The Student Room Group

UKIP forced to cancel Freepost address after far-Left bombard them with blood/faeces

Scroll to see replies

Original post by andrew2209
To be honest, a lot of far leftists are either chavs or people who are just "anarchists" and turn up at protest marches to cause trouble.


If you consider yourself left wing you should really read up on what anarchism actually is.
Original post by Green Marble
Sending disgusting bodily fluids such as blood and fences is not non violent


Violence: "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

What they did was not savoury, I grant you, and I wouldn't have chosen bodily fluids to send, but it wasn't violent since it didn't involve physical force.
Reply 22
Original post by Green Marble
Sending disgusting bodily fluids such as blood and feaces is not non violent


Yes it is, no-one was injured -->non-violent
Not that that makes it right of course.
Original post by jupiter125
I would describe myself as far left and I wouldn't say I was a disgusting person. In fact, everyone in my politics classes has been left/far left and I would never describe them as such - disgruntled? Yes. Disgusting? No. The far right on the other hand...:wink:


Brainwashing is going well then.
Original post by thesabbath
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-forced-cancel-freepost-address-3495376

I wonder what political arguments these "disgruntled members of the public" have to offer.


Horrible.

However, how do you know that the far-left did this?
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
Violence: "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

What they did was not savoury, I grant you, and I wouldn't have chosen bodily fluids to send, but it wasn't violent since it didn't involve physical force.


The legal sense of violence is an act that causes alarm or distress. Sending blood and feaces in the post to someone is an act of violence and I am disgusted that you think that this is non violent
Original post by Time Tourist
Brainwashing is going well then.


I would rather be brainwashed to hold beliefs that endeavour to support the poorest and most vulnerable in society than to be solely interested in self-advancement and money.
Original post by Green Marble
The legal sense of violence is an act that causes alarm or distress. Sending blood and feaces in the post to someone is an act of violence and I am disgusted that you think that this is non violent


I only know what my dictionary tells me.
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
I only know what my dictionary tells me.


These actions are illegal and defined under british law as An act of violence. It only takes someone with half a brain to regard this as an act of violence as blood and feaces or a biohazard and is is legally defined as serious assault


spitting in someone's face will see a court of law come down harder on you than if you were to punch someone in the face due to the risks associated with bodily fluids being biologically hazardous agents
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by jupiter125
I would rather be brainwashed to hold beliefs that endeavour to support the poorest and most vulnerable in society than to be solely interested in self-advancement and money.


It has very little to do with that, be honest...

(read: I would rather just be told the 'correct' opinions to have than have to think for myself)
(edited 9 years ago)
Sending UKIP bricks was brilliant, but biological matter is a bit disgusting.

It's not only the far-left that disagree with UKIP; practically all of the political spectrum apart from the far-right disagree with UKIP and Farage.
Original post by Green Marble
These actions are illegal and defined under british law as An act of violence. It only takes someone with half a brain to regard this as an act of violence as blood and feaces or a biohazard and is is legally defined as serious assault


spitting in someone's face will see a court of law come down harder on you than if you were to punch someone in the face due to the risks associated with bodily fluids being biologically hazardous agents


That well known illegal act the serious assault, I'm assuming you mean normal assault here? The serious ones are ABH and GBH, neither of which is relevant here.

The law on assault requires there to be the use or apprehension of imminent physical force.

Under 'Ireland;Burstow' this could be construed as such if it were believed UKIP party workers genuinely believed the sender was outside and imminently to use physical force on them as a consequence of receiving this package. That seems unlikely but not impossible, it's hard to say without seeing statements from those workers.

This is probably caught by some other statutory law though.
Original post by jupiter125
I would describe myself as far left and I wouldn't say I was a disgusting person. In fact, everyone in my politics classes has been left/far left and I would never describe them as such - disgruntled? Yes. Disgusting? No. The far right on the other hand...:wink:



Why do you hate democracy and free speech?
Blood? How on earth would you...?

