There's a previous video of an incident from about a week ago where a few of them went into a church and started verbally abusing the vicar (and causing distress to the parishoners) because his church was allegedly helping refugees. The police did turn up on that occasion.
I suspect that when you cross the literal threshold into extended trespassing in privately owned buildings, the police are gonna view that as more in the realm of violating ye olde sanctity of the castle, whereas assholish parking violations are more just an abuse of the commons of the type people are more accustomed to tolerating on an everyday basis(*).
(*) And this is not neccessarily an outrageous double standard. If some drunks from the local pub all puke on my lawn one night, I'm gonna be pissed off, but still perceive it as much less a magnitude of threat than if they wander into my kitchen to puke in the sink and refuse to depart when asked.
Interestingly but irrelevantly, one church in Cardiff continued to meet for worship during the Covid lockdown and had its worship interrupted by the Police!
There's a previous video of an incident from about a week ago where a few of them went into a church and started verbally abusing the vicar (and causing distress to the parishoners) because his church was allegedly helping refugees. The police did turn up on that occasion.
I suspect that when you cross the literal threshold into extended trespassing in privately owned buildings, the police are gonna view that as more in the realm of violating ye olde sanctity of the castle, whereas assholish parking violations are more just an abuse of the commons of the type people are more accustomed to tolerating on an everyday basis(*).
I'm not sure what your point is in this context, the latest episode saw them blocking roads and ports (which on previous occasions has been interpreted as 'blocking critical national infrastructure').
I understand the police in Kent acted under Public Nuisance powers. Public Nuisance is a criminal offence and a Civil tort.
The concept of a Breach of the Peace isn’t of itself a crime: it’s used for the most part to prevent crimes, ie by moving people on or breaking up a protest or demonstration.
I’m not a lawyer, but I have been on the receiving end of both (didn’t get charged but it was stated via a megaphone!)
There's a previous video of an incident from about a week ago where a few of them went into a church and started verbally abusing the vicar (and causing distress to the parishoners) because his church was allegedly helping refugees. The police did turn up on that occasion.
I suspect that when you cross the literal threshold into extended trespassing in privately owned buildings, the police are gonna view that as more in the realm of violating ye olde sanctity of the castle, whereas assholish parking violations are more just an abuse of the commons of the type people are more accustomed to tolerating on an everyday basis(*).
I'm not sure what your point is in this context, the latest episode saw them blocking roads and ports (which on previous occasions has been interpreted as 'blocking critical national infrastructure').
Well, I was speculating why the police responded to the trespassing at the church, but not to the automotive mobbing outlined by Hope Not Hate.
FWIW, I was basing my comments on the Hope Not Hate Link in @Louise's post, which AFAICT didn't mention anything about the national-infrastructure issue.
Did the church invasion happen in the same police jurisdiction as the parking fiasco?
In English and Welsh law interrupting worship in church is a criminal offence.
Similar laws in Canada as well. There was a case in the 1980s where a Catholic bishop in the maritimes used them against a group of Trad Caths who had repeatedly entered his churches trying to get Communion on the tongue. The Trad Caths won.
There's a previous video of an incident from about a week ago where a few of them went into a church and started verbally abusing the vicar (and causing distress to the parishoners) because his church was allegedly helping refugees. The police did turn up on that occasion.
I suspect that when you cross the literal threshold into extended trespassing in privately owned buildings, the police are gonna view that as more in the realm of violating ye olde sanctity of the castle, whereas assholish parking violations are more just an abuse of the commons of the type people are more accustomed to tolerating on an everyday basis(*).
I'm not sure what your point is in this context, the latest episode saw them blocking roads and ports (which on previous occasions has been interpreted as 'blocking critical national infrastructure').
Well, I was speculating why the police responded to the trespassing at the church, but not to the automotive mobbing outlined by Hope Not Hate.
FWIW, I was basing my comments on the Hope Not Hate Link in @Louise's post, which AFAICT didn't mention anything about the national-infrastructure issue.
You mentioned "assholish parking violations", but the main complaint via Louise's link:
"On Saturday evening, hours after 300-400 far-right activists, dressed in black and wearing balaclavas, blocked roads around the port of Dover"
(The port would count as national infrastructure).
Churches Together in England have put together an excellent study guide with the title, "Kingdom over Nation". It includes these paragraphs: "There is a danger when love of nation begins to compete with loyalty to the Kingdom of God. When national symbols, political power or cultural identity become objects of ultimate allegiance, they can quietly take the place that belongs to God alone. At that moment, something subtle but serious happens: flags can begin to function like altars. What was once a symbol of shared civic identity risks becoming something sacred, unquestionable and defended at all costs".
