it should be - a global, forward-thinking country with an open face to the world. A country that makes its own laws, sets its own standards, and that co-operates and co-exists with its neighbours. It is not a reactionary or intolerant worldview, but neither is it tolerant of intolerance.



You're aware that that worldview puts you with the extreme libertarians, correct?

Actually, no, it puts me in a group who have studied the history and finances of the welfare state system, with no political agenda whatsoever. I wonder what the UKIP policy is on tax rises to pay for it all. Actually, no I don't wonder.

[/quote] And what are those, may I ask? Don't tell me, don't tell me... [\quote]

How rude.

Well, I think your arrogant post speaks for itself, really. It reads like a poorly written campaign leaflet you'd get through the door. Who are you writing it for? Perhaps you're trying to convince yourself.

Britain will do what it's told to do.

I have taken the liberty of correcting Tequila's minor misquotations of my previous post, shown in italics.

The difference is I don't identify, either as an individual or through group membership, as someone who advances a culturally Anglo-centric viewpoint.



So many shots fired and yet you miss the point, which was the line you left out of your otherwise quite comprehensive reply, which was...