Body & Soul0 min ago
Britain First Conference Halted
46 Answers
On what legal grounds could Kent Police call an immediate halt to this event behind closed doors?
Is this not another attempt at stifling freedom of speech and enforcing political prejudice?
Is this not another attempt at stifling freedom of speech and enforcing political prejudice?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Looks like the building was booked if not under false pretences then with no real indication of who had done so.
Not surprisingly when they found out who it was they took fright.
This is probably sensible. The police probably have enough to do without trying to keep the peace between extremist minority groups. A pity for anyone in BF who kids themselves that the organisation has a modicum of respectability, but the harsh fact of the matter is if you go for divisive street politics then this is the sort of response you can expect.
Not surprisingly when they found out who it was they took fright.
This is probably sensible. The police probably have enough to do without trying to keep the peace between extremist minority groups. A pity for anyone in BF who kids themselves that the organisation has a modicum of respectability, but the harsh fact of the matter is if you go for divisive street politics then this is the sort of response you can expect.
My "speculation" is based on the following:
"The meeting had been booked as a group meeting for 100 people without any reference to Britain First.
"However, as soon as it became apparent that the organisation was planning to host their meeting at the community centre, steps were taken to review the booking as counter-protests to the booking were likely."
I am no legal expert but I can't see there any legal issue here. The council has the right to cancel the event if they think there is a risk of disorder.
Where I would "speculate" is as to the nature of the "free speech" that has been stifled If it's anything like the "muzzies" chat on their facebook page then maybe not such a great loss :-)
As the meeting was it seems eventually held though perhaps that is a view that could be held up to scrutiny.
"The meeting had been booked as a group meeting for 100 people without any reference to Britain First.
"However, as soon as it became apparent that the organisation was planning to host their meeting at the community centre, steps were taken to review the booking as counter-protests to the booking were likely."
I am no legal expert but I can't see there any legal issue here. The council has the right to cancel the event if they think there is a risk of disorder.
Where I would "speculate" is as to the nature of the "free speech" that has been stifled If it's anything like the "muzzies" chat on their facebook page then maybe not such a great loss :-)
As the meeting was it seems eventually held though perhaps that is a view that could be held up to scrutiny.
Here is a bit more, highly relevent information....
http://
http://
It can be ordered under the Public Order Act 1986 and this covers criminal law and prevention in respect of public order offences is intended to penalise and limit the use of violence and/or intimidation by individuals or groups.
Given the record of this mob, they, the Kent Police have every right to suppress such a meeting and nip it in the bud. We're not condoning potential Far Right violence, are we agchristie? I hope not.
Given the record of this mob, they, the Kent Police have every right to suppress such a meeting and nip it in the bud. We're not condoning potential Far Right violence, are we agchristie? I hope not.
JTH,
Not surprising there are wildly conflicting views of what happened.
DTC
Some background info prior to the Conference. On Nov 1, BF held a rally in Rochester and with police assistance made it through the opposers.
A meeting with Police Commanders took place ahead of the second rally on the 15th. It was agreed with Kent Police that BF would be permitted to march to the War Memorial to address their supporters. BF advanced only a short distance before left wing opponents blocked their path. The Police then decided to issue a S.12 from the Public Order Act 1986, this was a surprising move and BF were ordered to return to the railway station. One BF supporter was seriously injured by someone from the opposing group.
I am not condoning 'far right violence' but there was little difference between the two marches and one was stopped.
Not surprising there are wildly conflicting views of what happened.
DTC
Some background info prior to the Conference. On Nov 1, BF held a rally in Rochester and with police assistance made it through the opposers.
A meeting with Police Commanders took place ahead of the second rally on the 15th. It was agreed with Kent Police that BF would be permitted to march to the War Memorial to address their supporters. BF advanced only a short distance before left wing opponents blocked their path. The Police then decided to issue a S.12 from the Public Order Act 1986, this was a surprising move and BF were ordered to return to the railway station. One BF supporter was seriously injured by someone from the opposing group.
I am not condoning 'far right violence' but there was little difference between the two marches and one was stopped.
Jack's link refers, presumably, to the meeting that was eventually held.
Assuming (perhaps rashly, perhaps not) that the police version is correct, then it seems that the meeting went ahead without incident, but that BF decided to concoct a further accusation of interference by the authorities, hardly surprisingly, since fuelling a persecution complex is a typical tactic of groups like this
Assuming (perhaps rashly, perhaps not) that the police version is correct, then it seems that the meeting went ahead without incident, but that BF decided to concoct a further accusation of interference by the authorities, hardly surprisingly, since fuelling a persecution complex is a typical tactic of groups like this
Ichkeria,
Assuming (perhaps rashly, perhaps not) that BF's version of events is correct, what message does that send out?
Interestingly, you mention a 'persecution complex'. Is it such or are there valid grievences? It is a shame that the Royal Mail's decision not to issue the election leaflet wasn't challenged in court. The issue of political uniform and copywright will be interesting though and the outstanding harassment charge against Golding.
If these decisions go in BF's favour then is it any wonder the party may feel persecuted?
Assuming (perhaps rashly, perhaps not) that BF's version of events is correct, what message does that send out?
Interestingly, you mention a 'persecution complex'. Is it such or are there valid grievences? It is a shame that the Royal Mail's decision not to issue the election leaflet wasn't challenged in court. The issue of political uniform and copywright will be interesting though and the outstanding harassment charge against Golding.
If these decisions go in BF's favour then is it any wonder the party may feel persecuted?
I think the potential for violence was negligable given that this was an event held by BF behind closed doors and, allegedly, very few people knowing the purpose of the meeting. Rather different to the prospect of major clashes on the streets.
The police stated that they responded to a 'disturbance'. Hmmm.
The police stated that they responded to a 'disturbance'. Hmmm.
PP,
The Police stated that the group left at 4pm, if that is correct then it is improbable that the owners kicked them out as they surely would have realised with more immediacy what event was occuring.
Police responded to a call they say at 2.20 though we don't know the response time. The meeting agenda was cut by a half so the event was well under way.
I wonder when the police left the site? If it was 4pm say and that they arrived by 3 at the latest, one wonders why several officers remained for so long if there was little to act on....
The Police stated that the group left at 4pm, if that is correct then it is improbable that the owners kicked them out as they surely would have realised with more immediacy what event was occuring.
Police responded to a call they say at 2.20 though we don't know the response time. The meeting agenda was cut by a half so the event was well under way.
I wonder when the police left the site? If it was 4pm say and that they arrived by 3 at the latest, one wonders why several officers remained for so long if there was little to act on....
Latest Posts
Music5 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
Family & Relationships13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.