[Hosts/admins: I think that's a brief enough excerpt to be permissible].
There's a previous video of an incident from about a week ago where a few of them went into a church and started verbally abusing the vicar (and causing distress to the parishoners) because his church was allegedly helping refugees. The police did turn up on that occasion.
I suspect that when you cross the literal threshold into extended trespassing in privately owned buildings, the police are gonna view that as more in the realm of violating ye olde sanctity of the castle, whereas assholish parking violations are more just an abuse of the commons of the type people are more accustomed to tolerating on an everyday basis(*).
I'm not sure what your point is in this context, the latest episode saw them blocking roads and ports (which on previous occasions has been interpreted as 'blocking critical national infrastructure').
Well, I was speculating why the police responded to the trespassing at the church, but not to the automotive mobbing outlined by Hope Not Hate.
FWIW, I was basing my comments on the Hope Not Hate Link in @Louise's post, which AFAICT didn't mention anything about the national-infrastructure issue.
You mentioned "assholish parking violations", but the main complaint via Louise's link:
"On Saturday evening, hours after 300-400 far-right activists, dressed in black and wearing balaclavas, blocked roads around the port of Dover"
(The port would count as national infrastructure).
Thanks. But that kinda makes the discrepancy between the police response to the church invasion, and the police response to the road-blockages, all the more odd, assuming we factor out my positing of brick-and-mortar trespassing as the salient difference.
There's a previous video of an incident from about a week ago where a few of them went into a church and started verbally abusing the vicar (and causing distress to the parishoners) because his church was allegedly helping refugees. The police did turn up on that occasion.
I suspect that when you cross the literal threshold into extended trespassing in privately owned buildings, the police are gonna view that as more in the realm of violating ye olde sanctity of the castle, whereas assholish parking violations are more just an abuse of the commons of the type people are more accustomed to tolerating on an everyday basis(*).
I'm not sure what your point is in this context, the latest episode saw them blocking roads and ports (which on previous occasions has been interpreted as 'blocking critical national infrastructure').
Well, I was speculating why the police responded to the trespassing at the church, but not to the automotive mobbing outlined by Hope Not Hate.
FWIW, I was basing my comments on the Hope Not Hate Link in @Louise's post, which AFAICT didn't mention anything about the national-infrastructure issue.
You mentioned "assholish parking violations", but the main complaint via Louise's link:
"On Saturday evening, hours after 300-400 far-right activists, dressed in black and wearing balaclavas, blocked roads around the port of Dover"
(The port would count as national infrastructure).
Thanks. But that kinda makes the discrepancy between the police response to the church invasion, and the police response to the road-blockages, all the more odd, assuming we factor out my positing of brick-and-mortar trespassing as the salient difference.
Although given that this kind of thing keeps happening, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that it's by intent rather than accident.
A group of people reached the hotel floor where members of the Pakistan under-19 cricket team were staying after protesters wrongly believed they were migrants, the Pakistan Cricket Board has said.
Hampshire Police said officers found no offences had been committed, and the crowd dispersed by about 21:00 BST.
She said: "It's completely unacceptable that misinformation has led to young cricketers visiting our city being wrongly targeted and mistaken for people seeking asylum.
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner.
Side note; there's currently an ongoing inquiry into police infiltration of activist groups and from all indications they tended - when left to their own devices - to target the left rather than groups like NF, the BNP etc.
She said: "It's completely unacceptable that misinformation has led to young cricketers visiting our city being wrongly targeted and mistaken for people seeking asylum.
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner. ...
I can see that if you are looking for that interpretation, it is possible to find it, but, unless there is some factor here which you know about and I do not, I very much doubt that that was what she intended.
She said: "It's completely unacceptable that misinformation has led to young cricketers visiting our city being wrongly targeted and mistaken for people seeking asylum.
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner. ...
I can see that if you are looking for that interpretation, it is possible to find it, but, unless there is some factor here which you know about and I do not, I very much doubt that that was what she intended.
What a shame she couldn't find the correct form of words in that case, what a shame that the government seem unable to condemn fascist pogroms unequivocally without giving at least a nod to 'legitimate concerns'.
(FWIW she was centrally imposed by Starmer's leadership-- i.e exactly the form of candidate selection you have supported vocally in the past).
She said: "It's completely unacceptable that misinformation has led to young cricketers visiting our city being wrongly targeted and mistaken for people seeking asylum.
