Admittedly I read it in the Guardian...but I doubt they made up the name of the man plead guilty to public order offences at one of Jim Murphy's meetings or that of the magistrate sentenced him to 80 hours community service for his contribution to peaceful and lively debate.
Or the guy that was jailed for making death threats to Alex Salmond.
Politicians who turn up in Scotland only when they think their power is threatened deserve to be heckled.
As for journalists, when did they ever care about anyone else's feelings? They deserve a bit of heckling now and again to prove that two can do it.
I think its the anti English feeling many of them have been met with. It caught them off guard and they aren't sure how to deal with it.
Or the guy that was jailed for making death threats to Alex Salmond.
Precisely.
And as others have said the police (as opposed to their trade union) can only comment on incidents about which they are called...not to incidents that are not reported...one reason the Crime Survey is done is because we have known for years there is a lot of crime that people do not report so it does not get into official figures.
The Scottish Police Federation represents all police officers in the ranks of constable, sergeant, inspector and chief inspector, police cadets and special constables, over 18,500 people, 98% of all police officers in Scotland.
To: News Editor
Date: 17 September 2014
Subject: Independence Referendum
In response to increased press reports and comment implying increased crime and disorder as a consequence of the Independence Referendum Brian Docherty, Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation said;
“The Police Service of Scotland and the men and women who work in it should not be used as a political football at any time and especially so in these last few hours of the referendum campaign.
As I have previously stated the referendum debate has been robust but overwhelmingly good natured.
It was inevitable that the closer we came to the 18th of September passions would increase but that does not justify the exaggerated rhetoric that is being deployed with increased frequency. Any neutral observer could be led to believe Scotland is on the verge of societal disintegration yet nothing could be further from the truth.
Scotland’s citizens are overwhelmingly law abiding and tolerant and it is preposterous to imply that by placing a cross in a box, our citizens will suddenly abandon the personal virtues and values held dear to them all.
At this time it is more important than ever that individuals be they politicians, journalists or whoever should carefully consider their words, maintain level heads and act with respect. Respect is not demonstrated by suggesting a minority of mindless idiots are representative of anything. One of the many joys of this campaign has been how it has awakened political awareness across almost every single section of society. The success enjoyed by the many should not be sullied by the actions of the few.
Police officers must be kept free from the distractions of rhetoric better suited to the playground that the political stump. If crime has been committed it will be investigated and dealt with appropriately but quite simply police officers have better things to do that officiate in spats on social media and respond to baseless speculation of the potential for disorder on and following polling day”
ENDS
Was it drafted by the same office that wrote a piece for the head of St Andrews University to sign?
The one that put pressure on her to sign even though she didn't agree with the wording?
However we are seeing some very nasty anti-English sentiment coming from the Nationalists which I would say includes the things they are campaigning against. In my mind this stinks of hypocrisy.
It seems that bigotry, xenophobia and racism is acceptable by left wingers when it is being carried out by left wing individuals and groups (against the English is also seemingly acceptable but against other non English groups and it's a no no!) but not when it is conducted by right wing individuals or groups.
However we are seeing some very nasty anti-English sentiment coming from the Nationalists which I would say includes the things they are campaigning against. In my mind this stinks of hypocrisy.
It seems that bigotry, xenophobia and racism is acceptable by left wingers when it is being carried out by left wing individuals and groups (against the English is also seemingly acceptable but against other non English groups and it's a no no!) but not when it is conducted by right wing individuals or groups.
I don't know why people have it in their heads that the SNP is any way a "left wing" party?
It might like to paint itself as anti establishment (so does UKIP) but the overwhelming amount of their economic policy/decision making has been of greatest benefit to the better off.
Has anyone seen any evidence of intimidation as opposed to hearing about it on the media. I haven't seen any from either side.
Well, Nigel Farage was mobbed, Ed Milliband was mobbed and David Miliband could not speak for fear of being mobbed. That is intimidation pure and simple.
Well, Nigel Farage was mobbed, Ed Milliband was mobbed and David Miliband could not speak for fear of being mobbed. That is intimidation pure and simple.
What gives them the right to stand on the streets and preach to us while we all listen in deferential silence?
What gives them the right to stand on the streets and preach to us while we all listen in deferential silence?
It's not just about speaking...what about those people who wanted to listen to what was being said...and were deprived of their rights to do so by other people who if they didn't like what was being said could have just moved on?
It's not just about speaking...what about those people who wanted to listen to what was being said...and were deprived of their rights to do so by other people who if they didn't like what was being said could have just moved on?
You could say the same about some television political programmes and the right of viewers to be able to listen to someone's point of view. Presenters often allow, encourage, or are complicit in, the shouting down or persistent interruption of a politician trying to make a point.
It's not just about speaking...what about those people who wanted to listen to what was being said...and were deprived of their rights to do so by other people who if they didn't like what was being said could have just moved on?
go and listen to them at one of their indoor rallies then, if you are lucky enough to be selected to be invited
what gives anyone the right to speak unchallenged on the streets that are owned by all?
you speak in public, you have to accept that some of the public will disagree.
I'm not saying not to challenge them. Wait & hear what they say & then challenge it. That way both sides will be heard. Shouting over each other means nobody's argument gets heard.
