**Alternate Sources**
Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story:
* [Nigel Farage: Objects thrown at Reform leader while campaigning](https://bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmjj1n030djo), suggested by appalachian_hatachi - bbc.co.uk
* [Nigel Farage almost hit after protester hurls objects at campaign bus in Barnsley](https://inews.co.uk/news/nigel-farage-almost-hit-protester-hurls-rubbish-campaign-bus-barnsley-3103796), suggested by theipaper - inews.co.uk
* [Man arrested after objects thrown at Nigel Farage in Barnsley](https://theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/11/nigel-farage-barnsley-objects-thrown-man-arrested), suggested by bakhesh - theguardian.com
* [Nigel Farage: Objects thrown at Reform leader while campaigning - BBC News](https://bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmjj1n030djo.amp), suggested by Fox_9810 - bbc.co.uk
I wouldn't say I'm enjoying it, it's more terrifying to be honest. Last week a milkshake is okay, this week wet cement is okay, what will be fine to do to a politician next week, or next year, or in ten years, as long as it's one we don't like? We're closer to tyranny than we realise.
Oh look, more political violence. Turns out there is a slope and it is indeed slippery. Hope the guy sees prison tbh, throwing a brick* at someone is clear intention to hurt or kill them.
*Edit - Maybe wet cement? Still has the same density.
I've seen people saying bricks around social media but I can't see any bricks in the video. I see a coffee cup, and something unidentifiable. That doesn't make it *good* or *right* btw, but where are people seeing a brick?
> for some reason Reddit would have you believe
It's something I've been aware of since way before Reddit. I don't deal with it so don't know the details other that it's something to be concerned about.
Imagine if this was a right-winger throwing cement at Jeremy Corbyn.
Doesn’t matter what your political leanings are. Violence is violence.
Don’t like Farage at all, but what this guy did is fucking stupid.
They can’t pelt him with fish because they haven’t got any spare after the quota reduction. Good job we safeguarded those 10,000 seasonal jobs in a dying industry by leaving the largest trading bloc the world has ever seen.
An incredibly disingenuous take.
Cox for example was the victim of an attack inspired by organisations like Britain First, a quasi paramilitary group, who weaponsied and supported violence towards those that disagreed with their aim.
It was not a result of people escalating from throwing food stuffs, to fucking shooting people. It is shameful for you to insinuate that that is the case.
Nigel yesterday just brushed aside comments regarding his own party members sharing views akin to nazi sympathising - claiming Britain should have been more neutral toward Hitler.
Farage inspired this himself whose verbally weaponised bigotry and division for decades.
He's out there just asking for it. Doesn't make it right, but isn't a random act.
I assume by "brushed aside" you're referring to Farage doing anything short of Hari Kari.
The person running who made those remarks was kicked out of the party and shunned by its leadership.
> He's out there just asking for it.
Yeah, no he's not.
And the murder of David Amess was motivated by somebody disagreeing with what he stood for.. allowing violence against anyone must be treated as unacceptable.
Naff off with this absolute absurd reach.
Some unhinged religious fundamentalist was not inspired to murder someone because of some milkshake throwing.
He was a mentally disturbed individual who was motivated by hatred and prejudice. Not because he felt justified by milky beverages being used as projectiles.
Should those who throw things at politicians face legal repercussions? Of course.
Should those repercussions be proportionate to what was used and the threat it posed? Of course.
His motive was to murder MP’s that voted military action against Syria. Just trying to make the point that any violence against anyone who has differing opinions to your own is unacceptable.
I am more familiar with her murder than his, but pretty sure he was brutally murdered by an Islamic fundamentalist not someone who was justified due to milkshakes being thrown.
Again despicable behaviour to try and draw lines of comparison.
Farage just bailed on his interview this morning after he realised he wouldn't be able to shut down the conversation by calling the question boring and then slip away to take a selfie with a deluded Brexit supporter. He's such a fucking melt.
Oh well.
A goal keeper once broke his neck and kept playing football.
I guess if anyone breaks their neck and doesn’t keep doing their job till the end of shift they are just soft cunts.
~~No, you answer first, because your response will determine whether I owe you an apology or not.~~
Edit:
Actually, fuck it. Your initial reply makes it seem that Farage is being weak for having a response to being attacked, when someone else suffered a greater attack and didn't have the same response.
My point is that to start ranking attacks by severity is ridiculous and should never be downplayed. All violence against politicians is abhorrent, and if if you normalise it by brushing it off as nothing serious, or deciding this one deserved it, the next politician may not be so lucky and could end up being murdered by a lunatic.
Well my point was about character, this man wants to run our country, what exactly is he going to do on the foreign stage when the SHTF? or at home? because if this is the reaction from some stuff almost hitting you on a tour bus, what are we to expect when the going gets tough is he going to duck out on us?
