To think Nigel Farage should be locked up?

They attacked the police, they damaged people’s properties and some have targeted particular police officers who weren’t even involved in the case.

But it still ended up with thugs chucking bins at police officers and destroying property. Which I'm fairly sure could have been forseen.
Ed spelling

'He has, however, specifically gone against the wishes of Henry Nowak's parents. Which is pretty despicable'

They didn't want hate and division. No one is attacking Sikhs.

To be feel cold rage at crap policing is not stoking hate and division.

I don't disagree.

You still need to win the argument though by making the case rather than banning him because we don't like him.

His position means it would be fundamentally dangerous to arrest him because too many people who lack trust would feel it was because he was right and someone was trying to cover that up.

We have to always consider the public interest in the enforcement of law. Following the law to the letter in this scenario is arguably not in the public interest because of the effect it would have.

The solution, as I say, is to rebuild public trust primarily by not cocking up so much!

But this doesn't fit his narrative (or anyone's current narrative) of two tier policing. Why isn't this being framed as two tier policing?

@RedToothBrush but statistics show here are still other issues in the police, so why isn't he talking about them. He is focusing on one issue that fits his narrative and stirs up hatred.

I quoted you because of what you wrote.

People repeating what he said do so for a number of reasons - one of which is because he's hit a point that resonates whether we like this or not - and the other is because they are jumping on a bandwagon of a political view without thinking about it much.

We'd be unwise to say he's stirring up shit too, because unfortunately Farage often does the opposite and repeats what's said about a particular issue more generally and then latches onto an example. He's reflective of a sentiment that's widely felt as much as inciting. We should have learnt some of this lesson in 2016. The concept of two tier policing has been around for a while and doesn't really come from Farage.

Unfortunately what has to happen is you have to prove by transparency and engagement rather than banning. This is exceptionally difficult to do. Farage also knows this.

When you have numerous multiple scandals involving police which seem to repeat the same themes something IS going wrong and it's not getting sorted. How you go about rectifying that is about public engagement and rebuilding of trust which takes years.

People who agree with Farage, aren't necessarily wrong. It also doesn't mean they are necessarily right either. It does mean that something is going wrong though because people don't have faith in the police to act fairly and appropriately. We have to determine how to do things better regardless of this because actually the perception does matter even if it's founded on a shaky and incorrect premise.

We have to have better counter narratives. We can't just say "it's wrong because it's Farage". It doesn't work. And it's compounded by abject hypocrisy on display from other politicians who fail to see when they do similar because they vehemently believe they are right and not above scrutiny themselves.

It's MASSIVELY frustrating, but there isn't an alternative way around it that works better.

We need to look at what we want to achieve rather than getting sucked personality politics and as hominem attacks. And yes this is asymmetric in how easy/hard it is to do for both sides of this argument.

There are no short cuts unfortunately.

He has absolutely exploited Henry Nowak's death to further his own political agenda - directly disrespecting the plea from the family not to use it in that way.

Kemi Badenoch - of whom I am no fan - has been much more measured and responsible in her response.

Damn right policing needs to change. When black men are 2.4 times more likely to be arrested than white men something definitely needs to be done. I don’t imagine Farage will like the change though.

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/number-of-arrests/latest/

'He hasn't exploited a young man's tragic death. He has highlighted, rightly, that policing needs to change.'

He has, however, specifically gone against the wishes of Henry Nowak's parents. Which is pretty despicable.

ETA he could have requested a meeting with police chiefs to discuss the issue with the people who could change procedure, but he didn't, he proceeded to whip up a bit of hysteria which led to violence.

I'm not sure why you're quoting me here. I'm not arguing that Farage should be arrested or banned. I was merely responding to the nonsense posted by a previous poster.

I don't think Farage should be banned or locked up, unless clear evidence of criminal behaviour emerges, which would not necessarily surprise me.

I do think he should be subjected to much greater scrutiny and exposed for what he truly is.

'You seem to be far more concerned about a bit of angry swearing than you are about the whipping up of division or the exploitation of a young man's tragic death for political purposes. You have got your priorities all wrong'

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Calm debate doesn't come from hate < eg fucking arsewipe!> and aggression. Surely we should all be able to agree on that.

He hasn't exploited a young man's tragic death. He has highlighted, rightly, that policing needs to change.

😂

In fairness to Farage, if we held all politicians to the same standard we'd be left with a lot of vacancies.

Also we have to examine whether it would be in the public interest to arrest him for doing this.

If doing so were to lead to mass riots there's an argument that's a worse outcome than him stirring up hatred.

It's not right and the whole thing makes me uncomfortable but there's this point with silencing people and censorship generally that if we do it to one group under the guise of legitimacy we have to be mindful if that reasoning might be used by the opposition in a way that creates its own unintended consequences and worse outcomes.

I am no fan of Farage, but we do need to be a lot more considered when we talk about banning things people say because we don't like them. One day the same could be used against you.

This was a lesson I was taught by a very esteemed professor in media and propaganda a long time ago. It's one that stood the test of time over several decades and various political issues.

Be careful what you wish for.

Ahhh - the level of intellectual debate on MN continues to plummet.

