UKC

Labour now think mob rule "hilarious"

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 MG 06 Feb 2015
I am no UKIP supporter but they have perfect right to speak and travel freely. A view not shared it seems by Labour who find it

“Hilarious Nigel Farage is trapped inside the Rotherham Ukip shop by people objecting to him coming to rubber neck at victims!” she tweeted.

Argue against him if you disagree, don't encourage baying mobs.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/06/nigel-farage-rotherham-prot...
 marsbar 06 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

It is distasteful to use the victims of child abuse to score political points. I can see why people are unhappy.
2
OP MG 06 Feb 2015
In reply to marsbar:

Except he wasn't...
1
 Ian Jones 06 Feb 2015
In reply to marsbar:

The Rotherham child abuse scandal is one of the worst cases of such behaviour ever. Social workers and police have been stupid and neglectful. The local politicians have resigned en masse. We can only guess at who is involved in kiddy fiddling and covering up the truth. We know that Asian men were involved in some of the most heinous acts but of course only racists (or Private Eye subscribers) would dare mention this.
I imagine many Rotherham people are embarrassed at the attention. The town will forever be linked with countless acts of abuse, neglect, denial and cover-up.
 pec 06 Feb 2015
In reply to marsbar:

> It is distasteful to use the victims of child abuse to score political points. I can see why people are unhappy. >

Some people may think its distasteful to allow political correctness to turn a blind eye to serious crimes. As the former Rotherham MP, Denis MacShane said, he was a Gurdian reading liberal leftie.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11059643/Denis-MacShane-I-was-...
Not saying he personally holds any responsibility but there's no doubt that those sort of attitudes contributed to the problem.
It doesn't seem unreasonable for their political opponents to point that out.
 marsbar 06 Feb 2015
In reply to pec:

I don't disagree that what happened was dreadful, and that it should be discussed. So does the ridiculous idea that the perpetrators ethnicity was not to be mentioned. However it still seems to me that various political types are using the awful things that happened for their own ends, and don't really care about the victims.
OP MG 06 Feb 2015
In reply to marsbar:
Blunt and distasteful but true, as confirmed by the recent report. But not related to the latest incident, which if the link above is correct wasn't related to the child abuse cases until the labour MP made a link and attempted to use it to silence Farage.
Post edited at 21:02
 gribble 06 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

This IS Rotherham we're talking about. It's not really fair to compare it to other places when it comes to clear balanced thinking.
 The New NickB 06 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

Have your comments any relation to the story at all?
1
 Bulls Crack 06 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

Labour now think mod rule hilarious'

Are you a journalist for the Daily Mail? The use of 'now' is a dead give-away
1
 Ridge 06 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

Disgusting behaviour by UKIP. I applaud Labour for denouncing them, even if there is evidence that the Labour controlled council facilitated child abuse for political ends...
1
 Timmd 06 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:
It looks to me like it isn't Labour thinking mob rule is hillarious, and more one Labour MP tweeting that Farage staying indoors in the face of public and vocal disgust is hillarous.

Can I ask which you find worse, that Farage stayed inside and a Labour MP tweeted her amusement, or that UKIP used the child abuse as a topic to make political capital out of for one of their adverts?

Don't you think that people have the right to protest in a noisey but peaceful way, if they don't like what (the leader of) a politcal party has done?
Post edited at 23:59
1
 Timmd 06 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:
It comes across as if you've used one Labour tweet to imply that Labour don't think UKIP have the perfect right to speak and travel freely. Is it that you're just not much of a fan of Labour?

I can easily understand why Rotherham residents wanted to gather to tell Farage what they thought of him and UKIP.

Farage can't have been unaware of the way in which child abuse victims were being used as political capital, for UKIP to have done was in very bad taste.
Post edited at 00:05
 Timmd 07 Feb 2015
In reply to gribble:
> This IS Rotherham we're talking about. It's not really fair to compare it to other places when it comes to clear balanced thinking.

You vaguely remind me of the Conservative guy who commented along the lines of 'We don't want people from Sheffield flying off for holidays in the sun' when a Sheffield airport was the topic of discussion.

Have you seen the poster which marsbar posted a link to? They used the child abuse victims to urge people to vote UKIP.

Don't you think that's in very bad taste?

Not only have young people been abused, they've had a politcal party use the fact as poitical capital...
Post edited at 00:07
 Timmd 07 Feb 2015
In reply to pec:
> Some people may think its distasteful to allow political correctness to turn a blind eye to serious crimes. As the former Rotherham MP, Denis MacShane said, he was a Gurdian reading liberal leftie.

> h ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11059643/Denis-MacShane-I-was-too-much-of-a-liberal-lef...

> Not saying he personally holds any responsibility but there's no doubt that those sort of attitudes contributed to the problem.

Absolutely

> It doesn't seem unreasonable for their political opponents to point that out.

Saying that there's 1400 reasons not to vote for a Labour police and crimes comissioner in your own political party's advert, with a black and white picture of a miserable looking young female, isn't really pointing out that deeply misguided attitudes of political correctness allowed child abuse to happen on a huge scale, though. Voting for a UKIP PCC wouldn't have done anything to change the fabric of the Labour council and remove the poeple who hadn't quit at the time of the advert from their jobs.

All it's really doing is using the emotional disgust and sympathy and other feelings people have in relation to child abuse, as a way of prompting people to vote UKIP instead of Labour, when voting for a Police & Crimes Comissioner.

Can you see what I'm getting at?
Post edited at 00:30
1
OP MG 07 Feb 2015
In reply to Timmd:
> Don't you think that people have the right to protest in a noisey but peaceful way, if they don't like what (the leader of) a politcal party has done?

It wasn't peaceful, which is the whole point. Farage couldn't leave a building on police advice. And actually, no. Shouting down people you disagree with, even if non violent, is not a way to run healthy politics.
Post edited at 08:47
1
OP MG 07 Feb 2015
In reply to Timmd:
.

> Can I ask which you find worse, that Farage stayed inside and a Labour MP tweeted her amusement, or that UKIP used the child abuse as a topic to make political capital out of for one of their adverts?

It was the Labour MP making the child abuse an issue here, not Farage, who was opening an office. But regardless, the former. The child abuse problems were in part serious precisely because no one would talk about the issue.
Post edited at 08:48
OP MG 07 Feb 2015
In reply to Ridge:

> Disgusting behaviour by UKIP. I applaud Labour for denouncing them,

You really support intimidating political opponents!? You normally seem quite rational...

1
OP MG 07 Feb 2015
In reply to Timmd:

> It comes across as if you've used one Labour tweet to imply that Labour don't think UKIP have the perfect right to speak and travel freely. Is it that you're just not much of a fan of Labour?


I don't but think much less of ukip. If the roles were reversed I would posted criticising ukip.

Donnie 07 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> I am no UKIP supporter

Well you certainly seem to have some sympathy with Nigel. Clearly UKIP have been trying to make political capital out of the child abuse in Rotheram. You can argue that's a legitimate thing to do, but (to me at least) it doesn't seem credible to argue that they're not doing it.

Anyway, as for your original comment, mob rule or legitimate protest? Looks like the latter to me.
1
 Ridge 07 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> You really support intimidating political opponents!? You normally seem quite rational...

I should have used a sarcasm flag...
OP MG 07 Feb 2015
In reply to Donnie:

> Well you certainly seem to have some sympathy with Nigel.

Sympathy in the sense I don't think any politician should be forced to cower inside under police protection, not with this policies.

> Anyway, as for your original comment, mob rule or legitimate protest? Looks like the latter to me.

You too!? This thread is getting rather depressing...

OP MG 07 Feb 2015
In reply to Ridge:

Ah, sorry.
 Dauphin 07 Feb 2015
In reply to pec:

Denis McShane a lefty? Maybe in his own creepy dream world. Authoritarian, anti democratic, Zionist, friend of the secret state, no moral fortitude when it came to corrupting his position as publc servant in order to accumulate wealth. Grubby individual. You could tie a red rosette around Mussolini in south Yorkshire and they'd still vote for him.

D
 skog 07 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

You're right, of course, but you do seem to be suffering from a fairly serious sense-of-schadenfreude failure..!
1
 Dauphin 07 Feb 2015
In reply to Ian Jones:

. The town will forever be linked with countless acts of abuse, neglect, denial and cover-up.