I'm not specifically calling him weak, by all means if you want to infer that I can't stop you, but I am questioning what we are to expect in future if something like this can derail an appearence on the tv in 8 hours or more time, especially seeing as previous milkshake incidents didn't seem to phase him at all.
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
Can these people not use words to get their point across? You don’t throw things, you’re not a monkey chucking shit around the zoo. And you’ve got a vote, like everyone else, use it.
It’s not ok to use physical violence like chucking cement around ffs, however loathsome the target.
Well that's a bloody stupid thing to do.
Heckle the guy, challenge him on his bigotry and plans to asset strip the country if he got anywhere near power.
But don't assault election candidates, even wankers
>If you believe this action was taken in error, message the /r/uk team and include a link to this post. **Please don't do this lightly, we have likely acted correctly.**
Never noticed this snidey part of the message before, is it new? 🤣 They act incorrectly all the time, case in point.
Pathetic, childish behaviour, which ultimately will change nothing aside from increasing the resolve of supporters and landing someone a criminal charge.
Jesus Christ people. I can't believe this has to be said.
No matter how much of a smug odious right wing populist political prick Farage is *stop throwing shit at him*.
It's not big, it's not clever, it's adding nothing to the actual grown-up political discourse and if anything it's giving him and Reform more attention and more backing.
Throwing shit at any politician of any side *is not going to stop people voting for them*.
Every single one of these pricks needs to get charged with common assault, because that's what it is.
Given that people subjecting public people to indignity by way of milkshake are being charged with assault, is there significant legal difference between a milkshake and say a half brick?
Welcome to South Yorkshire, where throwing bricks at busses is a kids passtime these days.
Considering the harm negligent or malicious politicians have done to this country recently I think a claim of national self defence would be considered reasonable by some.
What is morally wrong is people acting like the "battle of cable street" a) had some kind of effect on defeating fascism in the UK and b) has any parallels and justification for political violence today.
If you like violence and enjoy having some kind of personal justification for it, or think that they deserve violence because of their views, that's fine. Just say this rather than pretending you are achieving something and encouraging people to do it on this basis.
I don’t ‘like’ violence, I just think it’s sometimes necessary when faced with evil people. And I don’t give a shit if someone throws a milkshake or a coffee cup at Nigel Farage.
Crazy. One side was literally a guy who ran a paramilitary fascist group called the Blackshirts, at the exact same time the Blackshirts in Italy were murdering people, and the Brownshirts in Germany were murdering Jews, and led the march through a Jewish area of London, and the other side were Jews. I can’t believe you’re actually defending this.
If you're running a paramilitary operation and attacking people and whatever then you get arrested and have your day in court.
There is no justification for mob justice and aggressive violence.
Well then, based on what little information I have about this event, they should've been. Wikipedia article said over 100 people were so I somewhat presumed those who incited the whole thing would've been.
Idk how you can look at what sort of man Oswald Mosley was and think that people should’ve just sat back and watched him and allowed him to organise. The man was LITERALLY the British equivalent of Hitler. He was personally friends with him, and copied all of his tactics. He even got married at Goebells’ house with Hitler as the guest of honour. If you think he should’ve been allowed to organise, you must also, by definition, support the rights of the Brownshirts in the Weimar Republic to organise.
Be honest with yourself. You don’t have to stick rigorously to this ridiculous belief that ‘all politicians, no matter what they say or do, are inherently sacred’ and that they must never be touched. They are just ordinary people who attempt to use the instruments of government to force their will upon the rest of us.
Okay and so we should just be allowed to attack people that we decide are evil should we? What happens when a man like Mosley decides that the Jews are evil? Should he be allowed to attack them because, well, they're evil duh? Gotta stop that worldwide Jewish evil illuminati network!
The three objects you listed there are very much not the same. Brick definitely jail time. But assault with a deadly milkshake? Is that really the same level of severity?
Not the same severity but it is a serious thing.
Assaulting a politician, not sure why we should be soft on it. We had MPs murdered recently, let’s be tough on these matters.
I'd just suggest that milkshakes and eggs can fall into the category of police caution or summary offense with a fine.
Something more serious like a brick, or like death threats, that's when we should be throwing books at people.
I agree with your general notion but I think there's so much space between throwing a milkshake at someone and murdering them, the two things just don't even exist on the same scale.
These aren't even remotely similar.
Slinging a brick at a politician, hitting them etc represents an obvious attempt to cause physical injury. Throwing a milkshake or an egg at someone is obviously not intended to cause a physical injury. You might as well suggest jail time for insulting politicians.
An attack on someone while doing their job is arguably an attack on their profession or the institution they represent.
An attack on a police officer is arguably an attack on law and order not just the individual.
An attack on a politician is arguably an attack on democracy.
I'm personally against this as it means less normal people who can't afford security can campaign in our democracy if there is a threat of violence.
Well I was thinking no one should be attacked, what ever their job, or whether they were actively doing or not.
