to think that it's unacceptable to frighten someone's DC even if you think they're a nasty bigot?

[OTheHugeManatee]

I just saw this story about protesters forcing Nigel Farage and his family out of a pub where they were having lunch.

I don't really like Farage's politics. But I support his democratic right to hold those views. AIBU to think hounding him and frightening his DC during a family lunch is unacceptable, illiberal and frankly nasty, whatever you think of the things he says?

not rtft, just the article. This seems like a load of spin

lol at Farage running to the papers with this

(look at the so-called scary 'mob'. They're hardly Moseley's blackshirts, now, are they?)

he's missed the real story about the Bulgarian chef wanking into his mixed grill

oh really Hakluyt?

that's very interesting

"leave the kids alone"

Yes, leave the thousands of kids his opinions are damaging alone.

UKIP are dangerous

they are also shrewd media operators

this, times a thousand

So if I don't like someone's opinions and I think they're inciting some kind of bad behaviour but worry my accusations would never hold water in actual court legal remedy would take too long, I am justified in taking matters into my hand by gathering a mob peaceful protest group to take 'direct action'?

So let's say, for example, that I think Russell Brand is more than just a puerile tosser and is in fact actively inciting people to do bad things with his bad opinions. Other people agree with me. So then because the courts would laugh at me take too long to bring legal remedy it's perfectly reasonable for me to rustle up a group of people to 'peacefully protest' at him while he's having dinner at Le Communist Gavroche with whoever his girlfriend is this week. That's OK, right? Because direct action is the thing?

Now you're getting it!

Yes.

pmsl @ they are also shrewd media operators

Which UKIP are you talking about?

I reckon Russell Brand would love it if a troupe of topless ostentatious breastfeeders turned up to dinner with him

And Russell hardly promulgates hatred. Rather more the opposite.

Still.

Also, those of you who believe in times places and the ballot box, were it not for rule-breaking, direct action and making a public fuss, you wouldn't even have the option of the ballot box.

Would you have told the suffragettes it was inappropriate to protest at the race course, or at someone's home?

FFS no one has said do not protest or take direct action. No one has said that. I am well aware of the impact it has had. You seem to think that the people who have condemned this action are opposed to protest. That is not true.

Maybe someone should have gone to the pub and set themselves on fire in protest at what they think about Farage. That's direct action. Why not go to the pub and throw eggs at him?

The suffragettes took a range of actions. Some more effective than others. The cat and mouse tactics were effective as they got the public on side and made tbe establishment look bad.

Would you throw stones and put stuff through his letter box if you knew where he lived?

That's the point Orlando. Apart from the one (condemned by all) person who got on the car bonnet, it was a peaceful and funny conga. No eggs, no stones, no fire.

But apparently still not acceptable in a "public space"

My point stands.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/24/ill-disciplined-rabble-in-anti-farage-protest?CMP=share_btn_tw

Look at that terrifying baby! And the smiling woman! So scary.

Dear Alan has a teeny tiny vested interest.

The baby looks rather jolly considering the situation around him. Why is his mother's breast exposed at that juncture? Is it a new kind of 'always ready' BF? Looks chilly. And why take your baby with you to stand in the path of the car?

TBF they look unhinged rather than actually menacing.nIt isn't Gandhi or the Pankhursts though.

Nobody comes out of this looking sensible, reasonable human beings, really.

If you support direct action, would you support his house being targeted by people?

Would you support the suffragettes' direct action?

They threw bricks at windows, attacked the prime minister, set light to post boxes etc etc etc

Got us what we wanted and needed.

A few dressed up people and babies that did no one any harm, yet you think them unsuitable.

We wouldn't have the vote if people like you had your way.

Personally i think some of their actions got results and some of their actions did not help their cause. From what i am aware, it was the lobbying and persuasion that helped get the vote rather than a lot of the direct action. The cat and mouse tactics gained sympathy.

I admire Rosa Parks and the bus boycott. Gandhi and his peaceful non violent approach. Make the authority look bad and heavy handed and you get sympathy and attitudes change.

Personally i think this action has backfired. It has raised awareness but also made people sorry for him. I am sure that is not what they wanted.

Do you really think it was that action that got the vote?

Would you support the suffragettes' direct action?

That is such a wide spectrum of different actions with different targets and tactics, by different people.

From what i understand, the direct action turned people away. It was the other less direct actions that persuaded people. On my phone so can't google but i think the suffragette movement was more than just direct action and there was a split on the approach to take.

There was a split - there were the suffragists and the suffragettes.

People might have said they didn't like (some of) the direct action - it certainly wasn't ladylike - but it certainly got attention and forced the issue onto the agenda. And they were completely ignored up until then, and lied to, because it was easy to ignore them...because there were no repercussions.