The first spring waters before the deluge?
Rotherham council not fit for purpose? Really? How about a tour of any northern shithole with high levels of deprivation, unemployment, low educational attainment and high immigration from S Asia? Its endemic - the witless incompetence of local authorities and the child abuse.

Not that a turd like Pickles would seek to make political capital out if that before an election.

If we are expected to believe that nobody did nothing to protect kids from predatory South Asian rapists because they were worried about being seen as racist then I've completely the wrong idea about how rascism works here in the U.K.

D

1
 gribble 07 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

Crikey. Some rather leftfield views coming out here! Yes, Rotherham is and has been a broken town for quite some time. Hopefully it will pick itself up, but I suspect it will take a view generations and a lot of effort and optimism.

Of course people have the right to protest. Was it peaceful? Seems to me it was. No bloodshed, no destroyed buildings, just political sad people trying to get attention. Was Farage 'hiding' and being protected by police? Aren't we all? I seem to remember the anti-war demos were regarded as a public protest that had substantial support. Was Blair 'hiding' and being protected by police? Presumably it's obvious what I mean here, without getting too spun up on anti-Blair stuff.

Public protest is essential in a democracy.
1
 johncook 07 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

It is quite reasonable for a political party to point out the shortcomings of the opposition. I Rotherham it appears that the 'Labour' Party was at least ignoring the problem, if not worse. Personally I think Farage is an arse, but he has every right to point out the complicity of the local 'Labour' Party is all this.
In this town there is only free speech if you follow the 'labour party' line, only mention the good the party have achieved (there is some) but, do not mention anything that is not one hundred percent in favour of the local Labour Party or the well organised Labour Party activists will be there the shout you down.
The local lot have only resigned from the 'cabinet' but are still councillors and are still carrying out the tasks of the 'cabinet' and collecting the allowances which go with it. Rotherham needs all councillors to resign, new elections to be had in the very short term, with all existing councillors barred from the ballot.
I am a born and bred Rotherham person. None of this is a surprise. Look back at our history of corrupt MP's and local politicians. We must be the 'market leaders' in corrupt towns!
I am embarrassed to acknowledge that I am from Rotherham!
Donnie 07 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> Sympathy in the sense I don't think any politician should be forced to cower inside under police protection, not with this policies.

If you're not for Farage, I find it really difficult to believe that you don't think UKIP are trying to make political capital out of the Rotheram abuse.

> You too!? This thread is getting rather depressing...

I think you're depression's down to seeing only one side of the democracy/free speech equation.

Farage's right to state his views goes along with the right for people to protest. Now, if you have a protest, it could get nasty, hence you need to police there. But until anyone actually does anything illegal it's just part of democracy. And even when some people do do something illegal it's those people that are fault, not everyone that's protesting.

Your position reminds me of the people shouting "Mob rule" when Ched Evan's didn't get employed. Personally, I find it difficult to understand how there wasn't reasonable doubt in that case, but in a democracy you people can protest in lots of different ways. And if people don't feel Ched Evan's should play football or that Nigel Farage is a disgrace they've the right to use whatever legal means they like to do that.
 Sir Chasm 07 Feb 2015
In reply to Donnie:

You're absolutely right, anyone we don't like should be prevented from speaking.
KevinD 07 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> It wasn't peaceful, which is the whole point. Farage couldn't leave a building on police advice.

I am not sure why you feel the latter proves the former? Leaving aside the source for that seems to be UKIP.

> And actually, no. Shouting down people you disagree with, even if non violent, is not a way to run healthy politics.

Its a healthy part of politics to show disapproval. If it was during a debate you might have a point, although your energies would be better spent in that case looking at PM questions, but that doesnt really apply to PR exercises.
1
Donnie 08 Feb 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote or just a bit thick?
1
 john arran 08 Feb 2015
In reply to Donnie:

Sir Chasm? Deliberately misrepresenting? Surely not?
1
OP MG 08 Feb 2015
In reply to Donnie:

> If you're not for Farage, I find it really difficult to believe that you don't think UKIP are trying to make political capital out of the Rotheram abuse.

In a general sense they are (with, let's face it, ample justification). But here they were just opening an office..