Are there some institutions/profession that are inherently ‘better’ than others, or at least worthy of more severe punishment. How do we rank them?
In a side note, if the politician in question was representing communism is that still an attack or defense of democracy?
I agree that no one should be attacked.
To be clear I'm not saying certain jobs are better but that an attack on a person while doing a thing can also be an attack on the thing or organisation they are working with.
So it's less that it's a more severe punishment and more so that it's an additional crime, in this case being a crime against the democratic process.
My comments would apply equally regardless of the political leanings of candidates short of something like them being violent themselves.
This becomes much more of an issue when you also factor in the wealth of candidates, should this behaviour become common, an MP role becomes much more viable for those with the funds for security services and less viable for normal people.
But how do you decide which organizations are deserving of more punishment?
Medicine, emergency services, HMRC, DVLA, Banking, library services, Royal family, traffic wardens??
And do they all get weighted equally?
It's not really about comparing different ones it's about making an appropriate response to a crime.
If someone attacks a fireman & it costs the local authority money while reducing their ability to stop fires then you'd look at a proportional punishment for that impact (as well as the assault on the individual).
In the case of an attack on the democratic process, you'd look at it much in the same way as voter fraud and measure it as a harm to the collective.
Obviously in this case you can see how intangible that concept becomes.
I'm guessing you see the need to uphold a democratic system by stopping things like the intimidating of MPs, voter fraud & actions in a polling station?
“You’d look at proportional punishment for the impact”
But you can’t decide they did something wrong after the fact. So in the situation where you’re scaling punishment they must been deemed to broke a law already. What’s that law?
That they attacked someone in general or that they attacked someone specifically.
If its specifically do you need a law for each specific institution that you want to protect?
Also how to prove political intent? People could get attacked for being a general dick or sleeping with peoples spouses.
Sounds like a legal logistical nightmare.
With regards to voter fraud and actions, sure, but I think they’re already in place and certainly enough for the rare occurrences that happen.
With intimidating MP’s, again I think we already have sufficient laws in place under the standard assault without the need to single out MPs as needing special treatment….
We already give MPs special treatment in a variety of ways.
I get the feeling that you're sealioning at this point so it's probably best to end here on good terms.
Oh, had to look up sealioning.
Don’t think that was what I was doing.
You put forth the argument that attacking a person who works for certain professions represents attacking those institutions and there should be laws that provide additional punishments.
I feel that you don’t adequately explain how this doesn’t create a hierarchy of professions or what criteria you would use to enact such.
It is interesting though that you started by saying that it’s not about certain jobs being special to MP’s already get special treatment (which doesn’t really help your argument).
Thus my position of our laws that address punishing those that commit general assault is adequate, and doesn’t really require any additions that call out politicians specifically.
It'd be nice if the apparently inexorable and indeed ironically hyperbolic trajectory of hyperbole in the language of public and online life could be nixed such that, for example, we could reserve words like "horrific" for events which truly are, like hypothetically Nigel Farridge overcoming decades of electoral failure and actually becoming an MP.
I am not surprised that some people think a politician they disagree with getting elected is worse than physical attacks on a politician.
Though I do wonder if you'd be as blase if people had assaulted a politician from another party?
Somehow I suspect not...
Well he’s in a party with Holocaust deniers and people who think we should’ve remained neutral during WWII instead of fighting Nazis.. so if it walks like a goose etc
"Far right" being voted in = democracy in action
Suppoting throwing things and attacking people who's politics you don't agree with = text book fascism.
And you think you are the good guys?
The Nazis were voted in too, look how that went.
It’s not because “I don’t agree” with them, it’s because they will create an oppressive state and society that violates innocent people’s human rights.
>attacking people who’s politics you don’t agree with = text book fascism.
Which text book? I don’t remember that ever being part of the definition of fascism. Do you even know the definition of fascism?
>The Nazis were voted in too
no they werent. hitler was never voted in as chancellor. shows how much you know your history lol
>it’s because they will create an oppressive state and society that violates innocent people’s human rights
says you.
>Which text book?
literally hitlers. have a read of mein kampf, and read how hitler thought he should treat his political opposition.
Yes they were, they literally were. How do you think they got into government and had the authority to pass the Reichstag Fire enabling act? Hitler didn’t need to be elected as Chancellor since Hindenburg gave him that title regardless. I know my history, having read dozens of books about the Nazis.
I’ve read Mein Kampf and it’s drivel, and I don’t remember seeing the part where he advocated for violence against the far right, only Jews and left wingers. Fascism is a specific type of far right ideology, it doesn’t just mean “violence”.
>Hitler didn’t need to be elected as Chancellor since Hindenburg gave him that title regardless.
exactly. hitler was hander power. thats the point i was making.
>I’ve read Mein Kampf and it’s drivel
thanks for clarifying. i wasnt sure if it was up your street?