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner. ...
I can see that if you are looking for that interpretation, it is possible to find it, but, unless there is some factor here which you know about and I do not, I very much doubt that that was what she intended.
What a shame she couldn't find the correct form of words in that case, what a shame that the government seem unable to condemn fascist pogroms unequivocally without giving at least a nod to 'legitimate concerns'.
It does strike me as the kinda thing you say because you know only about 30% of the voting public cares whether asylum seekers have their rights violated, but that there's also another 30% who'll be upset if they think the national image was harmed by visiting cricketers getting dealt an injustice.
But that's politics in a fallen world. The pro-asylum people will be in agreement with you no matter which victims you emphasize, so it's only the support of the national-pride brigade that's in play.
But that's politics in a fallen world. The pro-asylum people will be in agreement with you no matter which victims you emphasize, so it's only the support of the national-pride brigade that's in play.
None of whom are likely to vote for Labour anyway, so all you've done is coarsened the public realm for no gain whatsoever ...
In fact it's worse than that; disorder is not popular, and even centre-right types are turned off by a government failing the 'are you even a state?' test. Meanwhile the fascists are emboldened.
She said: "It's completely unacceptable that misinformation has led to young cricketers visiting our city being wrongly targeted and mistaken for people seeking asylum.
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner. ...
I can see that if you are looking for that interpretation, it is possible to find it, but, unless there is some factor here which you know about and I do not, I very much doubt that that was what she intended.
What a shame she couldn't find the correct form of words in that case, what a shame that the government seem unable to condemn fascist pogroms unequivocally without giving at least a nod to 'legitimate concerns'.
(FWIW she was centrally imposed by Starmer's leadership-- i.e exactly the form of candidate selection you have supported vocally in the past).
I think her main aim was at the stupidity of the protestors and to express her contempt pithily. I believe she succeded.
She said: "It's completely unacceptable that misinformation has led to young cricketers visiting our city being wrongly targeted and mistaken for people seeking asylum.
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner. ...
I can see that if you are looking for that interpretation, it is possible to find it, but, unless there is some factor here which you know about and I do not, I very much doubt that that was what she intended.
What a shame she couldn't find the correct form of words in that case, what a shame that the government seem unable to condemn fascist pogroms unequivocally without giving at least a nod to 'legitimate concerns'.
(FWIW she was centrally imposed by Starmer's leadership-- i.e exactly the form of candidate selection you have supported vocally in the past).
I think her main aim was at the stupidity of the protestors and to express her contempt pithily. I believe she succeded.
No, the fundamental issue was that there was mob harassing random non-white people, not that a particular group was 'wrongly targeted'.
But that's politics in a fallen world. The pro-asylum people will be in agreement with you no matter which victims you emphasize, so it's only the support of the national-pride brigade that's in play.
None of whom are likely to vote for Labour anyway, so all you've done is coarsened the public realm for no gain whatsoever ...
I am not an expert on British political behaviour, but I assume you mean the kind of voter I'm describing would stay within the confines of Reform-Conservative?
FWIW, I know people in Canada who could generally be considered xenophobic but with exceptions for our equivalents to whatever corresponds with Commonwealth Asians coming in to play the beloved national sport. In those jurisdictions(mostly provincial) with a binary partisan set-up, I could see, and in fact HAVE seen, some of them moving into the socialist column for at least one election, if provoked by the conservatives on other issues.
She said: "It's completely unacceptable that misinformation has led to young cricketers visiting our city being wrongly targeted and mistaken for people seeking asylum.
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner. ...
I can see that if you are looking for that interpretation, it is possible to find it, but, unless there is some factor here which you know about and I do not, I very much doubt that that was what she intended.
What a shame she couldn't find the correct form of words in that case, what a shame that the government seem unable to condemn fascist pogroms unequivocally without giving at least a nod to 'legitimate concerns'.
(FWIW she was centrally imposed by Starmer's leadership-- i.e exactly the form of candidate selection you have supported vocally in the past).
I think her main aim was at the stupidity of the protestors and to express her contempt pithily. I believe she succeded.
Okay, but let's reverse this. Suppose some people who object to a certain class of professional-visa holders protest outside a hotel they believe is housing some of those visa holders, but in fact is housing asylum seekers. That would equally illustrate the stupidity of the protestors, but would a politician be as likely to say "It's unacceptable that asylum seekers were mistaken for work-visa holders"?