> Farage's right to state his views goes along with the right for people to protest. Now, if you have a protest, it could get nasty, hence you need to police there. But until anyone actually does anything illegal it's just part of democracy.

That's where I disagree. If the threat of illegality is sufficient to get advice from the police to stay indoors, that is not part of democracy but a mob. An MP finding this "hilarious" is even worse.


> Your position reminds me of the people shouting "Mob rule" when Ched Evan's didn't get employed.

The difference of course being firstly no one (that I know of) prevented CE potential employers going out doors.


 Jon Stewart 08 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

There are a few issues worthy of discussion in this story. Labour being bad for sending a tweet is not one of them.
1
 Sir Chasm 08 Feb 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> There are a few issues worthy of discussion in this story. Labour being bad for sending a tweet is not one of them.

You're absolutely right, that it was a tweet is neither here nor there. The attitude it displays might be worth discussing. Still not quite as important as the substantive issue, clearly.
 Jon Stewart 08 Feb 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> The attitude it displays might be worth discussing.

Labour MP dislikes Nigel Farage. Can't deny, it's fascinating stuff.
1
 Sir Chasm 08 Feb 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Labour MP dislikes Nigel Farage. Can't deny, it's fascinating stuff.

You prohably need to pick what you consider to be the issue and start a thread about it. This thread, as the first post will tell you, is about another issue.
KevinD 08 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> That's where I disagree. If the threat of illegality is sufficient to get advice from the police to stay indoors, that is not part of democracy but a mob.

Dont suppose you have any evidence, beyond what Farage claimed, of the police advice. Or any footage of those baying mobs?


1
OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to dissonance:
Only that in the article in the OP but it hardly matters with respect to my point about the MP. She thought it happened and found it "hilarious"
Post edited at 08:10
OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:
You don't find MPs thinking intimidating political opponents ok worthy of discussion?
Post edited at 08:00
J1234 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

I find all this wearying, people just seem more interested in ideologies and scoring points than sorting out the underlying problems. I do generally consider that Left times seem to shout down people with opposing views, and are quick to try and tar people as Bigots or Racists or Homo phobics or a myriad of other thought crimes, BUT, then I`m of the right so possibly I`m biased. People just seem so entrenched in ideologies that they will turn a blind eye to dreadful wrongs to defend the greater belief.
Perhaps it is human nature.
This weekend I read an article in the Guardian and saw this, " as if this mattered in the larger scheme of things, or somehow disproved accounts of girls being raped with broken bottles." , and I was just stunned, I bet the people responsible not just the actual perpetrators, but the social workers, police, councilors etc even now are trying to justify their position, it`s just wearying.
 Jon Stewart 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> You don't find MPs thinking intimidating political opponents ok worthy of discussion?

I think that's an irrelevant, manufactured issue in this context. There was a protest against Farage for good reason - you're describing this as "intimidation", when there's no evidence. Who cares what the Labour MP tweeted, nothing happened! Your point is non-existent.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

The only manufactured issue I can see is the Labour MP and the protesters claiming he was "rubber necking". Where is the evidence? He was opening an office.

Also, how is the sentiment in the tweet that MG raises in the original post irrelevant because "nothing happened"? I think a lot of people here are deliberately being obtuse through their prejudice towards UKIP. Unedifying but not really suprising.

I think it's interesting that there were ONLY 40 protesters, they were probably all on Sarah Champions speed dial
 Jon Stewart 09 Feb 2015
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> The only manufactured issue I can see is the Labour MP and the protesters claiming he was "rubber necking". Where is the evidence? He was opening an office.

I agree that this too is manufactured.

> Also, how is the sentiment in the tweet that MG raises in the original post irrelevant because "nothing happened"?

The OP paints a picture of someone endorsing some terrible, anti-democratic behaviour. Which never happened. I think it's self-evident that the sentiment of the tweet is irrelevant.
1
KevinD 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to dissonance) Only that in the article in the OP but it hardly matters with respect to my point about the MP.

Oh really? Where exactly did she acknowledge this mob of yours?
Could it be that she found it funny that he was incapable of dealing with a few, peaceful, protesters?

OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to dissonance:

> Oh really? Where exactly did she acknowledge this mob of yours?

"..trapped inside..." She could have thought he had locked himself in by accident, I suppose.

OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The OP paints a picture of someone endorsing some terrible, anti-democratic behaviour. Which never happened.

Well we have the Guardian report I linked to suggesting it did. But it's not really that important, it's the MP celebrating either an imagined or real occurrence that is the concern to me.
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> Well we have the Guardian report I linked to suggesting it did.

It suggests nothing more than the fact that there were protesters.

> But it's not really that important

No it really is.

> it's the MP celebrating either an imagined or real occurrence that is the concern to me.

You are concerned that an MP is happy that her constituents are protesting against the leader of a rival party, who's policies she likely shares their contempt for.

Any evidence that this went beyond protest in a free(ish) democratic society? Any evidence of violence or intimidation (beyond Farage not feeling very loved)? Any arrests?
KevinD 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> "..trapped inside..." She could have thought he had locked himself in by accident, I suppose.

dear god the lengths you are going to in order to maintain your outrage are quite impressive. She could be referring to the fact that he was trapped by his unwillingness to deal with a group of peaceful protesters.
As the evidence seems to point to. The lack of arrests is rather telling dont you think?

 Timmd 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> It wasn't peaceful, which is the whole point. Farage couldn't leave a building on police advice. And actually, no. Shouting down people you disagree with, even if non violent, is not a way to run healthy politics.

It was peaceful in the sense it wasn't violent. I dare say the police were being cautious, so it's not a given that anything bad would have happened.

Personally I think there's more than one way to make a point of view known, there's voting, or there's discussion, or there's expressing your dislike in a non violent way in the form of protest. With reduced police budgets I guess there's the danger that where protest would have been able to take place along side those it's aimed going about their tasks, it may now happen that the space for the two to coexist is reduced.

I do agree that people shouting down one another isn't a health way for politics to exist though.
KevinD 09 Feb 2015
In reply to Timmd:

> It was peaceful in the sense it wasn't violent. I dare say the police were being cautious

If you look at the link Sir Chasm kindly provided it would appear UKIP were making shit up.
 Timmd 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:
This is quite interesting.

http://www.hallamfm.co.uk/localnews/ukip-dismayed-by-policing-of-leaders-vi...

UKIP say they're 'dismayed' with the way South Yorkshire Police handled a visit by the party leader in Rotherham.

Nigel Farage cancelled a public appearance because of around fifty protestors.

He was in the town to launch the party's election campaign there and was due to cut a ribbon at their new shop on Wellgate.

A statement's been put on the party website:

"Police were made aware of the planned demonstration that we had identified...the police also made assurances that they would monitor the demonstration, promising that if the protesters moved towards the campaign shop from where they had assembled that they would inform us and stop them. They did neither.

"Whilst UKIP fully support the right for people to protest in a lawful manner we also believe that all people should be able to go about their lawful business freely."

We've put those points to South Yorkshire Police.

The force told Hallam:

"Police monitored and managed a small protest as part of a visit by Nigel Farage to the offices of UKIP in Rotherham today (Friday 6 February). At no time was there a risk to any person or property. No threats of violence or damage were made.

"Full liaison was made with Mr Farage's party and, with officers deployed at the scene, were reassured of this situation.

"No police advice was given at any stage to dissuade any activity."
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on pinterest_share Share on google_plusone_share More Sharing Services
Newsletter sign-up

Get all the latest deals and updates straight to your inbox.
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Post edited at 13:48
OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

You are clearly going out of your way to miss my point, so carrying on is perhaps a bit pointless but I will try one more time.

I (and many others) think political debate and activity is a good thing, and that politicians should be free to go about legitimate business without being intimidated. If they can't, the politician with biggest group of shouty-violent people will be the strongest. Here we have a case of one politician celebrating another being trapped inside a building by a mob. There is good reason to think that this took place (newspaper articles etc.) but even if it didn't, that a politician thinks it would have been a good thing had it happened is worrying to me.
 Sir Chasm 09 Feb 2015
In reply to dissonance:

> If you look at the link Sir Chasm kindly provided it would appear UKIP were making shit up.

Or perhaps South Yorkshire Police made shit up, there's a first time for everything.
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> You are clearly going out of your way to miss my point, so carrying on is perhaps a bit pointless but I will try one more time.