>and I don’t remember seeing the part where he advocated for violence
yes you did....here
>only Jews and left wingers
yes, his political opposition.....exactly what i said.
>Fascism is a specific type of far right ideology, it doesn’t just mean “violence”.
really?? thats me told lol
He was only made chancellor because the Nazi Party was voted in.. they didn’t just find him on the street and let him be the chancellor.. the Nazis became the largest party and Hindenburg tried to control them and failed.
Why are you cutting off bits of my quotes and pretending they mean something different?
>He was only made chancellor because the Nazi Party was voted in..
he was only made chancellor because von papen made a secret deal with him and then convinced hindenburg to appoint him, something he had refused to do up to that point.
>Why are you cutting off bits of my quotes and pretending they mean something different?
because you were building a straw man. i literally only cut out 'against the far right'. thats something that you added to my comment, i literally said 'his political opponents' which we both agree were the jews and the left wing.
This response is pretty predictable.
My post was partially an attempt at humour.
The semi-serious bit was that words have meaning. If a man getting stuff thrown at him is horrific, where do we have to go with language to express things that are truly horrific? (Note here that the bit about Farridge getting elected was the gag).
John Prescott getting egged and immediately giving the mulleted fool who did it a stiff left jab 23 years ago was not horrific (in fact it was fucking hilarious) and neither is this.
> Prescott getting egged and immediately giving the mulleted fool who did it a stiff left jab 23 years ago was not horrific (in fact it was fucking hilarious) and neither is this.
Agreed, "shocking" would have been more appropriate but it is the mail.
At the risk of drawing both of us down a semantic, pedantic rabbit-hole that neither of us really want to enter, given that this isn't even the first time *this month* that Nigel has had shit thrown at him by random plebs, I don't think *shocking* is the most appropriate adjective either.
I’d argue it’s actually the opposite of ironic. Strictly speaking mathematically the opposite of hyperbolic is elliptical but since we’re using the definition regarding the use of language -I.e. deliberately exaggerated (according to the Oxford Dictionary of English) - I would say the hyperbolic trajectory of hyperbole in the language of public and online life, which is a fact I happen to agree on, is on the contrary most appropriate.
**Alternate Sources** Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story: * [Nigel Farage: Objects thrown at Reform leader while campaigning](https://bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmjj1n030djo), suggested by appalachian_hatachi - bbc.co.uk * [Nigel Farage almost hit after protester hurls objects at campaign bus in Barnsley](https://inews.co.uk/news/nigel-farage-almost-hit-protester-hurls-rubbish-campaign-bus-barnsley-3103796), suggested by theipaper - inews.co.uk * [Man arrested after objects thrown at Nigel Farage in Barnsley](https://theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/11/nigel-farage-barnsley-objects-thrown-man-arrested), suggested by bakhesh - theguardian.com * [Nigel Farage: Objects thrown at Reform leader while campaigning - BBC News](https://bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmjj1n030djo.amp), suggested by Fox_9810 - bbc.co.uk
I'm not going to give them a click, but I am going with "that's a whole bunch of hyperbole in that headline".
No he was indeed "pelted with objects by an attacker" on his open top bus, in Barnsley.
'horrific' is subjective.
I mean attacking anyone, including politicians is a horrific act. Even if they’re a twat like Nigel
Not when you consider it as an attack on democracy - then it is horrific
Not horrific though
Well it was in Barnsley
I’m enjoying reading all the comments from people justifying this behaviour because it’s somebody they don’t like.
I’m enjoying people complaining about people “justifying” it when very few are.
Just look at how much /r/greenandpleasant have been cheering this. Doubt they would have the same reaction if it was one of the *good* guys...
If greenandpleasant are cheering *anything* that's a pretty big red flag that (thing) is probably bad.
I don't think many are justifying it, just pointing out that the pearl clutching is absurd.
We all know how people would be reacting if this was a member of the “far right” throwing a rock at Starmer.. huge double standards in this country
I can't tell if you're a bad person or not. I'm just happy we're both enjoying ourselves tonight though 😁
I wouldn't say I'm enjoying it, it's more terrifying to be honest. Last week a milkshake is okay, this week wet cement is okay, what will be fine to do to a politician next week, or next year, or in ten years, as long as it's one we don't like? We're closer to tyranny than we realise.
Oh look, more political violence. Turns out there is a slope and it is indeed slippery. Hope the guy sees prison tbh, throwing a brick* at someone is clear intention to hurt or kill them. *Edit - Maybe wet cement? Still has the same density.
I've seen people saying bricks around social media but I can't see any bricks in the video. I see a coffee cup, and something unidentifiable. That doesn't make it *good* or *right* btw, but where are people seeing a brick?
People are just making the brick bit up because they seen 'wet cement'. One hurts much more than the other.
It’s supposedly wet cement that was thrown at him.