Also, "unacceptable" is not the adjective I would use if I were trying to attack the intellect, rather than morality, of a group. More like "ridiculous" or "absurd".
She said: "It's completely unacceptable that misinformation has led to young cricketers visiting our city being wrongly targeted and mistaken for people seeking asylum.
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner. ...
I can see that if you are looking for that interpretation, it is possible to find it, but, unless there is some factor here which you know about and I do not, I very much doubt that that was what she intended.
What a shame she couldn't find the correct form of words in that case, what a shame that the government seem unable to condemn fascist pogroms unequivocally without giving at least a nod to 'legitimate concerns'.
(FWIW she was centrally imposed by Starmer's leadership-- i.e exactly the form of candidate selection you have supported vocally in the past).
I think her main aim was at the stupidity of the protestors and to express her contempt pithily. I believe she succeded.
No, the fundamental issue was that there was mob harassing random non-white people, not that a particular group was 'wrongly targeted'.
She said: "It's completely unacceptable that misinformation has led to young cricketers visiting our city being wrongly targeted and mistaken for people seeking asylum.
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner. ...
I can see that if you are looking for that interpretation, it is possible to find it, but, unless there is some factor here which you know about and I do not, I very much doubt that that was what she intended.
What a shame she couldn't find the correct form of words in that case, what a shame that the government seem unable to condemn fascist pogroms unequivocally without giving at least a nod to 'legitimate concerns'.
(FWIW she was centrally imposed by Starmer's leadership-- i.e exactly the form of candidate selection you have supported vocally in the past).
I think her main aim was at the stupidity of the protestors and to express her contempt pithily. I believe she succeded.
Okay, but let's reverse this. Suppose some people who object to a certain class of professional-visa holders protest outside a hotel they believe is housing some of those visa holders, but in fact is housing asylum seekers. That would equally illustrate the stupidity of the protestors, but would a politician be as likely to say "It's unacceptable that asylum seekers were mistaken for work-visa holders"?
Well, it's the kind of enforced error you make when you are trying to rush to that next bit, rather than just condemning a far right mob with your whole chest:
"Those who arrived in Portsmouth on Sunday were transported outside of Hampshire for processing.
"There is a legitimate debate to be had about immigration, but it must be based on facts not misinformation or rumour."
And then someone will die because the lifeboat could not go out to rescue them.
When Just Stop Oil were blocking roads, there was regular outrage in the right wing press over the idea that a theoretical ambulance might be blocked by the protestors (the fact that the protestors also had a protocol for letting ambulances through was roundly ignored).
I note that the RNLI emphasises that search-and-rescue cover in the Channel has not been affected, but that contingency plans are in place.
I agree that the 'patriots' should be strongly condemned, though that won't make any difference to them unless they actually commit a crime, and are arrested and charged...
I agree that the 'patriots' should be strongly condemned, though that won't make any difference to them unless they actually commit a crime, and are arrested and charged...
"Protests erupted near the station and threats against the RNLI and its personnel skyrocketed across the country."
There are your crimes right there, government inaction is a choice.
I thought I saw somewhere earlier today (can't find it now) a report that at least one 'patriot' had been arrested and charged, but I may be mistaken.
BTW, now that Piddington has declared independence from the UK, the inhabitants will presumably not be seeking help from the UK police and/or military when the 'patriots' invade their little Principality...
BTW, now that Piddington has declared independence from the UK, the inhabitants will presumably not be seeking help from the UK police and/or military when the 'patriots' invade their little Principality...
The existence of this self-declared principality might stand as a point against the idea that monarchy is some surefire guarantee against the emergence of far-right and xenophobic sentiments among a given population.
But does anyone happen to know if they're declaring allegiance to a real-life prince, or is it just that they couldn't stomach calling themselves a republic?
But does anyone happen to know if they're declaring allegiance to a real-life prince, or is it just that they couldn't stomach calling themselves a republic?
Their action is (as you might suppose) symbolic...though their concerns are perhaps understandable.
Really, could you spell out what they are? Can you perhaps relate it to the fact that prior to this the same site was used to put up a bunch of squaddies?
Their action is (as you might suppose) symbolic...though their concerns are perhaps understandable.
Really, could you spell out what they are? Can you perhaps relate it to the fact that prior to this the same site was used to put up a bunch of squaddies?
Squaddies had, for the most part, something to do all day and entertainment on-site (including cheap booze). I don't doubt some of them behaved badly but that's different from young men with nothing to do and a much less rigid system of discipline. Some percentage of them will be actual wrong uns and another percentage will come from a cultural background that (not unlike certain expressions of US white evangelicalism) that makes women responsible for male sexual attraction and behave inappropriately as a result. I'd be concerned about sticking 1 200 white British male school leavers in one place with nothing to do; someone is likely to get hurt. Of course the sensible response would be to say "ok, what is going to be done to keep these young men busy and out of trouble? What supports are going to be in place?" instead we get this very dangerous rhetoric and abuse.
Thank you @Arethosemyfeet - it's the isolation that I think is concerning, and the lack of infrastructure. Some of the local people have AFAIK expressed this.
I don't for one moment agree with the far-right idea that all migrants and asylum seekers are rapists. murderers, thieves etc. etc., and will spend their time roaming the streets and lanes of Piddington hunting for prey.
Thank you @Arethosemyfeet - it's the isolation that I think is concerning, and the lack of infrastructure. Some of the local people have AFAIK expressed this.
Really, can you provide citations? The most neutral statements are of the 'this shouldn't be here' form (while declining to suggestion alternatives). The most inflammatory - such as that from the Parish Council chair has suggested that babies could be murdered.
The isolation is the end result of every other policy being protested, and the government shamefully playing along with the 'very reasonable concerns' brigade. So asylum seekers are no longer dispersed into communities and given support, nor are they kept in hotels where at least they can be reached by refugee support groups, but are to be warehoused in former army barracks which have then been stripped of infrastructure and made as bleak as possible:
Meanwhile, a third of the US B1 fleet remains in Fairford, from which they regularly leave to launch 'defensive actions' against Iran, and should that country collapse, no doubt there'll be further waves of people desperate to leave the region and flee to safety.
But does anyone happen to know if they're declaring allegiance to a real-life prince, or is it just that they couldn't stomach calling themselves a republic?
Ah, so a continentalist Catholic Jacobite who interned with the American Senate. Pretty much guaranteed to offend any old-school Colonel Blimp, but with things being so ecumenical these days, who knows...
Thank you @Arethosemyfeet - it's the isolation that I think is concerning, and the lack of infrastructure. Some of the local people have AFAIK expressed this.
Really, can you provide citations? The most neutral statements are of the 'this shouldn't be here' form (while declining to suggestion alternatives). The most inflammatory - such as that from the Parish Council chair has suggested that babies could be murdered.
<snip>
From the Guardian's report:
A [Piddington] parish councillor, Mike Nixon, said the proposed site had no pedestrian access areas, and that the nearest path was about a mile and a quarter away, down a busy unlit road.
I agree that this country can, and should, do better, somehow.
Thank you @Arethosemyfeet - it's the isolation that I think is concerning, and the lack of infrastructure. Some of the local people have AFAIK expressed this.
Really, can you provide citations? The most neutral statements are of the 'this shouldn't be here' form (while declining to suggestion alternatives). The most inflammatory - such as that from the Parish Council chair has suggested that babies could be murdered.
<snip>
From the Guardian's report:
A [Piddington] parish councillor, Mike Nixon, said the proposed site had no pedestrian access areas, and that the nearest path was about a mile and a quarter away, down a busy unlit road.
Sure, but I'm kinda doubting that people are declaring an independent country(if only symbolically) simply because they're ticked off about the central government's negligence re: building a pathway at one specific location(*). I suspect for most of them, the proposed residence represents what they regard as undesirable sociopopitical trends, both locally and nationally.
(*) Mike Nixon himself is quoted in the Financial Review(with which I am not overly familiar) as saying he's "concern[ed]" that migrants will "come into the village" where "children are playing", thus provoking "fear of the unknown" among the villagers. Without getting into a detailed discussion about what should or should not be established in Piddington, I think we should still be clear about what agenda the respective players are pushing.
A group of people reached the hotel floor where members of the Pakistan under-19 cricket team were staying after protesters wrongly believed they were migrants, the Pakistan Cricket Board has said.
The Reform councillor quoted in that article helpfully denied that anyone was being racist when they saw a group of young brown men getting off a bus and assumed they were asylum seekers.
Is it possible to get closer to the textbook definition of racism than assuming that the busload of young men in front of you must be asylum seekers because of their appearance?
Thank you @Arethosemyfeet - it's the isolation that I think is concerning, and the lack of infrastructure. Some of the local people have AFAIK expressed this.
Really, can you provide citations? The most neutral statements are of the 'this shouldn't be here' form (while declining to suggestion alternatives). The most inflammatory - such as that from the Parish Council chair has suggested that babies could be murdered.
