Channel 4 undercover re Farage

@DuncinToffee

you are justifying VAWG

Incorrect. Assaults of any kind to anyone, regardless of their gender, race, religion, political affiliation, should be investigated.

My point was that there are 1.3 million assaults per year in the UK. That works out at one every 24 seconds. A staggeringly high number I would say.

Why are they not subject of discussion on MN, or any other forum? What’s so fascinating about the events of 4 September 2026 compared to all the others in the UK?

The party conference was being covered by media outlets and the assault was caught on camera for a start.

Decent people, regardless of party affiliation, would have found the attack to be appalling.

The matter may not have had as much traction if the leader had not laughed it off at the time or if subsequently people like Jenrick had not dismissed her treatment, implying it was deserved.

They have had more than enough opportunity to condemn the attack on the woman.

These are people who want to lead this country.

Do you still not see why this assault has gained the attention it has?

This is all seeming very much like what we’ve seen happening across the pond - deny, deflect, obfuscate.

And if that doesn’t work, it’s fake news.

You don't understand why it's newsworthy that someone who allegedly aspires to be the next prime minister stood on the stage laughing while a woman was assaulted for carrying out a perfectly legal political protest?

You don't think it's newsworthy that his proposed Chancellor stated after the assault that one of the perpetrators of the assault should be given a medal?

You don't think political violence should be reported?

@MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack
@Maggiethecat

My question was why are the events of 4 September 2026 different to the other 1.3 million assaults that occurred to the year ending 26 March 2026 which have not been discussed?

Once the police become involved, I would say it’s best for all those concerned to allow the law to run its course. After all, it’s the police who decide whether or not the available evidence merits an arrest, not Joe Public.

If after an arrest, the person is charged it’s then handed over to the crown prosecution services. Again not Joe Public.

Jenerick’s give a medal comment was not very helpful. However, if you think he should be prosecuted, you are free to take him through the courts.

Boris Johnson was taken to court over the red bus with the £350 million sent to the EU slogan, but the case was dismissed.

I don't feel that you are posting in good faith here.

It is simply not credible that you wouldn't understand why a politically motivated assault, caught on camera and publicly sanctioned by people who are aspiring to lead our country, would attract more attention than a drunken punch-up in the pub involving Bob Smith and his mates.

Your question is disingenuous and you are obviously trying to minimise the incidents. It isn't working.

But the morality and character of our politicians isn’t just about criminality, is it?

Seeing how senior Reform politicians responded to a young woman being grabbed at and manhandled made me see very plainly that these are not serious, responsible politicians, who I could trust to respect and uphold the norms of our democracy.

That’s newsworthy - because I think Reform were on the brink of being seen as a potential party of government, and - as the polls show - the scenes from conference have given quite a lot of voters pause for thought on that.

Indeed, and I imagine that this is why @EEexpat is so eager to minimise the violence and silence debate.

Nothing to see here...

@Thezookeepersneice

because I think Reform were on the brink of being seen as a potential party of government, and - as the polls show - the scenes from conference have given quite a lot of voters pause for thought on that

Poll percentages don’t correlate to seats in a general election due to the FPTP electoral system in the United Kingdom. The 2024 general election was a good example.

Labour 34% of votes, but 63% of seats with 412

Reform 14% of votes, but less than 1% of seats with 5

LibDems 12%?of votes, but 11% of seats with 72

Would I bet on Reform winning the next general election? No I wouldn’t.

Well, neither would I after all of the financial scandals, assaults and criminal investigations etc. But there was a point at which they were leading in the polls and so a healthy degree of scrutiny is to be expected - regardless of how much Mr Farage and his supporters seem to dislike this.

Sure, but I’m not speculating on whether Reform ever realistically had a chance of forming a government, or whether they do now.

All I’m saying is - for a long time - Reform led the polls, and for that reason, they got a lot of media attention, as a potential party of government, and they themselves kept saying they were somehow “the real opposition”.

Then, their conference happened. And to me, it didn’t seem like the conference of a serious political party, it seemed like the gathering of an aggressive, ill-disciplined protest group. Based on the fact Reform’s popularity has slipped in the polls since then, I think others watching felt the same.

@MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack
@Thezookeepersneice

Small parties will never get in due to the FPTP electoral system in the UK. The best they can hope for is to be in a coalition like the Liberals in 2010 and the DUP in 2017.

Maybe. But that doesn’t condone the leaders of those small parties failing to condone physical violence against a peaceful protestor.

Reform is a significant party whether or not they take government, which they aspire to do.

I would expect the leaders and their supporters to condemn the violence against that woman rather than deflect and minimise.

And yet here we are, trying to explain why their lack of moral character and leadership in this matter is an indictment against them.

Actually, from spring 2025 onward, several large constituency-level MRP polls suggested that Reform could win the most seats under first-past-the-post, and several even projected an outright majority.