YouGoldSquid,

'When I heard the absolute nonsense about American becoming a fascist state, I could not believe the absolute and utter ignorance of those saying it. To make it worse, these people know better. They know our systems are rock solid and organized such that this is an absolute impossibility.'

You're not worried by some of the things Trump is doing, for which he should have Congressional approval but hasn't? Where are the checks and balances?

Look, when you have political leaders - including a man who claims that he wants to be our next PM - deliberately seeking to stir up hatred, stoke division and incite violence, even exploiting the tragic death of a young man in order to do so, despite the explicit requests from his family not to do so, then people are going to be angry about that and they might swear about it on the Internet a bit.

You seem to be far more concerned about a bit of angry swearing than you are about the whipping up of division or the exploitation of a young man's tragic death for political purposes. You have got your priorities all wrong.

I worked in the criminal justice system for years and it is massively racist against black and brown people. All the data points to more police harassment, more likely to be arrested, longer sentences, worst treatment in prison. The whole system is stacked against minorities. So this two tier policing is bullshit. But the thick sheep that follow Farage parrot whatever he tells them. They don’t care about the truth as long as they can justify their racism.

To be fair for most of us who abhor Farage not much whipping up is required. I don’t hate him but I find him and his party repellent and the thought of them getting anywhere near government terrifies me.

I can't speak to reform, but I can give you an anecdote about how this type of thing created trump voters.

In the 2024 election, several of my close family members planned to vote for Trump. They had legitimate concerns about both the trans issue and the large number of economic migrants, claiming to be refugees, being let into the country and consuming significant tax revenue resources. They viewed Trump as the candidate to end this. And, FWIW, he did. The border is now closed to economic migrants.

During this time, the media and left-leaning politicians continually labeled Trump voters as fascists and racists. Seeing this, I was bothered because my family members were not fascists, nazis, and racists. They are good people with legitimate concerns about immigration policy.

In addition, I simply could not believe some of the claims being made by supposedly intelligent people. "Trump is going to become a dictator!" "This is exactly like Germany in the early 1930s!" These claims demonstrated complete ignorance of the US federal and state civic structures explicitly defined in the Constitution. In order for Trump to become a dictator, he would have to gain complete control of all branches of the military. These are all completely separate branches. And they all hate each other (in a frenemy type of way). This is all intentional. Because of Trump got the Army, the Marines and Navy would respond. If he got the Air Force, Naval air assets would be deployed against the AF. There is simply no possible way for any President to gain control of all branches. That is to say nothing of individual states. Each state has its own militia (the national guard) under the control of the state's governor. Each state county has its own Sheriff and these sheriffs have immense influence. Especially in rural counties. So, somehow Trump would have to get the entire military, state militias, county sheriffs, as well as municipal police departments. And of course, there are 350+ million firearms in this country. Owned by people of all political stripes. So any type of civil military action would be met with overwhelming resistance wherein the military would suffer massive casualties. Americas have guns, and they know how to use them. This is the entire purpose of the second amendment. To give citizens the means to oppose tyrannical actions. And before anyone says "but an AR-15 can't do anything against a jet fighter!", let's remember how in Iraq, British and US troops could not overcome AK-47s and IEDs for many years. Jets don't control territory. Small arms do.

Anyway, I didn't vote for Tump in 2016. But as I saw my family members maligned by the press and politicians, I became angry. When I heard the absolute nonsense about American becoming a fascist state, I could not believe the absolute and utter ignorance of those saying it. To make it worse, these people know better. They know our systems are rock solid and organized such that this is an absolute impossibility. And yet they repeated it over and over and over again. I mean, President Obama compared Trump to Hitler and then two weeks later was sitting next to Trump at a funeral just laughing it up.

So because of my anger at the absolute worst type of false accusations as well as the stunning lies peddled about how our Federal system works, I voted for Trump. And of course, I have a young daughter. Trump's "Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you" position completely won me over.

So I think you are right. Existing Reform voters will not be pursuaded by being called flag-shaggers. But they will become more firmly entrenched. And people who love them will be appalled by these people being falsely accused and smeared. They, like me, may decide to vote Reform simply out of spite.

You do not win elections or gain political influence by shitting on voters.

Do you think I went a bit overboard? No doubt someone else will tell me off soon 😉

No it wasn't. Somebody, very early after the Southport atrocity thought they had found evidence that Starmer had defended AR's father in an asylum case. The 'evidence' they found was for a different individual with a slightly similar sounding name and AFAIK wasn't defended by Starmer anyway.

On the other side of free movement, there are over 7000 Roma in a city not far from here, with few skills, and poor education. Since their arrival from Eastern Europe, the police have increased their presence due to street brawls, and the litter and fly tipping reached epic proportions. The people living in the area, which was ethnically very mixed before, have seen already cheap house prices fall. When they started to settle in large numbers, the local Labour MP at the time voiced his concerns about their lack of integration, and the tensions in the area.

It’s hardly surprising that long term residents of areas such as that are unhappy with government policies that have radically altered their neighbourhoods, ignoring their concerns, and branding them racist if they complain. I don’t think many politicians will be living in cramped terrace housing, surrounded by large families, who spend a lot of their lives, often noisily, on the street.

Ok lovely. So, some of you think someone whips up hate and in return you're whipping up hate. Got it.

Much as I loathe Starmer, that is not true.