No, nevermind. :lolwut:
UKIP are fascist scum they should send pig heads!**** fascism, vote Labour for progress yaaaaaaaay
I do support the Freepost protest. It's a legitimate form of protest in the same way occupying their offices or blocking their road off would be.

I do however feel people took it too far with faeces/blood. I hate parties like UKIP with a passion but putting their health, and the Royal Mail staff's health, at risk isn't appropriate.
Original post by andrew2209
I'm somebody who would identity myself as left-wing, but sadly there are a lot of left wing supporters, who often fit the "Vicky Pollard" stereotype. To be honest, a lot of far leftists are either chavs or people who are just "anarchists" and turn up at protest marches to cause trouble.


No, Vicky Pollard types are more likely to be right-wing and vote UKIP because they hate immigration. "Far-leftists" and "anarchists" are generally a bit more educated, if not less prone to violence.
Original post by Le Nombre
That well known illegal act the serious assault, I'm assuming you mean normal assault here? The serious ones are ABH and GBH, neither of which is relevant here.

The law on assault requires there to be the use or apprehension of imminent physical force.

Under 'Ireland;Burstow' this could be construed as such if it were believed UKIP party workers genuinely believed the sender was outside and imminently to use physical force on them as a consequence of receiving this package. That seems unlikely but not impossible, it's hard to say without seeing statements from those workers.

This is probably caught by some other statutory law though.


Bricks - no, but if these fluids splattered on to the clothes/skin of the UKIP workers then you may have a tenuous case for assault (akin to hiding shards of glass in a box where someone is cut when they place their hand inside).

More likely to be caught under some form of harassment/malicious communications law, however.
Reply 38
Original post by DarkWhite
I do support the Freepost protest. It's a legitimate form of protest in the same way occupying their offices or blocking their road off would be.

I do however feel people took it too far with faeces/blood. I hate parties like UKIP with a passion but putting their health, and the Royal Mail staff's health, at risk isn't appropriate.


Is it really legitimate protest, though?

It sounds to me more like "I don't like what you have to say, so I want to disrupt your activity".

There's a long history of this kind of thing, and it's usually from the trot-anarchistic axis. Come off it, it's the May Day bank holiday, and it wasn't so very long ago that civilised people around the world were treated to an annual orgy of destruction and barbarity from people with nothing better to do than wreck the product of other people's work.

So you "hate" UKIP. Ok - they're not my cup of tea. Why do you feel it is legit to disrupt their activity? If it were not a political party, the kind of activities that people here are celebrating would be considered harassment at the very least.

You don't hear of this happening in reverse. You don't see Greens or Respect politicians getting egged in the streets, or people trying to disrupt their activity. To me, this is an insult to the democratic process.
Original post by Clip
Is it really legitimate protest, though?

It sounds to me more like "I don't like what you have to say, so I want to disrupt your activity".

There's a long history of this kind of thing, and it's usually from the trot-anarchistic axis. Come off it, it's the May Day bank holiday, and it wasn't so very long ago that civilised people around the world were treated to an annual orgy of destruction and barbarity from people with nothing better to do than wreck the product of other people's work.

So you "hate" UKIP. Ok - they're not my cup of tea. Why do you feel it is legit to disrupt their activity? If it were not a political party, the kind of activities that people here are celebrating would be considered harassment at the very least.

You don't hear of this happening in reverse. You don't see Greens or Respect politicians getting egged in the streets, or people trying to disrupt their activity. To me, this is an insult to the democratic process.


That sounds like the point of a protest to me - to get people to change the things they say or do. What would be the point of a strike if it didn't 'disrupt activity'? Why would people march through the streets if it didn't cause problems for their employers?

I don't really condone egging as that's effectively assault. That said, it does happen to other politicians - Nick Griffin (BNP), David Cameron (Conservatives), John Major (Conservatives), Ed Miliband (Labour), Tony Blair (Labour), George Galloway (Respect).

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending