Police Interfering With Democracy

[compfan]

Oldham By election BNP Candidate removed physically by police from a hustings debate so he could not take part. In the general election they came 4th in that seat. And we preach to other countries about democracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????

UK POLICE STATE.

Do you think this WW2 veteran squadron leader and BNP member struggled with the written word? Its hilarous how people think all the BNP members are stupid can't write and can't debate. It's only revealing your snobbery.

Anyway, wikileaks released their stolen membership and put pay to that assumption. It was in the papers and the biggest shock horror aspect of the articles was how many GP's, teachers, lecturers, engineers etc were members.

Last time I looked the police also interfered with drunken and disorderly people, anti-socials, criminals e.t.c..clearly someone thinks the BNP are in the same league. Get over it.

"Its hilarous how people think all the BNP members are stupid ... can't debate."

You aren't exactly proving otherwise now are you?

You can see the cream of BNP intellectualism in this picture. And this one.

Ooh, and in this display of BNP intelligentsia, I am given to understand that the chap kneeling at the front is Peter Tierney who was convicted of ABH against an anti-fascist campaigner in 2009. Nice people.

Thanks compfan. Before you showed me the error of my ways through your many and varied youtube videos, when I saw Nick Griffin speak on TV I thought he was just a narrow-minded bumbling fool. I thought he didn't have the intelligence to back up his racist views with anything approaching facts or event the charm or wit to successfully bullshit his way out of the hole his mouth had dug for him.

But no! You have made me see the light and now I understand that the fact that most BNP members would be completely illiterate if they were to lose their index fingers is completely beside the point. You have convinced me that despite appearances, people like these aren't dangerous maniacs but thoughtful, intellectual powerhouses.

"You seem to treat democratic hustings like wine and cheese parties, you have to be on the guest list."

Well they are and you do. There's no special status awarded to "hustings", they're just a meeting organised by someone and they have the right, given that we're a free country, to decide who attends and who doesn't.

"SO HOW EXACTLY CAN THIS PARTY ENGAGE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS??????????!!!!!!!!!!!"

Organising their own hustings, getting out a soapbox, knocking on doors, making party political broadcasts, printing leaflets and actually answering questions would be a very good start.

It really doesn't look good to come on screaming about the "Police interfering with Democracy" and give links that talk about the "death of democracy" and then refuse utterly to explain what you meant and what should have been different.

So let's break this down and see if you're then willing to actually give an answer, here's a chance for the BNP to debate, so come on, take it.

The organisers arranged a meeting and invited who they wanted to speak. An uninvited speaker gatecrashed the top table, refused to move and delayed the meeting. In the end the organisers phoned the police and given as how the meeting was on private property and the speaker had no right to be there they removed him.

Now what exactly went wrong there?

How exactly did the police interfere with democracy?

How exactly is that the death of democracy?

I'll even help you out here and give you some suggestions.

Should it be impossible to arrange a meeting with the candidates for an election unless you invite each and every candidate?

Should the law be changed so that candidates for a local election cannot be removed from a meeting on private property within their constituency?

You say the BNP wants to engage with the democratic process, well here you go. Now either explain your statements, retract them saying that know you now the full story they're not true or just post more YouTube links and therefore admit that you don't want to talk and instead just want to stage stunts and shout catch phrases.

Compfan.

Badgers has asked the same question several times which I think is key and you haven't answered.

If a person is not invited to participate in a meeting but takes it upon themselves to do so, what do you propose should be done?

So for arguments sake, I decide to come to a BNP meeting, get up on the stage & sit down. Would you call the police to have me removed or would you bring me a cup of tea?

So, bets on the next response being a youtube video, rather than an answer?

I've got my hopes up that we'll get a proper response, this is the "death of democracy" that we're talking about here and there's an unrestricted chance for the BNP to get their message across.

The questions have been there on page 1 since 8pm last night so rather than being avoided I'm sure that they're just being given due consideration. I'm sure that there are some very good answers to those questions about what exactly went wrong and what changes to the law the BNP would like enacted to have things go differently next time.

Or, on the other hand, could this just be some cheap publicity stunt by a sulky child who was expecting to be treated in the same way that the BNP treats unwanted guests at their meetings(for example) and was hoping for a nice newspaper front page without having to actually open his mouth and debate anything?