Obviously, their popularity has declined since then, as more people have recognised what they are, but they were certainly doing well enough at one point to warrant a much higher level of scrutiny than had been afforded to them previously. It seems that they don't like such scrutiny, but surely if you say that you want to form a government, that just goes with the territory.

As a thought experiment, how about Police record political affiliation when they arrest people, and the courts record it for convictions.

That could be interesting data. You know, are people who affiliate themselves with a political party whose leaders do not condemn violence, but instead mock the victim, more likely to commit violent offences ?

It is not recorded now of course because that would be against human rights. But when Farage is PM, and he cancels human rights, then he could record it. Would he release that data though. Or would it take an FOI request ?

No wait. I suspect he would end the FOI system.

This is why there is, and should be, resistance against this Reform new world order. Because you do not improve the world by removing hard fought for universal protections.

The SNP were a small insignificant party till fairly recently. Things change. If reform really wanted to win an election they could. But they won't do it by having effectively just one policy.

And on that one policy, we can go back to the SNP. They were a single policy party. And they changed. Now firmly left of center with a few blips, they beat labour. The Indy thing is still there, but it is shuffled back and forth from the small burner to the large. It's mostly on the back burner these days. But it is still brought to the boil now and then.

Can't Reform change and adapt as the SNP did ?

But here you are, not even discussing that. It's as if, for you, it is immigration or bust. Same as you are with Brexit. Brexit or bust. And Brexit did go bust.

Does that mean that for you, the only thing Reform offer is immigration? That if they do not offer that, then they can't win because you certainly won't vote for them?

@RedTagAlan

The parties will not issue their manifesto until the next general election is called which could be in 2029.

Regards police data, I would not object to all those over 18 being finger printed and DNA tested. It would be a big help in solving crimes.

I voted Labour in 2024. I don’t remember all what was said in the 2024 Reform contract, but it included:

Increase to the personal allowance. Good idea I thought as it has not increased in line with inflation since 2021 and has the greatest impact on those with low wages.

Scrap net zero and move towards small modular nuclear power plants. That seems good too as energy prices seem to be rising regardless of how many wind turbines are erected.

Reduce government wastage.

Leave the ECHR.

Not that it makes any difference as Reform did not win.

You did not respond to what I posted, so not sure why you are tagging me.

I posted about recording political affiliation when recording crime. And I pondered if that would show any pattern. You did not address that.

I asked you, quote, "Does that mean that for you, the only thing Reform offer is immigration? That if they do not offer that, then they can't win because you certainly won't vote for them?". You did not answer.

You have already said you did not vote reform last time because you wanted to keep the Tories out. Now you say you agree with other reform policies, yet the ones you mention are closer to Tory than Labour. But you voted labour.

Something is not adding up. Because here you are, always posting in support of Reform, so far as I can see. Yet you seem unwilling to own their single most important, if not their only real, policy.

Leaving the ECHR for example, is only so they can carry out their number one policy.

@RedTagAlan

I asked you, quote, "Does that mean that for you, the only thing Reform offer is immigration? That if they do not offer that, then they can't win because you certainly won't vote for them?". You did not answer.

It was answered. Reform 2024 Contract listed policies other than immigration such as, increase the personal allowance, move away from net zero and reduce government waste are the ones I remember. I also remember leave the ECHR.

Now you say you agree with other reform policies, yet the ones you mention are closer to Tory than Labour. But you voted labour

Where did I say that I agree with what Reform listed in their 2024 contract? The wording of my response was:

I don’t remember all what it said, but it included:

The word remember can’t be construed to mean agree.

I voted Labour as, like every other UK registered voter, I am free to choose.

Yet you seem unwilling to own their single most important, if not their only real, policy

Policies belong to whose who make them and then enact them, not by those who didn’t.

Reform 2024 Contract can be found in:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf?1718625371

This thread is about the sting operation against Reform. And it has now included what happened at the conference. And basically, the thread is on the low burner awaiting police announcements. And your good self, a pro Brexit defender who many who are posting here, have debated with on Brexit threads, are defending Farage and so on.

Totally spot on. Free country, open forum. Robust debate all round.

And you say you did not vote for Reform last time, because you want to keep the Tories out. And that is odd to me because Reform and the Tories have closer policies, apart from immigration, so you were asked if you thought immigration was the top policy, and you said no, its Nuke Energy, No Net Zero... all a bit odd because why vote labour? Because Tory are closer to Reform, and you do a bit of slip sliding about. But you will not say if you support Reform on immigration.

NOT ON THIS THREAD ANYWAY.

I follow a few different threads. As do most posters. And some I just read and don't post on. I just read, and if I see something, I might post. Passing time, as we do.

Now I do not believe in cross thread posting. I think there are ethics involved. It just not feels fair to me. And it's only a Forum after all. Just for the craic, chewing the cud and all that. And we all have to assume we are being honest, posting in good faith etc. We are not here with agendas to spread, we mostly share our opinions and discuss, debate, argue.