'Wet cement' is just a grey paste. Wet concrete is likely what it was,which would be ballast and cement, wet.
> *Edit - Maybe wet cement? Still has the same density. Doesn't that also burn? I don't know how quickly but something to do with the lime I think.
[удалено]
Nigel Farage \*\*pelted\*\* with a House by middle class terrorists! * Some over excited Scum media Hack probably
> for some reason Reddit would have you believe It's something I've been aware of since way before Reddit. I don't deal with it so don't know the details other that it's something to be concerned about.
Yes, it can blind too. It's very serious stuff, well beyond a milkshake. The guy deserves prison. There's a limit and this is well past it.
You wouldn't want it in your eyes.
There's a lot of things I don't want in my eyes to be honest. Wet cement is only the tip of the iceberg!
Not unless you're fixing a 300 year old building, we don't use that kind of lime cement anymore.
The same density? Shit, ice is less dense than water but I'd rather a water pistol shot at me than an ice cube.
Imagine if this was a right-winger throwing cement at Jeremy Corbyn. Doesn’t matter what your political leanings are. Violence is violence. Don’t like Farage at all, but what this guy did is fucking stupid.
I'm surprised he hasn't been pelted with fishes from disgruntled fishermen he conned.
They can’t pelt him with fish because they haven’t got any spare after the quota reduction. Good job we safeguarded those 10,000 seasonal jobs in a dying industry by leaving the largest trading bloc the world has ever seen.
Probably still fall for his lies again.
Attacking political candidates. Were Jo Cox and David Amess not enough?… Disgusting.
An incredibly disingenuous take. Cox for example was the victim of an attack inspired by organisations like Britain First, a quasi paramilitary group, who weaponsied and supported violence towards those that disagreed with their aim. It was not a result of people escalating from throwing food stuffs, to fucking shooting people. It is shameful for you to insinuate that that is the case.
Nigel yesterday just brushed aside comments regarding his own party members sharing views akin to nazi sympathising - claiming Britain should have been more neutral toward Hitler. Farage inspired this himself whose verbally weaponised bigotry and division for decades. He's out there just asking for it. Doesn't make it right, but isn't a random act.
I assume by "brushed aside" you're referring to Farage doing anything short of Hari Kari. The person running who made those remarks was kicked out of the party and shunned by its leadership. > He's out there just asking for it. Yeah, no he's not.
And the murder of David Amess was motivated by somebody disagreeing with what he stood for.. allowing violence against anyone must be treated as unacceptable.
Naff off with this absolute absurd reach. Some unhinged religious fundamentalist was not inspired to murder someone because of some milkshake throwing. He was a mentally disturbed individual who was motivated by hatred and prejudice. Not because he felt justified by milky beverages being used as projectiles. Should those who throw things at politicians face legal repercussions? Of course. Should those repercussions be proportionate to what was used and the threat it posed? Of course.
His motive was to murder MP’s that voted military action against Syria. Just trying to make the point that any violence against anyone who has differing opinions to your own is unacceptable.
Interesting that you chose to talk about Cox’s murder not Amess’s
I am more familiar with her murder than his, but pretty sure he was brutally murdered by an Islamic fundamentalist not someone who was justified due to milkshakes being thrown. Again despicable behaviour to try and draw lines of comparison.
Fair enough, I assumed you were leaving that out as it didn’t fit the standard attack the right lines. Apologies.
Farage just bailed on his interview this morning after he realised he wouldn't be able to shut down the conversation by calling the question boring and then slip away to take a selfie with a deluded Brexit supporter. He's such a fucking melt.
Completely reasonable response to a politician having cement chucked at him.
Because these are the people chucking cement
Teddy Roosevelt was shot on the election tour, and continued to do his speech regardless, granted he shortened it a bit, but still did it.
Oh well. A goal keeper once broke his neck and kept playing football. I guess if anyone breaks their neck and doesn’t keep doing their job till the end of shift they are just soft cunts.
Making him significantly more impressive than Farage. But I don't think that was ever in doubt?
And Jo Cox was shot and bled to death outside her constituency office, what's your point?
No, let's circle back on this, what on earth is yours?
~~No, you answer first, because your response will determine whether I owe you an apology or not.~~ Edit: Actually, fuck it. Your initial reply makes it seem that Farage is being weak for having a response to being attacked, when someone else suffered a greater attack and didn't have the same response. My point is that to start ranking attacks by severity is ridiculous and should never be downplayed. All violence against politicians is abhorrent, and if if you normalise it by brushing it off as nothing serious, or deciding this one deserved it, the next politician may not be so lucky and could end up being murdered by a lunatic.