No, surely not.

Just looking in 24 hours on from last time - Badgers, hats off to you for persevering. Lots of that Compfan hasn't come up with any answers in any, you know, words.

Badgers They are obviously really mulling over the answer to your question. Should be really impressive to have taken this long..

They're probably uploading a new video to YouTube just for us. Ooh, isn't it exciting!

Oh well....

You saw pretty much a typical BNP response in trying to avoid actually having a debate.

Step 1) Dismissal, try and make the debater seem to be not worth having, you could for example try and make out that the opposition are North Korean fans or something crazy like that.

Step 2) Distraction, try and take the focus away from the debate, posting up irrelevant YouTube videos tries that approach.

Step 3) Run away, if the debate seems inevitable then just shut up and head for the hills.

The BNP don't want to talk, they just want to do publicity stunts like having a toddlers tantrum in public or baying about the "death of democracy".

However some good has come of this.

This page will sit here for years to come as an example of the ineptitude and hopelessness of the BNP.

And we saw the absolute gem of the people trying to argue against a political party being able to take away your rights to organise political gatherings as being the ones who were totalitarian.

As said Compfan has got to be a double agent, they've achieved nothing except to make the BNP look like fools.

WRONG BADGER DICTATOR this page will sit here as an example of an arrogant know all who clearly does not know much, mouthing off with a superior attitude. You are a fool.

Here is the electoral commission rules on holding hustings events.

www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/105946/sp-hustings-rp-npc-ca.pdf

So, take it from them not from me.

Looks like the organiser of the hustings who allowed their personal prejudices get the better of them might well be in hot water.

I think the key sentences for those that don't want to read the whole thing are;

'The organiser does not have to ensure that all candidates or parties attend the event.
THEY JUST NEED TO BE INVITED.'

'If you are holding a public hustings event in your constituency, and you want to make sure that your event is not affected by the rules on election spending, the simplest way is to invite all the relevant candidates in the area.'

'To show your local hustings event is genuinely non-promotional you should: Be able to give objective reasons why you have not invited particular candidates. And you should be prepared to explain your reasons to candidates who you haven?t invited.They do not include subjective reasons such as your views of the policies of a candidate.'

'Allow each candidate attending a fair chance to answer questions, and where appropriate, a reasonable opportunity to respond to points made against them by other candidates.'

'If your event does not follow our recommendations, it may be promoting one or more candidates. You should let the candidates or their agents know in advance. The organiser will also be treated as making a donation to each of those candidates. The donations must be reported by the candidates in their spending returns after the election.'

'If your organisation is a charity, you must follow the Charity Commission?s guidance on election activity. It is usually a breach of charity law to make a political donation.
Rules may also apply to organisations that receive public funds.'

Oh dear a quick check reveals the Delph Community Association is a charity.
(Registered Charity No. 1115315). So the rules they have to follow will likely to have been even stricter.

So you didn't manage to answer the question then?

compfan, your reading skills haven't got any better. Maybe you could ask the Electoral Commission if they can provide that document in YouTube format for you?

That document DOES NOT say that any hustings has to invite all standing parties. Nor does it say that childish, racist twats like Derek Adams can insist on muscling their way into a hustings just because they're having a sulk.

All it DOES say is that if you don't choose to invite all candidates - which you as the organiser are perfectly at liberty to do - then there are some rules surrounding the declaration of election expenses that may possibly need to be followed depending on the situation.

If the BNP thinks that these rules were broken then the way to deal with it would be to approach the Electoral Commission and ask for them to investigate. Not, I repeat NOT, to try to sit in at a meeting to which they have not been invited.

But well done - yet another BNP own-goal there. You point to a document that you reckon backs your case that the BNP should've been invited but, in actuality, it proves that the organisers had to do no such thing. Bravo!

Another thumping own goal for Compfan :) Finding the documents that prove the organisers did the right thing :)

"WRONG BADGER DICTATOR this page will sit here as an example of an arrogant know all who clearly does not know much, mouthing off with a superior attitude."

No, it will sit here as an example of someone who both knows the law and can read PDFs better than you. You've done the work, you've found the information, but then you completely fail to understand it.