<snip>
From the Guardian's report:
A [Piddington] parish councillor, Mike Nixon, said the proposed site had no pedestrian access areas, and that the nearest path was about a mile and a quarter away, down a busy unlit road.
Sure, but I'm kinda doubting that people are declaring an independent country(if only symbolically) simply because they're ticked off about the central government's negligence re: building a pathway at one specific location(*). I suspect for most of them, the proposed residence represents what they regard as undesirable sociopopitical trends, both locally and nationally.
(*) Mike Nixon himself is quoted in the Financial Review(with which I am not overly familiar) as saying he's "concern[ed]" that migrants will "come into the village" where "children are playing", thus provoking "fear of the unknown" among the villagers. Without getting into a detailed discussion about what should or should not be established in Piddington, I think we should still be clear about what agenda the respective players are pushing.
Agreed, but I was asked for proof that someone in Piddington had expressed concern about access. This doesn't, of course, rule out the possibility that that person has other 'concerns' as well. As you say, the agenda is clear.
Thank you @Arethosemyfeet - it's the isolation that I think is concerning, and the lack of infrastructure. Some of the local people have AFAIK expressed this.
Really, can you provide citations? The most neutral statements are of the 'this shouldn't be here' form (while declining to suggestion alternatives). The most inflammatory - such as that from the Parish Council chair has suggested that babies could be murdered.
<snip>
From the Guardian's report:
A [Piddington] parish councillor, Mike Nixon, said the proposed site had no pedestrian access areas, and that the nearest path was about a mile and a quarter away, down a busy unlit road.
Sure, but I'm kinda doubting that people are declaring an independent country(if only symbolically) simply because they're ticked off about the central government's negligence re: building a pathway at one specific location(*). I suspect for most of them, the proposed residence represents what they regard as undesirable sociopopitical trends, both locally and nationally.
(*) Mike Nixon himself is quoted in the Financial Review(with which I am not overly familiar) as saying he's "concern[ed]" that migrants will "come into the village" where "children are playing", thus provoking "fear of the unknown" among the villagers. Without getting into a detailed discussion about what should or should not be established in Piddington, I think we should still be clear about what agenda the respective players are pushing.
Agreed, but I was asked for proof that someone in Piddington had expressed concern about access. This doesn't, of course, rule out the possibility that that person has other 'concerns' as well. As you say, the agenda is clear.
Yes. I suspect that concern for the safety of foreign strangers on unlit English roads is not uppermost in the minds of the Piddingtonians (or Piddingtonites? Sounds like one of those obscure 18thC sects...)
@Bishops Finger I think it's important to be careful when a particular group or organisation opposes a flawed or even outright bad institution for the wrong reasons. It strikes me that it has a lot of similarities with Brexit; there is plenty to actually criticise the EU for, but by and large those things were not the platform Team Leave was built upon.
I 100% believe that you don't believe the things that the anti-migrant people believe. That's even more reason to not repeat dogwhistles like "reasonable concerns" - the whole point of dogwhistles is that they sound reasonable on the face of things, but are not actually reasonable due to being code for something else. People aren't being critical of the MP mentioned upthread (for instance) out of bad faith, but because they've heard those dogwhistles (more like a dog airhorn at this stage) before.
Lots of people have sincerely held beliefs and genuine fears that are nonetheless still driven by racism - the sincerity involved doesn't make it less racist.
Comments
I suspect that when you cross the literal threshold into extended trespassing in privately owned buildings, the police are gonna view that as more in the realm of violating ye olde sanctity of the castle, whereas assholish parking violations are more just an abuse of the commons of the type people are more accustomed to tolerating on an everyday basis(*).
(*) And this is not neccessarily an outrageous double standard. If some drunks from the local pub all puke on my lawn one night, I'm gonna be pissed off, but still perceive it as much less a magnitude of threat than if they wander into my kitchen to puke in the sink and refuse to depart when asked.
I'm not sure what your point is in this context, the latest episode saw them blocking roads and ports (which on previous occasions has been interpreted as 'blocking critical national infrastructure').
The concept of a Breach of the Peace isn’t of itself a crime: it’s used for the most part to prevent crimes, ie by moving people on or breaking up a protest or demonstration.
I’m not a lawyer, but I have been on the receiving end of both (didn’t get charged but it was stated via a megaphone!)
Well, I was speculating why the police responded to the trespassing at the church, but not to the automotive mobbing outlined by Hope Not Hate.
FWIW, I was basing my comments on the Hope Not Hate Link in @Louise's post, which AFAICT didn't mention anything about the national-infrastructure issue.
