Far-right protests

[yorkie]

Just a reminder to all that any post which makes reference to something from an external source, should have a hyperlink (if at all possible; if not, please contact us for advice) as well as a text quote (a screenshot can also be useful but we do need text), in quote tags (using the quote button)

This should be in addition to, and separate from, your own comment.

For example @DarloRich's post, two above this one, shows how to do it.

Thanks

 

[DarloRich]

ANPR This Bike Guy is going to be in deep doo doo then! Him and the rest of the masked gang didn't think it through when appearing on Sky News!

Just like after the attempted putsch in the USA it will take time to work through all of the evidence but many people will have thier collar felt in due course.

What is instructive is that those who have been charged so far have found themselves remanded rather than bailed. The CPS and Courts will be busy!

For example @DarloRich's post, two above this one, shows how to do it.

most kind! I am never sure how to quote from social media!

 

[DustyBin]

And this is down to the previous Tory Government enacting policies to make it easier for them, or other factors such as increased problems in their native countries?

It doesn't matter; immigration has continued to increase so why would they be "happy"?

Maybe these "protesters" should offer suggestions as to how to resolve problems in other parts of the world which might make people more likely to emigrate.

I suspect you're overestimating their interest in world affairs!

 

[Geezertronic]

Could you provide an example of this "choice wording"?

The Lord Chancellor/ Secretary of State for Justice has said on social media:

x.com

x.com

That seems quite direct to me!

I already did in Post #386. The quote you posted from Shabana Mahmood MP is the sort of post we should expect from Jess Phillips MP. We should vilify and condemn all who seek to cause trouble and violence, and the targets should not just be those on the streets, it should also be those who spread misinformation like Nick Lowles who spread a false report about an acid attack on a Muslim woman in Middlesborough. No amount of apologising can make up for that

 

[DarloRich]

I already did in Post #386. The quote you posted from Shabana Mahmood MP is the sort of post we should expect from Jess Phillips MP.

You do know that Jess Phillips is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls don't you? She isnt deputy Prime Minster

Did you get her confused with Angela Rayner?

it should also be those who spread misinformation like Nick Lowles who spread a false report about an acid attack on a Muslim woman in Middlesborough.

Instructive that you pick out the CEO of Hope not Hate rather than, say, Nigel Farage or his ilk. While this Lowles guy clearly made a terrible error it is not of the same magnitude as the right wing amplifiers who have been blasting out racist rhetoric for a week after an awful murder.

We shouldn't make false equivalence to try and excuse disgraceful behaviour

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2024 ==

Very disconcerting to see that the MSM have very little about the events in the Deputy PMs Constituency,

The deputy Prime ministers constituency is Ashton-under-Lyne

 

[AlterEgo]

because if they don't listen, they will get bitten eventually.

No, sorry, that is capitulation. Hate groups should be destroyed and scattered in a tolerant democracy. That is all they are.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

You do know that Jess Phillips is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls don't you? She isnt deputy Prime Minster

Did you get her confused with Angela Rayner?


Instructive that you pick out the CEO of Hope not Hate rather than, say, Nigel Farage or his ilk. While this Lowles guy clearly made a terrible error it is not of the same magnitude as the right wing amplifiers who have been blasting out racist rhetoric for a week after an awful murder.

We shouldn't make false equivalence to try and excuse disgraceful behaviour

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2024 ==


The deputy Prime ministers constituency is Ashton-under-Lyne

Stop confusing people with facts

 

[Geezertronic]

You do know that Jess Phillips is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls don't you? She isnt deputy Prime Minster

Did you get her confused with Angela Rayner?


Instructive that you pick out the CEO of Hope not Hate rather than, say, Nigel Farage or his ilk. While this Lowles guy clearly made a terrible error it is not of the same magnitude as the right wing amplifiers who have been blasting out racist rhetoric for a week after an awful murder.

We shouldn't make false equivalence to try and excuse disgraceful behaviour

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2024 ==


The deputy Prime ministers constituency is Ashton-under-Lyne

My bad, I was confusing Jess Phillips for Angela Rayner. Thanks for the correction, I will vilify myself for providing misinformation

I also try not to listen to Farage, Tommy/Stephen etc... because of the bile that tends to follow them. I picked on the quote from Lowles as it was also re-tweeted by a sitting MP, I cannot reference it at the moment so it may have been deleted (quite rightly so)

Edit: the post I reference above was re-tweeted by Josh Fenton-Glynn MP (Calder Valley) and removed when proven to be false

 

[DarloRich]

My bad, I was confusing Jess Phillips for Angela Rayner. Thanks for the correction, I will vilify myself for providing misinformation

Vilification not required. However it is indicative of how a small piece of incorrect information can drive thinking/responses. You expected the person you thought was in a senior political position to make a statement commensurate with that position and were disappointed when they did not and then expressed that disappointment.