It will also remain here as an example of you still refusing to answer questions about what exactly went wrong and what law should be changed so it could be different next time.

"Oh dear a quick check reveals the Delph Community Association is a charity. (Registered Charity No. 1115315). So the rules they have to follow will likely to have been even stricter."

Yes Charities do have some different forms of guidance than normal private individuals.

You can read them here: www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/Your_charitys_activities/Campaigning/elect.aspx

Putting aside all the normal and completely legal reasons that an organisation could choose not to invite the BNP they have additional exemptions that allow them to not invite certain candidates.

Charities have more reasons, not less, that allow them to exclude certain political parties.

The relevant bit is here:

"However, inviting candidates from a wide spectrum can be difficult to achieve in practice. It does not mean that all parties have to be represented every time a charity does any work which engages with political parties. If a charity is uncomfortable engaging with a particular party, it should examine the reasons why. The trustees should make a decision based on whether such engagement would further or hinder the interests of the charity. For example, an event may be more manageable and more focused if all minority parties are excluded. If the charity is advised (for example by the police) that the presence of a particular candidate at an event will create a risk of disorder, that would be a good reason for not inviting them. It is also open to charities not to invite a representative from a political party which advocates policies which are in contravention of the charity's objects, or whose presence or views are likely to alienate the charity's supporters."

That final point is the key one, it basically gives charities fee will not to invite a candidate that they strongly disagree with.

As Snorbs says if you think the rules have been broken then the correct thing to do is to make an immediate complaint to the electoral commission. They can demand that the election be cancelled or held again.

The BNP hasn't done this despite not being invited to many hustings, so they either know that legally nothing incorrect happened or, like Compfan, they don't understand the rules either.

And we've now gone back around to the initial position of making an unreasonable and unfounded yet controversial statement.

Are we about to go back into the cycle of dismissal, distraction and then running away?

I'll just reiterate that point about making a complaint, because making sure that the rules are followed is very important to ensure that we don't see the "death of democracy".

Compfan, if after reading the electoral and charity commissions' guidelines you still disagree with everyone on here and believe that rules have been broken then you've got to make a complaint to one or both of those commissions.

I fully support your right to do so and in fact I'd say that it's pretty much a responsibility for all of us to be observant about such things.

Also compfan I'm sure BNP headquarters has contact details for the Electoral Commission if you need them.

After all, the BNP is no stranger to the Electoral Commission. The Commission has had to fine and censure the BNP in the past for its repeated failures to properly report its finances.

At least they got there in the end, unlike the EU which has not had its accounts signed off for 15 years!!!

'To show your local hustings event is genuinely non-promotional you should: Be able to give objective reasons why you have not invited particular candidates. And you should be prepared to explain your reasons to candidates who you haven?t invited.They do not include subjective reasons such as your views of the policies of a candidate.'

KEYWORD - SUBJECTIVE. So a legitimate reason eg. might have been only those that came in the top 4 in the last election, but BNP beat UKIP so what was their non subjective reason apart from the mini dictator tendencies of the organiser?

And once again you have managed to avoid the entirely reasonable and apposite questions that BadgersPaws has asked you. Good work! Keep it up!

"so what was their non subjective reason apart from the mini dictator tendencies of the organiser"

To give but one reason they as a charity are allowed to "not to invite a representative from a political party which advocates policies which are in contravention of the charity's objects".

They're a housing association and one of the BNP's policies is to "Take all privatised social housing stock back under local democratically controlled council ownership". And that is in direct contravention of the aims of the housing association which obviously include the continued management of social housing by non Council bodies.

And there are no doubt there are many other reasons they could give both as a private citizen and also using the extra reasons allowed for a charity.

So I can see many reasons why the BNP would be excluded.

It's worth noting that neither the BNP nor Derek Adams seem to be making any noises about this or talking about complaining to any commission.

But again, I urge you as it is your important democratic right, if you still disagree and think that the rules are broken please report this.

I don't like the BNP one little piece, as you can probably tell, however I fully support their right to be a part of democracy in this country.

Here is an election scene from Manchester, England in 2010.

........thats the Iraq election not the British one.

And here's a scene from another election Compfan. I think you will like it.

What did I say earlier about going "back into the cycle of dismissal, distraction and then running away"?