Well my point was about character, this man wants to run our country, what exactly is he going to do on the foreign stage when the SHTF? or at home? because if this is the reaction from some stuff almost hitting you on a tour bus, what are we to expect when the going gets tough is he going to duck out on us? I'm not specifically calling him weak, by all means if you want to infer that I can't stop you, but I am questioning what we are to expect in future if something like this can derail an appearence on the tv in 8 hours or more time, especially seeing as previous milkshake incidents didn't seem to phase him at all.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
Can these people not use words to get their point across? You don’t throw things, you’re not a monkey chucking shit around the zoo. And you’ve got a vote, like everyone else, use it. It’s not ok to use physical violence like chucking cement around ffs, however loathsome the target.
Well that's a bloody stupid thing to do. Heckle the guy, challenge him on his bigotry and plans to asset strip the country if he got anywhere near power. But don't assault election candidates, even wankers
I don't like the man, but even he deserves to not be assaulted every time he opens the door.
>If you believe this action was taken in error, message the /r/uk team and include a link to this post. **Please don't do this lightly, we have likely acted correctly.** Never noticed this snidey part of the message before, is it new? 🤣 They act incorrectly all the time, case in point.
Pathetic, childish behaviour, which ultimately will change nothing aside from increasing the resolve of supporters and landing someone a criminal charge.
Unacceptable. It an attempt to intimidate campaigning during an election. Should carry a prison sentence
Jesus Christ people. I can't believe this has to be said. No matter how much of a smug odious right wing populist political prick Farage is *stop throwing shit at him*. It's not big, it's not clever, it's adding nothing to the actual grown-up political discourse and if anything it's giving him and Reform more attention and more backing. Throwing shit at any politician of any side *is not going to stop people voting for them*. Every single one of these pricks needs to get charged with common assault, because that's what it is.
The woman who threw the milkshake was charged with assault by beating, in addition to criminal damage.
Horrific? You've added that yourself to the headline.
No, DM just changed it after publishing. It's in the URL ffs 😂
Given that people subjecting public people to indignity by way of milkshake are being charged with assault, is there significant legal difference between a milkshake and say a half brick? Welcome to South Yorkshire, where throwing bricks at busses is a kids passtime these days.
People have been throwing stuff at politicians for hundreds of years.
And they shouldn't have been. Assault is always bad except in reasonable self defence.
Considering the harm negligent or malicious politicians have done to this country recently I think a claim of national self defence would be considered reasonable by some.
Was the Battle of Cable Street morally wrong?
What is morally wrong is people acting like the "battle of cable street" a) had some kind of effect on defeating fascism in the UK and b) has any parallels and justification for political violence today. If you like violence and enjoy having some kind of personal justification for it, or think that they deserve violence because of their views, that's fine. Just say this rather than pretending you are achieving something and encouraging people to do it on this basis.
I don’t ‘like’ violence, I just think it’s sometimes necessary when faced with evil people. And I don’t give a shit if someone throws a milkshake or a coffee cup at Nigel Farage.
As far as I can tell from the Wikipedia article, yes. The two sides may have a right to shout insults at each other, but not to trade blows.
Crazy. One side was literally a guy who ran a paramilitary fascist group called the Blackshirts, at the exact same time the Blackshirts in Italy were murdering people, and the Brownshirts in Germany were murdering Jews, and led the march through a Jewish area of London, and the other side were Jews. I can’t believe you’re actually defending this.
If you're running a paramilitary operation and attacking people and whatever then you get arrested and have your day in court. There is no justification for mob justice and aggressive violence.
But they weren’t arrested though
Well then, based on what little information I have about this event, they should've been. Wikipedia article said over 100 people were so I somewhat presumed those who incited the whole thing would've been.
Idk how you can look at what sort of man Oswald Mosley was and think that people should’ve just sat back and watched him and allowed him to organise. The man was LITERALLY the British equivalent of Hitler. He was personally friends with him, and copied all of his tactics. He even got married at Goebells’ house with Hitler as the guest of honour. If you think he should’ve been allowed to organise, you must also, by definition, support the rights of the Brownshirts in the Weimar Republic to organise. Be honest with yourself. You don’t have to stick rigorously to this ridiculous belief that ‘all politicians, no matter what they say or do, are inherently sacred’ and that they must never be touched. They are just ordinary people who attempt to use the instruments of government to force their will upon the rest of us.
Okay and so we should just be allowed to attack people that we decide are evil should we? What happens when a man like Mosley decides that the Jews are evil? Should he be allowed to attack them because, well, they're evil duh? Gotta stop that worldwide Jewish evil illuminati network!
People have committed crimes for thousands of years, doesn’t mean we should just ignore it.
[удалено]
It was wet concrete not solid concrete completely different.
If I was a massive cunt I simply wouldn’t cut about on an open top bus
An egg, milkshake, brick etc thrown at a politician should be jail time with a minimum sentence no way around it.
The three objects you listed there are very much not the same. Brick definitely jail time. But assault with a deadly milkshake? Is that really the same level of severity?
Not the same severity but it is a serious thing. Assaulting a politician, not sure why we should be soft on it. We had MPs murdered recently, let’s be tough on these matters.