 

[Geezertronic]

Vilification not required. However it is indicative of how a small piece of incorrect information can drive thinking/responses. You expected the person you thought was in a senior political position to make a statement commensurate with that position and were disappointed when they did not and then expressed that disappointment.

Given the fact that I believe the MP for Yardley is in a Senior political position (despite it being described as a junior role), and the constituency I was referencing is her constituency, I stand by my comments. Your correction is welcome and accepted though, and I now know why I thought Jess Phillips had changed appearance a lot recently...

 

[Bluejays]

Vilification not required. However it is indicative of how a small piece of incorrect information can drive thinking/responses. You expected the person you thought was in a senior political position to make a statement commensurate with that position and were disappointed when they did not and then expressed that disappointment.

Jess Phillips is the MP for the area that was impacted last night. The area that the original poster mentioned he lived in. There is no issue whatsoever with him questioning the words of the local MP towards violence in their area


Ok, he got confused about her being deputy pm, not the biggest crime in the world.



* From what I saw of the further messages Jess put up, she corrected herself and seemed genuinely concerned in supporting the members of community who were affected by the violence.

 

[DarloRich]

the post I reference above was re-tweeted by Josh Fenton-Glynn MP (Calder Valley) and removed when proven to be false

he deleted it and was rightly roasted for sharing nonsense in the first place - the important thing he he retracted. The whoppers don't.

 

[brad465]

The Director of Public Prosecutions says there maybe some terrorism offences investigated in connection with the riots:

Starmer promises communities 'will be safe' after emergency meeting on UK riots

The prime minister says the government is "doing everything we can" to ensure adequate police resources are in place.

www.bbc.co.uk

Suspects charged so far have faced allegations including violent disorder, which can lead to five years in jail.

Some other suspects who have been arrested are being assessed for the more serious charge of rioting, that can lead to ten years.

Those charging decisions will take a longer, the Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson tells me, because of the nature of the crime and the evidence needed.

"There are sentencing guidelines which indicate that many people who have been caught up in this disorder will face immediate imprisonment. There should be no doubt about that. They are going to prison.

"We are willing to look at terrorism offences. I'm aware of at least one instance where that is happening.

"Where you have organised groups planning activity for the purposes of advancing [an] ideology... planning really, really serious disruption then yes, we will consider terrorism offences."

 

[Howardh]

The Director of Public Prosecutions says there maybe some terrorism offences investigated in connection with the riots:

Starmer promises communities 'will be safe' after emergency meeting on UK riots

The prime minister says the government is "doing everything we can" to ensure adequate police resources are in place.

www.bbc.co.uk

Key point, when the ETIAS comes in, that's the visa-waiver required for Brits to visit the EU/EEA; the last time I saw the details (may have changed) those with a (serious) criminal conviction within 10 years have to declare it on their form and can/will be refused entry, but for anything deemed as "terrorist" that extends to the last 20 years.

So it's won't just affect sentencing, but also their ability to travel when they are released, for some considerable time.

However if anyone has more up-to-date information on EES/ETIAS I'd be pleased to be educated, all I see is that things like the EES (Entry/Exit system) keep getting put back!!

 

[brad465]

There has also been polling by YouGov on the fate of the rioters, and there is overwhelming support that those convenient should receive sentences that are at least the same as normal, but with 49% favouring tougher sentences and 39% saying the same. What's particularly interesting is that when broken down into political parties, even amongst Reform UK voters, the party considered closest in alignment to the causes of the rioting, it's 27% favouring tougher and 51% the same as normal sentences. This shows just how little support the rioters have in general:

Do you think those caught taking part in the recent riots should receive harsher or more lenient sentences than would normally be issued for those kinds of crimes, or should they receive a punishment that is about the same as would normally be issued

Do you think those caught taking part in the recent riots should receive harsher or more lenient sentences than would normally be issued for those kinds of crimes, or should they receive a punishment that is about the same as would normally be issued?

yougov.co.uk

(Image of YouGov opinion poll data on what level of sentence rioters convicted should receive relative to normal guidelines)

Key point, when the ETIAS comes in, that's the visa-waiver required for Brits to visit the EU/EEA; the last time I saw the details (may have changed) those with a (serious) criminal conviction within 10 years have to declare it on their form and can/will be refused entry, but for anything deemed as "terrorist" that extends to the last 20 years.

So it's won't just affect sentencing, but also their ability to travel when they are released, for some considerable time.

However if anyone has more up-to-date information on EES/ETIAS I'd be pleased to be educated, all I see is that things like the EES (Entry/Exit system) keep getting put back!!

I don't know who specifically would get terror charges, but I'd suspect anyone who played a leading role in inciting and/or organising particular disturbances will be the most likely candidates.