But this thread, this very thread, is about Reform and their alleged dishonesty. Or we can call it "truth avoidance". And most posters here do appear to be anti-Reform.

So instead of asking you if you support Reform because of their immigration policy, how about if I rephrase that question.

Do you think there is some sort of conspiracy thing going on between the Tories and Labour on immigration? Maybe not a conspiracy, lets call it an agenda.

Would your answer be...

"Correct.
Conservatives want cheap labour.
Labour wants people who will vote for them in return for all the freebies."

Sorry. I let my ethics slip a little there.

Here we are. On a thread about how Reform are dishonest, or truth selective, not good faith posters... what to say. You have proven how Reform operate. That is, be gentle towards anti Reform or undecided. Try to persuade. To soften. If in an anti-immigration chamber echo chamber, let it rip, reinforce, build it up... escalate.

@RedTagAlan

so you were asked if you thought immigration was the top policy, and you said no

Incorrect statement. Your question was,

Does that mean that for you, the only thing Reform offer is immigration?

No reference was made to top policy.

My reply was that the Reform 2024 Contract referred not only to immigration, but other subjects such as; personal allowance, net zero, government spending, etc,.

As for the question,

Do you think there is some sort of conspiracy thing going on between the Tories and Labour on immigration? Maybe not a conspiracy, lets call it an agenda.

What the Conservatives and Labour say to each other behind closed doors, I don’t know. Do you? Regards immigration, both have said over several decades that numbers would be reduced to the 10s of thousands, but it has never happened.

You have proven how Reform operate.

How? Reform has an estimated 270,000 members and I don’t know any of them. Reason is that I am not a member of Reform, or any other party. So, what they say to each other on how to present their ideas, I wouldn’t know.

Lot of semantics going on here. Running more circles than a Christmas train set.

Quote from your post above-
----
"As for the question,

Do you think there is some sort of conspiracy thing going on between the Tories and Labour on immigration? Maybe not a conspiracy, lets call it an agenda.

What the Conservatives and Labour say to each other behind closed doors, I don’t know. Do you? Regards immigration, both have said over several decades that numbers would be reduced to the 10s of thousands, but it has never happened."
----
My question in bold, your words in Italics. Dashes for format. That is what you wrote above. Here, on a mostly anti-reform thread.

You say you do not know what labour and the Tories say behind closed doors.

ON THIS THREAD.

How about I don't ask a question. And just do a post that includes this "Both Labour and Tories have an incentive for the current influx of people into the country to continue". And lets say I post that as part of a post that has a rather conspiracy theory style to it. With other words and phrases such as " beholden to their friends in big business", "globalists", fool the British public".

Would you be saying "What the Conservatives and Labour say to each other behind closed doors, I don’t know. ". Or might you pick out a line from that post- this line perhaps.." Both Labour and Tories have an incentive for the current influx of people into the country to continue", and say this
--------
"Correct.

Conservatives want cheap labour.

Labour wants people who will vote for them in return for all the freebies."
--------
I missed out by the way. The conspiracy style post is on an anti immigrant thread, and most of the posters are anti immigrant.

Direct question again, sorry. Why is it that on this thread, an anti-reform thread, you do not know what "the Conservatives and Labour say to each other behind closed doors", but on a different anti migrant thread, you state this "Correct. Conservatives want cheap labour. Labour wants people who will vote for them in return for all the freebies.".

And you say that with such confidence to those who are, shall we say, leaning towards conspiracies.

And the posts are within hours of each other.

Why are you saying different things to different political demographics ?

Further to my above post. I want to ask the board. Is the term " Globalists" still a far right dog whistle, used to refer to a too long persecuted group of peoples ?

I remember it certainly was in many of the far right publications I have read.

When I see that term used, I certainly do not reply to it in the affirmative. Especially when it is being used by someone who appears to be, shall we say, rather far right.

I try to avoid dog whistles myself. Or words that are used as such.

@RedTagAlan

How about I don't ask a question. And just do a post that includes this "Both Labour and Tories have an incentive for the current influx of people into the country to continue"

That post has already been made. As has:

beholden to their friends in big business", "globalists", fool the British public".

and

." Both Labour and Tories have an incentive for the current influx of people into the country to continue",

Regards Conservatives and Labour, maybe they do want immigration to continue, but for different reasons. Hence no need to communicate or conspire.

Both have promised to reduce immigration to 10s of thousands for decades, but it has not happened. So, either they are not interested whether immigration goes up or down, or they gain from immigration.

Why are you saying different things to different political demographics ?

Like voting, people are free to choose what they post on MN, or any other forum. If posts are considered to be inappropriate, or do not comply with forum guidelines, the owners of the forum will delete.

Different political demographics may not ask the same questions or make the same comments. Hence they may receive different replies. Either way, posts can’t be policed by other posters.