Skip to main content

Demonstrators frighten constituents again

Eight demonstrators operated a picket of my advice bureau today. This frightened a number of constituents who were worried by the shouting. I had asked them to be careful not to frighten people, but they didn't care that they were doing this.

There were 15 people who came to the advice bureau before the demonstration, but only 3 after they turned up.

John O Shea has a weblog here on which he claims there were 20-30 demonstrators outside my office today. The photograph shows perhaps 4-5, but at the peak there were 8.

It remains, however, that what matters most about this is their lack of concern for the people they were hurting by frightening them from talking to me. They could have demonstrated on the other side of the road, but instead they claimed that they were not frightening anyone. There were people I know that were frightened, however.

It is not right.

[point of clarification - I count the main complainants, there are often other people who come with them. Hence the 15 people counted probably had another 15 or so people with them]


Assuming that the protest was peaceful (I wasn't there but it is described as mainly made up of pensioners elsewhere), do you think that society conditions people to fear dissent and that this impacts on the way protest is experienced? I think there is a strong case that it does.
john said…
It wasn't pensioners. The problem is the noise and shouting. That is what people are frightened by. Not dissent.
Jake Maverick said…
bloody evil terrorists, just lock them up in mental institutes, anhilate their brains with nasty drugs and throw away the key....

i find it very difficult to believe that any reasonable person would be 'frightened' by a bit of noise....

heavily armed yobos romaing the street with immunity from prosecution, wearing masks, shooting people repeatedly in the head, abducting people, throwing them out of back of ambulances, breaking into homes and attacking people in their beds (including children) whilst selling the footage to TV companies for entertainment is bloody terrifying!

i never shout. shame on you for taking this position. you can't try and reason with the enemy's like a red rag to a bull! learn to fight is my advice
john said…
People are, however, frightened off. It may not frighten you, but it does frighten others.
Anonymous said…
Running the gauntlet through protestors isn't something most people will do. I don't know how these people were behaving, but do think that a dignified protest is better than a cause-reinforcing noisy one.

I'm worried about the new NHS law (as you know) and about the nature of Labour's involvement of the private sector when in power (which is manifested for instance in the imminent suspect private-sector deals).
Jake Maverick said…
quite flattered, didn't think i was worthy...
why on Earth would any sane or rational person be 'frightened' of people that care? are prepared to actually get up and do soemthing....knowing full well what they're risking? I never even waved a plackard about, went on a march or anything...
the whole point is to cause disruption/ stop things working properly...lil point if you force them into a soundproof box where nobody can see or hear them....

same reason your sides murders, tortures, blow things stop them 'functioning'...or to forcefolk to defend themselves so in their deluded lil minds they can justify yet more 'fun'....there is no sane or rational reason for attacking anybody!

2 years in jail? he wasn't even a demonstrator/ protestor...just a young man who allegedly threatened to defend himself when the psychos in masks, no indentifying marks and no names attacked actual evidence, just their word to...just trying to get home to his family because there was freaking riot on!

you know what frightens me, looks like they're trying to engineer another incidnt on that as well...the only reason i haven't topped myself already is talking to other TIs...

and i care about the NHS to....each and everyone of them wd be prosecuted/ locked up if i had the power...for the crimes they commit, regardless of JE
Jake Maverick said…
even when folk capitulate to the threats they still implement them, so what is the point of capitulating?

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…