Did the church invasion happen in the same police jurisdiction as the parking fiasco?
Similar laws in Canada as well. There was a case in the 1980s where a Catholic bishop in the maritimes used them against a group of Trad Caths who had repeatedly entered his churches trying to get Communion on the tongue. The Trad Caths won.
You mentioned "assholish parking violations", but the main complaint via Louise's link:
"On Saturday evening, hours after 300-400 far-right activists, dressed in black and wearing balaclavas, blocked roads around the port of Dover"
(The port would count as national infrastructure).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/sep/10/fascism-on-the-rise-in-the-uk-anglican-bishop-says
[Hosts/admins: I think that's a brief enough excerpt to be permissible].
Thanks. But that kinda makes the discrepancy between the police response to the church invasion, and the police response to the road-blockages, all the more odd, assuming we factor out my positing of brick-and-mortar trespassing as the salient difference.
Although given that this kind of thing keeps happening, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that it's by intent rather than accident.
Here's another episode: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0klnjmgpm6o
The Labour MP's response was predictably terrible (via https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly479nzpepo )
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner.
Side note; there's currently an ongoing inquiry into police infiltration of activist groups and from all indications they tended - when left to their own devices - to target the left rather than groups like NF, the BNP etc.
What a shame she couldn't find the correct form of words in that case, what a shame that the government seem unable to condemn fascist pogroms unequivocally without giving at least a nod to 'legitimate concerns'.
(FWIW she was centrally imposed by Starmer's leadership-- i.e exactly the form of candidate selection you have supported vocally in the past).
It does strike me as the kinda thing you say because you know only about 30% of the voting public cares whether asylum seekers have their rights violated, but that there's also another 30% who'll be upset if they think the national image was harmed by visiting cricketers getting dealt an injustice.
But that's politics in a fallen world. The pro-asylum people will be in agreement with you no matter which victims you emphasize, so it's only the support of the national-pride brigade that's in play.
None of whom are likely to vote for Labour anyway, so all you've done is coarsened the public realm for no gain whatsoever ...
In fact it's worse than that; disorder is not popular, and even centre-right types are turned off by a government failing the 'are you even a state?' test. Meanwhile the fascists are emboldened.
I think her main aim was at the stupidity of the protestors and to express her contempt pithily. I believe she succeded.
No, the fundamental issue was that there was mob harassing random non-white people, not that a particular group was 'wrongly targeted'.
I am not an expert on British political behaviour, but I assume you mean the kind of voter I'm describing would stay within the confines of Reform-Conservative?
FWIW, I know people in Canada who could generally be considered xenophobic but with exceptions for our equivalents to whatever corresponds with Commonwealth Asians coming in to play the beloved national sport. In those jurisdictions(mostly provincial) with a binary partisan set-up, I could see, and in fact HAVE seen, some of them moving into the socialist column for at least one election, if provoked by the conservatives on other issues.
Okay, but let's reverse this. Suppose some people who object to a certain class of professional-visa holders protest outside a hotel they believe is housing some of those visa holders, but in fact is housing asylum seekers. That would equally illustrate the stupidity of the protestors, but would a politician be as likely to say "It's unacceptable that asylum seekers were mistaken for work-visa holders"?
Yes, I get that.
Well, it's the kind of enforced error you make when you are trying to rush to that next bit, rather than just condemning a far right mob with your whole chest:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rnli-portsmouth-suspended-migrant-protests-b3051753.html
If they can shut down an RNLI station they can shut down a bunch of other things, and this is reaching very dangerous territory for the state.
The government should make a statement condemning such things unequivocally, and the police should clear the protestors.
When Just Stop Oil were blocking roads, there was regular outrage in the right wing press over the idea that a theoretical ambulance might be blocked by the protestors (the fact that the protestors also had a protocol for letting ambulances through was roundly ignored).
The good news is an increase in donations to the RNLI.
I agree that the 'patriots' should be strongly condemned, though that won't make any difference to them unless they actually commit a crime, and are arrested and charged...
"Protests erupted near the station and threats against the RNLI and its personnel skyrocketed across the country."
There are your crimes right there, government inaction is a choice.
I thought I saw somewhere earlier today (can't find it now) a report that at least one 'patriot' had been arrested and charged, but I may be mistaken.
BTW, now that Piddington has declared independence from the UK, the inhabitants will presumably not be seeking help from the UK police and/or military when the 'patriots' invade their little Principality...