No, your point seems clear, it just doesn't seem very well considered.

I have answered every aspect of your explanation. Feel free to get huffy.
KevinD 09 Feb 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Or perhaps South Yorkshire Police made shit up, there's a first time for everything.

possibly but considering ukip claimed simultaneously the police did bugger all and that they also told him to stay inside it aint looking good for the kippers.
OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

> I have answered every aspect of your explanation. Feel free to get huffy.

No you haven't, or it seems understood it, even now. Feel free to get passive-aggressive.
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:
> No you haven't, or it seems understood it, even now. Feel free to get passive-aggressive.

Nice

Explain to me which aspects of your ill thought out comments I haven't addressed!
Post edited at 14:26
 Sir Chasm 09 Feb 2015
In reply to dissonance:

Meh, one copper saying 'ooh, I wouldn't go out there if I were you" might not constitute SYP making a recommendation.
OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

Why you think an MP celebrating another politician (in reality or otherwise) being trapped indoors by a mob is a good thing.
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

I appreciate that myself and others may be making you look a little silly, I guess a little huffiness is to be expected in such circumstances, but it is really appropriate to accuse someone of having a personality disorder, simply because they disagree with you?
 galpinos 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> I (and many others) think political debate and activity is a good thing,

Agreed

> and that politicians should be free to go about legitimate business without being intimidated.

To a point. However, in this case there was a peaceful protest by people who don’t agree with the policies or the previous campaign material of UKIP and they were making their voices heard. If not now, when would this opportunity arise again?

> If they can't, the politician with biggest group of shouty-violent people will be the strongest.

Maybe, but this was a peaceful protest so not really relevant.

> Here we have a case of one politician celebrating another being trapped inside a building by a mob.

Or finding it amusing that he was unable to step outside and deal with a peaceful group of people who disagreed with him.

> There is good reason to think that this took place (newspaper articles etc.) but even if it didn't, that a politician thinks it would have been a good thing had it happened is worrying to me.

This isn’t PMQs, a proper debate or anything of substance, the right to free speech hasn’t been compromised and UKIP can hardly say their voice isn’t heard. It was just a lost opportunity for UKIP to make a little PR stunt. I think you’re trying to make something of nothing here.
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> Why you think an MP celebrating another politician (in reality or otherwise) being trapped indoors by a mob is a good thing.

It really depends what she meant by trapped. Given the events and her likely knowledge of them, it is extremely unlikely that she meant that he was actually trapped.
OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to galpinos:

> This isn’t PMQs, a proper debate or anything of substance, the right to free speech hasn’t been compromised and UKIP can hardly say their voice isn’t heard. It was just a lost opportunity for UKIP to make a little PR stunt. I think you’re trying to make something of nothing here.

I'm glad you can at least see the point I making! OK, we disagree. I don't think this sort of thing is healthy. There have been other incidents, for example Ed Miliband in a shopping centre in the referendum campaign being shouted down by yes supporters. I think politicians should stand against this sort of thing even when superficially it is in their favour, rather than tweet that it is hilarious, otherwise it will just become more commonplace. It's hardly surprising politicians become detached from people if they think they might be mobbed when they go outside and try and say anything.
OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

a personality disorder, simply because they disagree with you?

Passive-aggressiveness is now disorder is it!? If you start calling people names, don't be surprised if they respond in kind.
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:
> a personality disorder, simply because they disagree with you?

> Passive-aggressiveness is now disorder is it!?

I'm no expert, but it does seem to be classed as a disorder.

> If you start calling people names, don't be surprised if they respond in kind.

Well, I suggested you might be getting a bit huffy, your posts suggest this might be the case, you might call it exasperated, but I guess that is down to perspective. So no, I wasn't calling you names, I was responding to your posting style.
Post edited at 14:55
OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to The New NickB:
> Well, I suggested you might be getting a bit huffy, your posts suggest this might be the case, you might call it exasperated, but I guess that is down to perspective. So no, I wasn't calling you names, I was responding to your posting style.