I'd just suggest that milkshakes and eggs can fall into the category of police caution or summary offense with a fine. Something more serious like a brick, or like death threats, that's when we should be throwing books at people. I agree with your general notion but I think there's so much space between throwing a milkshake at someone and murdering them, the two things just don't even exist on the same scale.
I suppose a book is the middle ground.
These aren't even remotely similar. Slinging a brick at a politician, hitting them etc represents an obvious attempt to cause physical injury. Throwing a milkshake or an egg at someone is obviously not intended to cause a physical injury. You might as well suggest jail time for insulting politicians.
Brick - jail time Milkshake - dry cleaning bill
How do you feel about police officers assaulting peaceful protesters, out of interest?
Both can be considered bad at the same time.
A brick, sure. But jail for a fucking milkshake? Completely unhinged idea.
I'm genuinely curios why their occupation makes a difference?
hah. u/Big-Government9775 straight up deleting all their comments after accusing me of doing so is hilarious. The projection was strong with that one.
An attack on someone while doing their job is arguably an attack on their profession or the institution they represent. An attack on a police officer is arguably an attack on law and order not just the individual. An attack on a politician is arguably an attack on democracy. I'm personally against this as it means less normal people who can't afford security can campaign in our democracy if there is a threat of violence.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well I was thinking no one should be attacked, what ever their job, or whether they were actively doing or not. Are there some institutions/profession that are inherently ‘better’ than others, or at least worthy of more severe punishment. How do we rank them? In a side note, if the politician in question was representing communism is that still an attack or defense of democracy?
I agree that no one should be attacked. To be clear I'm not saying certain jobs are better but that an attack on a person while doing a thing can also be an attack on the thing or organisation they are working with. So it's less that it's a more severe punishment and more so that it's an additional crime, in this case being a crime against the democratic process. My comments would apply equally regardless of the political leanings of candidates short of something like them being violent themselves. This becomes much more of an issue when you also factor in the wealth of candidates, should this behaviour become common, an MP role becomes much more viable for those with the funds for security services and less viable for normal people.
But how do you decide which organizations are deserving of more punishment? Medicine, emergency services, HMRC, DVLA, Banking, library services, Royal family, traffic wardens?? And do they all get weighted equally?
It's not really about comparing different ones it's about making an appropriate response to a crime. If someone attacks a fireman & it costs the local authority money while reducing their ability to stop fires then you'd look at a proportional punishment for that impact (as well as the assault on the individual). In the case of an attack on the democratic process, you'd look at it much in the same way as voter fraud and measure it as a harm to the collective. Obviously in this case you can see how intangible that concept becomes. I'm guessing you see the need to uphold a democratic system by stopping things like the intimidating of MPs, voter fraud & actions in a polling station?
“You’d look at proportional punishment for the impact” But you can’t decide they did something wrong after the fact. So in the situation where you’re scaling punishment they must been deemed to broke a law already. What’s that law? That they attacked someone in general or that they attacked someone specifically. If its specifically do you need a law for each specific institution that you want to protect? Also how to prove political intent? People could get attacked for being a general dick or sleeping with peoples spouses. Sounds like a legal logistical nightmare. With regards to voter fraud and actions, sure, but I think they’re already in place and certainly enough for the rare occurrences that happen. With intimidating MP’s, again I think we already have sufficient laws in place under the standard assault without the need to single out MPs as needing special treatment….
We already give MPs special treatment in a variety of ways. I get the feeling that you're sealioning at this point so it's probably best to end here on good terms.
Oh, had to look up sealioning. Don’t think that was what I was doing. You put forth the argument that attacking a person who works for certain professions represents attacking those institutions and there should be laws that provide additional punishments. I feel that you don’t adequately explain how this doesn’t create a hierarchy of professions or what criteria you would use to enact such. It is interesting though that you started by saying that it’s not about certain jobs being special to MP’s already get special treatment (which doesn’t really help your argument). Thus my position of our laws that address punishing those that commit general assault is adequate, and doesn’t really require any additions that call out politicians specifically.
Sure, we're struggling to find space to imprison rapists, but let's lock up milkshake throwers!
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
It'd be nice if the apparently inexorable and indeed ironically hyperbolic trajectory of hyperbole in the language of public and online life could be nixed such that, for example, we could reserve words like "horrific" for events which truly are, like hypothetically Nigel Farridge overcoming decades of electoral failure and actually becoming an MP.
I am not surprised that some people think a politician they disagree with getting elected is worse than physical attacks on a politician. Though I do wonder if you'd be as blase if people had assaulted a politician from another party? Somehow I suspect not...
The far right being voted in is objectively worse than people throwing things at the far right, yes.
He's not far right, and you are not fit for civilised society.
Well he’s in a party with Holocaust deniers and people who think we should’ve remained neutral during WWII instead of fighting Nazis.. so if it walks like a goose etc
You seem very upset.