The existence of this self-declared principality might stand as a point against the idea that monarchy is some surefire guarantee against the emergence of far-right and xenophobic sentiments among a given population.
But does anyone happen to know if they're declaring allegiance to a real-life prince, or is it just that they couldn't stomach calling themselves a republic?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/16/english-village-piddington-leave-uk-protest-migrant-housing-plan
Their action is (as you might suppose) symbolic...though their concerns are perhaps understandable.
Maybe they're eyeing up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Joseph_Wenzel_of_Liechtenstein , currently third in line to the crowns of England and Scotland, if you ignore all those naughty laws passed by illegitimate parliaments after the Dutch invasion.
Really, could you spell out what they are? Can you perhaps relate it to the fact that prior to this the same site was used to put up a bunch of squaddies?
Squaddies had, for the most part, something to do all day and entertainment on-site (including cheap booze). I don't doubt some of them behaved badly but that's different from young men with nothing to do and a much less rigid system of discipline. Some percentage of them will be actual wrong uns and another percentage will come from a cultural background that (not unlike certain expressions of US white evangelicalism) that makes women responsible for male sexual attraction and behave inappropriately as a result. I'd be concerned about sticking 1 200 white British male school leavers in one place with nothing to do; someone is likely to get hurt. Of course the sensible response would be to say "ok, what is going to be done to keep these young men busy and out of trouble? What supports are going to be in place?" instead we get this very dangerous rhetoric and abuse.
I don't for one moment agree with the far-right idea that all migrants and asylum seekers are rapists. murderers, thieves etc. etc., and will spend their time roaming the streets and lanes of Piddington hunting for prey.
Really, can you provide citations? The most neutral statements are of the 'this shouldn't be here' form (while declining to suggestion alternatives). The most inflammatory - such as that from the Parish Council chair has suggested that babies could be murdered.
The isolation is the end result of every other policy being protested, and the government shamefully playing along with the 'very reasonable concerns' brigade. So asylum seekers are no longer dispersed into communities and given support, nor are they kept in hotels where at least they can be reached by refugee support groups, but are to be warehoused in former army barracks which have then been stripped of infrastructure and made as bleak as possible:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66132158
https://www.reformparty.uk/news/what-i-saw-inside-essex-holiday-camp-for-illegal-immigrants
Meanwhile, a third of the US B1 fleet remains in Fairford, from which they regularly leave to launch 'defensive actions' against Iran, and should that country collapse, no doubt there'll be further waves of people desperate to leave the region and flee to safety.
Ah, so a continentalist Catholic Jacobite who interned with the American Senate. Pretty much guaranteed to offend any old-school Colonel Blimp, but with things being so ecumenical these days, who knows...
From the Guardian's report:
A [Piddington] parish councillor, Mike Nixon, said the proposed site had no pedestrian access areas, and that the nearest path was about a mile and a quarter away, down a busy unlit road.
I agree that this country can, and should, do better, somehow.
Sure, but I'm kinda doubting that people are declaring an independent country(if only symbolically) simply because they're ticked off about the central government's negligence re: building a pathway at one specific location(*). I suspect for most of them, the proposed residence represents what they regard as undesirable sociopopitical trends, both locally and nationally.
(*) Mike Nixon himself is quoted in the Financial Review(with which I am not overly familiar) as saying he's "concern[ed]" that migrants will "come into the village" where "children are playing", thus provoking "fear of the unknown" among the villagers. Without getting into a detailed discussion about what should or should not be established in Piddington, I think we should still be clear about what agenda the respective players are pushing.
The Reform councillor quoted in that article helpfully denied that anyone was being racist when they saw a group of young brown men getting off a bus and assumed they were asylum seekers.
Is it possible to get closer to the textbook definition of racism than assuming that the busload of young men in front of you must be asylum seekers because of their appearance?
Agreed, but I was asked for proof that someone in Piddington had expressed concern about access. This doesn't, of course, rule out the possibility that that person has other 'concerns' as well. As you say, the agenda is clear.
I think salience is important here.
I 100% believe that you don't believe the things that the anti-migrant people believe. That's even more reason to not repeat dogwhistles like "reasonable concerns" - the whole point of dogwhistles is that they sound reasonable on the face of things, but are not actually reasonable due to being code for something else. People aren't being critical of the MP mentioned upthread (for instance) out of bad faith, but because they've heard those dogwhistles (more like a dog airhorn at this stage) before.
Lots of people have sincerely held beliefs and genuine fears that are nonetheless still driven by racism - the sincerity involved doesn't make it less racist.