Well your posts suggested your were being passive agressive. Shall we move on from that line of posting?
Post edited at 14:56
KevinD 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> Well your posts suggested your were being passive agressive.

well I think everyone needs to bow to your expertise on the subject of being passive aggressive judging from your comments on this thread.
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> I'm glad you can at least see the point I making! OK, we disagree. I don't think this sort of thing is healthy. There have been other incidents, for example Ed Miliband in a shopping centre in the referendum campaign being shouted down by yes supporters. I think politicians should stand against this sort of thing even when superficially it is in their favour, rather than tweet that it is hilarious, otherwise it will just become more commonplace. It's hardly surprising politicians become detached from people if they think they might be mobbed when they go outside and try and say anything.

Maybe I have missed your point, I hope not though. You want to place even more limits on free speech and democratic protest.
 Mike Stretford 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> Why you think an MP celebrating another politician (in reality or otherwise) being trapped indoors by a mob is a good thing.

It think it was a mistake, but the scandal is an emotive subject which she seems to have become professionally engaged in to the extent of meeting many of the victims. I do think it is inappropriate for UKIP to be standing solely on the back of this issue, so in the long run I don't think I'll hold this outburst against her.
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:
> Well your posts suggested your were being passive agressive. Shall we move on from that line of posting?

No, I would like you to provide a full diagnosis, including examples from my posts.

I appreciate I am starting to sound like Stroppygob here, but I honestly think you have been out of order.
Post edited at 15:05
OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to The New NickB:
You have. Completely. I want exactly the opposite, regarding speech.
Post edited at 15:04
KevinD 09 Feb 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

It does seem strange to have the politicans in a sealed container kept away from anyone who might disagree with them.
Seems likely to lead to politicans being detached when they only see their fanclubs.
Not going to be healthy for the viewing public either if all they see are cheering crowds and not a hint someone might disagree.

I can see why politicans would like it but cant see why anyone else.
if someone cared about influence of the biggest and shoutiest I would have thought their time could be better spent on party funding.



In reply to The New NickB:

> It really depends what she meant by trapped. Given the events and her likely knowledge of them, it is extremely unlikely that she meant that he was actually trapped.

But you said earlier up thread to MG when he raised this point originally

"You are concerned that an MP is happy that her constituents are protesting against the leader of a rival party, who's policies she likely shares their contempt for"

Then patronisingly accuse him of becoming "huffy" and telling him you were making him look silly, to only later acknowledge his original point and address it. What's all that about?
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> You have. Completely. I want exactly the opposite, regarding speech.

You clearly don't want peaceful democratic protest to be encouraged or even condoned. That is free speech as well. You seem confused.
OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

Oh FFS! Here, from Wiki "Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, sarcasm, stubbornness, sullenness, "

You don't think saying to someone "feel free to be huffy" when you don't understand their point fits that description?
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
> "You are concerned that an MP is happy that her constituents are protesting against the leader of a rival party, who's policies she likely shares their contempt for"

What is your point here?

> Then patronisingly accuse him of becoming "huffy" and telling him you were making him look silly, to only later acknowledge his original point and address it. What's all that about?

Well he was being huffy and patronising. I suggested that myself and others making him look silly was no excuse to accuse someone of having personality disorder. Can you clarify what you mean by MG's original point?
Post edited at 15:27
OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

!?! Try reading what I have written again. Not what you think I written, but what I have actually written.

Since you raise the point, I do actually think protests that disproportionately affect others ability to go about their business should be restricted. But I have not until now said that on this thread.
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> Oh FFS! Here, from Wiki "Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, sarcasm, stubbornness, sullenness, "

OK, so now we have established that I am not behaving in a passive aggressive way.

> You don't think saying to someone "feel free to be huffy" when you don't understand their point fits that description?

I do understand your point(s), I just don't agree with them. You have clearly been getting more exasperated as this thread has gone on, because people are perfectly reasonably not agreeing with you.
OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

> I do understand your point(s), I just don't agree with them. You have clearly been getting more exasperated as this thread has gone on, because people are perfectly reasonably not agreeing with you.

No I have had a reasonable discussion with several who have disagreed. I have been getting exasperated with *you* because you are continually wilfully misinterpreting what I have said, trying to shut down discussion with bogus accusations of me calling you mentally ill and generally behaving a similar way to MP I criticised in the beginning. (Don't bother disputing that last, you've missed the point again).
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> !?! Try reading what I have written again. Not what you think I written, but what I have actually written.