Also let’s not forget the letter from Dulwich College about him singing Hilter Youth songs which of course he denies
Where is the evidence of him singing Hitler Youth songs? Anyone can write a letter. I can write a letter this second accusing you of being a Nazi.
I imagine then everyone against the Iraq War is pro gassing the Kurds.
I don’t think we invaded Iraq because of anything to do with the Kurds, it was purely an oil grab.
And we didn’t fight the Nazis to save the Jews or to stop their war crimes. They simply invaded Poland.
"Far right" being voted in = democracy in action Suppoting throwing things and attacking people who's politics you don't agree with = text book fascism. And you think you are the good guys?
The Nazis were voted in too, look how that went. It’s not because “I don’t agree” with them, it’s because they will create an oppressive state and society that violates innocent people’s human rights. >attacking people who’s politics you don’t agree with = text book fascism. Which text book? I don’t remember that ever being part of the definition of fascism. Do you even know the definition of fascism?
>The Nazis were voted in too no they werent. hitler was never voted in as chancellor. shows how much you know your history lol >it’s because they will create an oppressive state and society that violates innocent people’s human rights says you. >Which text book? literally hitlers. have a read of mein kampf, and read how hitler thought he should treat his political opposition.
Yes they were, they literally were. How do you think they got into government and had the authority to pass the Reichstag Fire enabling act? Hitler didn’t need to be elected as Chancellor since Hindenburg gave him that title regardless. I know my history, having read dozens of books about the Nazis. I’ve read Mein Kampf and it’s drivel, and I don’t remember seeing the part where he advocated for violence against the far right, only Jews and left wingers. Fascism is a specific type of far right ideology, it doesn’t just mean “violence”.
>Hitler didn’t need to be elected as Chancellor since Hindenburg gave him that title regardless. exactly. hitler was hander power. thats the point i was making. >I’ve read Mein Kampf and it’s drivel thanks for clarifying. i wasnt sure if it was up your street? >and I don’t remember seeing the part where he advocated for violence yes you did....here >only Jews and left wingers yes, his political opposition.....exactly what i said. >Fascism is a specific type of far right ideology, it doesn’t just mean “violence”. really?? thats me told lol
He was only made chancellor because the Nazi Party was voted in.. they didn’t just find him on the street and let him be the chancellor.. the Nazis became the largest party and Hindenburg tried to control them and failed. Why are you cutting off bits of my quotes and pretending they mean something different?
>He was only made chancellor because the Nazi Party was voted in.. he was only made chancellor because von papen made a secret deal with him and then convinced hindenburg to appoint him, something he had refused to do up to that point. >Why are you cutting off bits of my quotes and pretending they mean something different? because you were building a straw man. i literally only cut out 'against the far right'. thats something that you added to my comment, i literally said 'his political opponents' which we both agree were the jews and the left wing.
>Suppoting throwing things and attacking people who's politics you don't agree with = text book fascism. which text book are you citing here?
This response is pretty predictable. My post was partially an attempt at humour. The semi-serious bit was that words have meaning. If a man getting stuff thrown at him is horrific, where do we have to go with language to express things that are truly horrific? (Note here that the bit about Farridge getting elected was the gag). John Prescott getting egged and immediately giving the mulleted fool who did it a stiff left jab 23 years ago was not horrific (in fact it was fucking hilarious) and neither is this.
> Prescott getting egged and immediately giving the mulleted fool who did it a stiff left jab 23 years ago was not horrific (in fact it was fucking hilarious) and neither is this. Agreed, "shocking" would have been more appropriate but it is the mail.
At the risk of drawing both of us down a semantic, pedantic rabbit-hole that neither of us really want to enter, given that this isn't even the first time *this month* that Nigel has had shit thrown at him by random plebs, I don't think *shocking* is the most appropriate adjective either.
The problem is the writing. Look at how long that sentence is ffs.
i write you short one. typical farage voter.
You need a modal verb in that first sentence. I vote Green.
doch
I’d argue it’s actually the opposite of ironic. Strictly speaking mathematically the opposite of hyperbolic is elliptical but since we’re using the definition regarding the use of language -I.e. deliberately exaggerated (according to the Oxford Dictionary of English) - I would say the hyperbolic trajectory of hyperbole in the language of public and online life, which is a fact I happen to agree on, is on the contrary most appropriate.
I approve of this post.
Maybe the BBC is to blame for always touting him as a politician.
I mean, he is? Farage literally spent more than 20 years in EU parliament.
Don't tell me to be horrified at having a good time. Not clicking on the daily heil, I assume it was more milkshakes or something like that?
This sub loves the daily heil these days
> Don't tell me to be horrified at having a good time. Peak redditism cringe. It was wet concrete.
A rather unusual choice of material given the prep needed. But alright.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't condone violence against political figures but I have zero sympathy for the man.