 

[Howardh]

I don't know who specifically would get terror charges, but I'd suspect anyone who played a leading role in inciting and/or organising particular disturbances will be the most likely candidates.

As there's such an important distinction there needs to be a water-tight definition, not sure if there is one. However, it's up to the EU to decide whether the conviction is terror-related or not on allowing them in after 10 years.

I have a feeling that they will consider any attack on property or persons is "terrorism" (especially setting fire to a hotel) just to be on the safe side?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Key point, when the ETIAS comes in, that's the visa-waiver required for Brits to visit the EU/EEA; the last time I saw the details (may have changed) those with a (serious) criminal conviction within 10 years have to declare it on their form and can/will be refused entry, but for anything deemed as "terrorist" that extends to the last 20 years.

So it's won't just affect sentencing, but also their ability to travel when they are released, for some considerable time.

However if anyone has more up-to-date information on EES/ETIAS I'd be pleased to be educated, all I see is that things like the EES (Entry/Exit system) keep getting put back!!

And very strict for USA entry. So good punishment. If football hooligan types, wont be able to travel abroad to see England etc play.

 

[Howardh]

And very strict for USA entry. So good punishment. If football hooligan types, wont be able to travel abroad to see England etc play.

In the past the EU couldn't keep our hooligans out, under freedom of movement, but I recall they had banning orders from our own authorities preventing them from leaving our country? With today's rioters the ETIAS system should do that for us, although if they travel and arrive, there's the added protocol of returning them immediately which won't be easy. But hopefully checks at airport gates should mean they don't set foot on a plane anyway!

 

[nw1]

It doesn't matter; immigration has continued to increase so why would they be "happy"?

I was questioning them blaming the government (whether that be the outgoing Tory government or the incoming Labour government), particularly as the former Tory government in particular did a lot for them.

Do they really expect the government to be able to wave a magic wand and stop the external factors, taking place in other parts of the world, which are causing immigration to increase?

 

[RT4038]

No, sorry, that is capitulation. Hate groups should be destroyed and scattered in a tolerant democracy. That is all they are.

Not a very tolerant democracy then? 'Capitulation' to what? People who don't want the current levels of immigration, dislike the quantity of immigrants: if they get together they are 'hate groups' and are to be destroyed and scattered?

I was questioning them blaming the government (whether that be the outgoing Tory government or the incoming Labour government), particularly as the former Tory government in particular did a lot for them.

Do they really expect the government to be able to wave a magic wand and stop the external factors, taking place in other parts of the world, which are causing immigration to increase?

The borders are within the control of UK Government. The issuance of visas is entirely within the control of the UK government.

 

[nw1]

The borders are within the control of UK Government. The issuance of visas is entirely within the control of the UK government.

As I said, the former Tory government clearly, and umambiguously, made life harder for immigrants. So I would expect a bit more gratitude from the anti-immigrationists as a result.

If immigration remains high because of external factors, that is in no way the fault of the government.

Or are you saying Sunak and Johnson should have capitulated even more to anti-immigrationists, even though that could have made life much more difficult for those who just want to peacefully settle in the UK, do an honest day's work, and pay their taxes?

Perhaps the government ought to work with other countries to tackle the external factors leading to more migration here. That would certainly be a more positive and less capitulative step than toughening the migration laws still further.

 

[RT4038]

As I said, the former Tory government clearly, and umambiguously, made life harder for immigrants. So I would expect a bit more gratitude from the anti-immigrationists as a result.

So it made it harder. Clearly not hard enough, because it didn't seem to stem the flow.

those who just want to peacefully settle in the UK, do an honest day's work, and pay their taxes?

And just how many countries in the world are there where this is the criteria for accepting immigrants, and then granting them residency rights and then after a few hoops, citizenship? Especially Third World and Muslim countries?

 

[nw1]

So it made it harder. Clearly not hard enough, because it didn't seem to stem the flow.

What about the balance though? The government shouldn't just listen to one side of the argument just because it whinges the loudest.

"Not hard enough" for the anti-immigrationists might mean "too hard" for those who are more positive about immigration. Why should the former be listened to and not the latter?

And just how many countries in the world are there where this is the criteria for accepting immigrants, and then granting them residency rights and then after a few hoops, citizenship? Especially Third World and Muslim countries?

Should we sink to the overly-tough criteria of certain other countries? Or seek to be something better?

Again, this is just one side of the argument. Pro-immigration points of view have been mostly ignored in the past five to ten years. We might be whinging too, but are we rioting, or spreading false identity information? No.

Once again, the government has clearly taken the side of anti-immigrationists of late, so I'd expect them to be happy. The fact that it hasn't miraculously "solved" the "problem" is neither here nor there. The government have listened to them and tried to "tackle" the "problem", yet are they grateful? Apparently not.