Actually I think it is you not following the thread properly now.

> Since you raise the point, I do actually think protests that disproportionately affect others ability to go about their business should be restricted. But I have not until now said that on this thread.

Except in your response to Galpinos at 14:44, which is what I was responding to. You had not raised it earlier, or not overtly at least, which is why I hadn't addressed it earlier. I simply addressed your interpretation of the events and the motivation of the tweet.
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:
> No I have had a reasonable discussion with several who have disagreed. I have been getting exasperated with *you* because you are continually wilfully misinterpreting what I have said, trying to shut down discussion with bogus accusations of me calling you mentally ill and generally behaving a similar way to MP I criticised in the beginning. (Don't bother disputing that last, you've missed the point again).

This is rather dishonest. You were clearly getting exasperated with people well before I got involved in this thread. Are you claiming that you didn't accuse me of being passive aggressive? I wasn't trying to shut anything down, but an apology would be nice.
Post edited at 15:28
OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

> This is rather dishonest.

Not at all Timmd, Galpinos, Dissonance - all quite reasonable.

I you claiming that you didn't accuse me of being passive aggressive? I wasn't trying to shut anything down, but an apology would be nice.

I offered to move on from that exchange that you started but you declined. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.



 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> I offered to move on from that exchange that you started but you declined. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

You only offered to move on after making the claim again, having made the claim again, I wanted you to justify it. I've had disagreements on here with people far more unpleasant than you Martin, I can take it fine. I just expected higher standards from you maybe.

 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

> Not at all Timmd, Galpinos, Dissonance - all quite reasonable.

It is odd isn't it, I was making very similar points to them, yet I didn't understand and was going out of my way to be unreasonable.
OP MG 09 Feb 2015
In reply to The New NickB:
There's two options here. Either we assume we are both trying to be reasonable and understand each others points of view. In that case calling each other "huffy" or "passive aggressive" won't help much, even if occasionally it might seem justifiable to the other. Or we don't and it just becomes a slag-fest. What won't work is for you to stand by "huffy" while expecting me to apologise for "passive aggressive"
Post edited at 15:51
In reply to The New NickB:

I have just re read the whole thread. It seems we have a few angles of debate here, but I was only focussing on the sentiment of the tweet, rather than the mob/free speech part which I agree is not in evidence in this story IMO.

Personally I think MG made a valid point re the tweet (stupid and un-professional) but other posters dwelled on other aspects of the story and avoided this point he was making, possibly frustrating MG

I thought you originally dismissed his point by throwing the question straight back at him, then later acknowledged it by admitting the word trapped could be misconstrued, seemed a bit dis-ingenuous with all the "huffy" type posts imbetween, especially as you say you understood his points all along but just didn't agree with them

I think it's a posting style rather than a personality disorder though
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

I'm not expecting you to apologise, you are clearly having issues with proportionality and equivalence and it would be dishonest of me to take back what I have said. There is no need for this to become a slag-fest either. I suspect the subject has been discussed enough.
 The New NickB 09 Feb 2015
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
> I thought you originally dismissed his point by throwing the question straight back at him, then later acknowledged it by admitting the word trapped could be misconstrued, seemed a bit dis-ingenuous with all the "huffy" type posts imbetween, especially as you say you understood his points all along but just didn't agree with them

I perhaps inferred more than I stated in my first post and the later post was clarification, to a specific question from MG. The 'huffy' response was a direct response to MG's dismissive and patronising response to my comments. I was making similar points to others who he is stating he had cordial discussions with, he may have felt that one of my answers to his points wasn't entirely clear, but I think huffy is a pretty gentle way of describing his response. I provided clarification, which you are perhaps seeing as a change of position (it wasn't), but apparently I still didn't understand, despite saying the same as others who it seems understood, but just disagreed with him.
Post edited at 16:15
In reply to The New NickB:

fair enough, I think we have done it to death now... regardless of SC suing UKIP for libel she should remember that a lot of people blame Labour for the Rotherham scandal so her tweet showed misjudgement of the climate imo... Ridge's post summed up the farce pretty well.

Donnie 09 Feb 2015
In reply to MG:

If you have protests you have a risk of violence. Does that mean people shouldn't protest?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...