What gives them the right to stand on the streets and preach to us while we all listen in deferential silence?
Basic respect for the democratic process and for the rights of your fellow citizens to listen to the broadest range of opinions. You either have it or your don't. Your own ignorance of this principle shows that the Blueshirts don't.
what gives anyone the right to speak unchallenged on the streets that are owned by all?
.
Freedom of speech is the foundational right which all citizens in a democracy possess, If it doesn't exist, then all other freedoms exist only as tyrants' whims. If you think someone need permission from someone else to exercise this right, you plainly don't understand what democracy means, and so deserve to be treated with suspicion.
Basic respect for the democratic process and for the rights of your fellow citizens to listen to the broadest range of opinions. You either have it or your don't. Your own ignorance of this principle shows that the Blueshirts don't.
Is "Blueshirts" meant to be a subtle way of implying the Yes supporters are extremists like the Brownshirts of the 30s, or the Redshirts of Thailand?
Freedom of speech is the foundational right which all citizens in a democracy possess, If it doesn't exist, then all other freedoms exist only as tyrants' whims. If you think someone need permission from someone else to exercise this right, you plainly don't understand what democracy means, and so deserve to be treated with suspicion.
Yes, we have the right to say whatever we want. But others have the right to dislike, criticize and challenge what we say.
As long as this is done without violence or threat of violence, no rights are being violated.
Freedom of speech is the foundational right which all citizens in a democracy possess, If it doesn't exist, then all other freedoms exist only as tyrants' whims. If you think someone need permission from someone else to exercise this right, you plainly don't understand what democracy means, and so deserve to be treated with suspicion.
Comments
Or the guy that was jailed for making death threats to Alex Salmond.
I think its the anti English feeling many of them have been met with. It caught them off guard and they aren't sure how to deal with it.
Precisely.
And as others have said the police (as opposed to their trade union) can only comment on incidents about which they are called...not to incidents that are not reported...one reason the Crime Survey is done is because we have known for years there is a lot of crime that people do not report so it does not get into official figures.
Was it drafted by the same office that wrote a piece for the head of St Andrews University to sign?
The one that put pressure on her to sign even though she didn't agree with the wording?
George DID ask for people to shoot him if he ever stood shoulder to shoulder with the tories in this debate, so he's getting off lightly!!!!
people have to pay to get into his meetings, so i doubt he recieves much abuse or changes any minds at them.
It is quite ironic and hyprocritical of the Nationalists in general.
Nigel Farage was target by Nationalists in Glasgow http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art/39004/Ukip+comes+under+fire+from+angry+anti-racist+protesters+in+Glasgow with placards reading "No to Racism, No to bigotry and No to UKIP",
However we are seeing some very nasty anti-English sentiment coming from the Nationalists which I would say includes the things they are campaigning against. In my mind this stinks of hypocrisy.
It seems that bigotry, xenophobia and racism is acceptable by left wingers when it is being carried out by left wing individuals and groups (against the English is also seemingly acceptable but against other non English groups and it's a no no!) but not when it is conducted by right wing individuals or groups.
Galloway got beaten up in London recently because of his comments on Israel. Was that the fault of the No campaign?
Trouble follows him and his big gob around!
I don't know why people have it in their heads that the SNP is any way a "left wing" party?
It might like to paint itself as anti establishment (so does UKIP) but the overwhelming amount of their economic policy/decision making has been of greatest benefit to the better off.
Well, Nigel Farage was mobbed, Ed Milliband was mobbed and David Miliband could not speak for fear of being mobbed. That is intimidation pure and simple.
What gives them the right to stand on the streets and preach to us while we all listen in deferential silence?
Freedom of speech.
you completely misunderstand what freedom of speech is
are the hecklers not entitled to their freedom of speech?
It's not just about speaking...what about those people who wanted to listen to what was being said...and were deprived of their rights to do so by other people who if they didn't like what was being said could have just moved on?
You could say the same about some television political programmes and the right of viewers to be able to listen to someone's point of view. Presenters often allow, encourage, or are complicit in, the shouting down or persistent interruption of a politician trying to make a point.
go and listen to them at one of their indoor rallies then, if you are lucky enough to be selected to be invited
Couldn't they wait until the other person has finished speaking & then say what they have to say?
why?
what gives anyone the right to speak unchallenged on the streets that are owned by all?
you speak in public, you have to accept that some of the public will disagree.
I'm not saying not to challenge them. Wait & hear what they say & then challenge it. That way both sides will be heard. Shouting over each other means nobody's argument gets heard.
Basic respect for the democratic process and for the rights of your fellow citizens to listen to the broadest range of opinions. You either have it or your don't. Your own ignorance of this principle shows that the Blueshirts don't.
Freedom of speech is the foundational right which all citizens in a democracy possess, If it doesn't exist, then all other freedoms exist only as tyrants' whims. If you think someone need permission from someone else to exercise this right, you plainly don't understand what democracy means, and so deserve to be treated with suspicion.
Is "Blueshirts" meant to be a subtle way of implying the Yes supporters are extremists like the Brownshirts of the 30s, or the Redshirts of Thailand?
Yes, we have the right to say whatever we want. But others have the right to dislike, criticize and challenge what we say.
As long as this is done without violence or threat of violence, no rights are being violated.