 

[RT4038]

What about the balance though? The government shouldn't just listen to one side of the argument just because it whinges the loudest.

A Government would have to balance the effect and the level of hardship on each group, and the likely effect on social cohesion. Not too sure who would be actively 'pro-immigration' unless it affected them personally.

Should we sink to the overly-tough criteria of certain other countries? Or seek to be something better?

Why shouldn't we, though, especially as it affects social cohesion. It is not 'certain other countries' - please tell me just one third world or Muslim country........ And why - because they know a large quantity of immigration would affect social cohesion, and change the culture of the country. But somehow it is OK for this country.

Again, this is just one side of the argument. Pro-immigration points of view have been mostly ignored in the past five to ten years. We might be whinging too, but are we rioting, or spreading false identity information? No.

Once again, the government has clearly taken the side of anti-immigrationists of late, so I'd expect them to be happy. The fact that it hasn't miraculously "solved" the "problem" is neither here nor there. The government have listened to them and tried to "tackle" the "problem", yet are they grateful? Apparently not.

But pro-immigrationists (if there is such a niche thing, as opposed to ambivalence) aren't whingeing, because there is nothing to whinge about. ( I am not counting immigrants, or descendants of immigrants, wishing to bring over members of family or prospective family / workers etc)

The Government has not successfully tackled the problem - being ineffective gets no points at all.

 

[Class 317]

A Government would have to balance the effect and the level of hardship on each group, and the likely effect on social cohesion. Not too sure who would be actively 'pro-immigration' unless it affected them personally.


Why shouldn't we, though, especially as it affects social cohesion. It is not 'certain other countries' - please tell me just one third world or Muslim country........ And why - because they know a large quantity of immigration would affect social cohesion, and change the culture of the country. But somehow it is OK for this country.


But pro-immigrationists (if there is such a niche thing, as opposed to ambivalence) aren't whingeing, because there is nothing to whinge about. ( I am not counting immigrants, or descendants of immigrants, wishing to bring over members of family or prospective family / workers etc)

The Government has not successfully tackled the problem - being ineffective gets no points at all.

I agree that a government needs to show balance but listening to a very small group of extremists at one end of the spectrum isn't the way to do this.

 

[DustyBin]

I was questioning them blaming the government (whether that be the outgoing Tory government or the incoming Labour government), particularly as the former Tory government in particular did a lot for them.

Did they actually though? I'm seriously concerned about immigration, however I was far from impressed by the previous government's "efforts" to tackle it. As I stated at the time on more than one occasion, it was largely empty and at times quite unpleasant rhetoric that did nothing to actually get the problem under control.

Do they really expect the government to be able to wave a magic wand and stop the external factors, taking place in other parts of the world, which are causing immigration to increase?

As @RT4038 has already pointed out, the government have ultimate control of our borders (in theory anyway!).

 

[dosxuk]

Not a very tolerant democracy then? 'Capitulation' to what? People who don't want the current levels of immigration, dislike the quantity of immigrants: if they get together they are 'hate groups' and are to be destroyed and scattered?

Capitulating to the angry mobs, the ones setting fire to stuff and scrapping with the Police. If they want to have a proper grown up discussion they need to act like adults. It's quite possible to dislike the quantity of immigrants without also feeling the need to burn down the hotels housing them. The ones that think the latter is an appropriate way of getting their voice heard are simply wrong.

 

[DarloRich]

Capitulating to the angry mobs, the ones setting fire to stuff and scrapping with the Police. If they want to have a proper grown up discussion they need to act like adults. It's quite possible to dislike the quantity of immigrants without also feeling the need to burn down the hotels housing them. The ones that think the latter is an appropriate way of getting their voice heard are simply wrong.

Is the correct answer.

You don't get to act like an animal and have the adults listen to your legitimate political concerns !

 

[renegademaster]

Won't a lot be spending their sentence "on remand" mainly inside police stations, so when they are convicted if they get two months, they've done the bulk of it so can be released (obvs as criminals affecting job applications, foreign travel etc)? Or are they kept in proper prisons on remand? Note - two months is nothing like enough!

During 2011 goverment and CPS leant heavily on the Judges to blanket deny bail and largely they did , but it was a different time and different judiciary than so who knows what will happens. Usually remand is done in Category B prisons but extended stays in police custody due to insufficient space has been happening

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2024 ==

You don't get to act like an animal and have the adults listen to your legitimate political concerns !

It would have been childish to abandon trying to reduce police brutality as punishment for all the damage done and the few people killed during 2011, nor should non violent "BLM" type activist should get lumped in with say the people who looted.

 

[TheGuy77]

How long do you reckon these protests riots will last for?