AIBU to want to express support for women who were assaulted at a political conference?

[Warmlight1]

To want to send out support to the two women visibly assaulted at a political conference.
I am concerned about the other protesters too and actually anyone who was hurt. But having to listen to jeering from the podium plus the crowd chanting in live TV at the same time must have been so traumatic and the publicity will die down and coverage move on but that can't be easy. Just want to send love and support.

I would like to see those that commited the assault brought up before the law.

I would also like those that incited the indient to be brought up before the law as well.

I was thinking much the same thing myself. Women step out of line or are the wrong type of women and they are instantly fair game.

John Prescott was slammed in the face with an egg, not the same at all!

Yep. Lots of women on mn have a voice and won't shut up and agree with the reform men. We are not the right kind of women, so fair game for the violence of reform men.

...which is an assault, as is throwing milkshakes over a person. What's your point?

What have they done to break the law? What law has the Heckler broken?

Dunno, maybe but I don't pay a great deal of attention to what you say tbh.

I just wanted to highlight the narrative/consensus of the thread is being warped by very active posters pushing a particular view/agenda. Didn't even name names but thanks for outing yourself 😅

A hard egg is going to hurt quite a bit more than a milkshake. What did the woman do to justify being hit by the man?

Equally, yet again your deflection from the real issue that is being discussed is as The Telegraph reported, "this is not a decent party for decent people".

Outing myself for what? How can posters warp an AIBU thread. If the case is that we are all meant to think the same, why is there a voting poll?

I'm with you OP. I hate Reform but I don't think you should have to to agree that mob violence is not an acceptable response to non-violent protest.

All parties have hecklers of various stripes. Some with a point, some just there to be annoying. And they are a bit of a challenge to deal with- either they are dragged out by security or the politician speaking has to try to seem like they are listening/engaging. There have been cases in the past where politicians have been accused of looking tone deaf by having protesters removed. I can't think of any other situation where they have been violently assaulted while the politician smirks.

Even outside of political conferences you have disruption and protesters of all types causing issues. Eg there was Posie Parkers disruption of some Muslims praying by standing in front of them and repeatedly moving to stand in front of them when they moved. You could see the Muslim men were annoyed. They did not however assault her. Likewise there have been trans activists infiltrating GC events. They were removed. They were surrounded by an angry mob of people grabbing at their throats. If either of those groups had reacted in a violent fashion you would not hear the end of it.

The point is that, regardless of the orientation of the protestor/heckler, it's not normal for the reaction of the crowd to be violent. The fact this happend and that it was supported by Farage at the time and later played of as "serves her right" is really disturbing and divisive.

I was talking about attention seekers when I mentioned the Prescott incident.

Bloody hell. I know what you mean!

How can you defend this when even the Torygraph are questioning their credibility, the article headline, "The violence against anti-Reform voters should worry us all". This from a paper that employs Isabel Oakeshott, isn't she Richard Tice's girlfriend?

You’ve always known who I am. It’s no secret.

So deflection as the thread is about the violence towards a woman at the Reform conference. Something you appear to be able to justify with your whataboutery.

Can't shake?! They cultivate it.

Encourage it. Laughing as a woman is assaulted.

Its no secret who I am either, regardless of the bizarre speculation.

Outing yourself as the very active poster I was initially talking about.

Quite easily really. There's, at the time if writing this, 265 posts on this thread, 49 of them by you. So roughly one in five posts is a deflection, derailment, whataboutery post from you, and that's how you warp a thread.

But then why am I telling the master how to work?

I could say that I notice you only show up on certain threads, normally with the same theme. Shall I AS and calculate or shall I carry on having a life? Oh, I know, I think I will post when and where I want and if you don't like the fact I don't join in on the tedious Reform witch hunt, I can't help that.

Was I right when I said you was Katie Hopkins then? MN deleted it. My other guess was Julie Birchall. You said you were a “Tory” I thought that was odd. Tories don’t call themselves “Tories”.

Indeed, I'm most active on political threads and I'm pretty consistent in my views. It's not that I don't like that you won't join in, it's more that I'm perplexed by how far you'll go to avoid criticising them.

But of course you're free and welcome to post when and where you want. Just as I'm free to look at the data and highlight it.

For example I've posted around 640 times in 2 and bit years, while you've posted over 4600 times since you joined / name changed in May. That's like 40 posts a day on average, quite the effort really.

Is heckling a crime? I agree that the thugs who attacked the heckler should be held to account most definitely.

What do you mean name changed?