The police ask the BNP's Derek Adams to leave.
The organisers of yesterday’s controversial by-election debate in Delph have defended their decision to ask the police to escort the BNP candidate from the building. Derek Adams had staged a sit-in protest on the stage, because he hadn’t been invited to join five other candidates on the panel.
The event was put on by the Delph Community Association and Delph Traffic Group. In a statement tonight, the organisers said: “No hustings or candidates’ question time in this constituency has ever had all the candidates on the platform and there is no legal requirement to do so. On Thursday night the Oldham Chronicle organised a question time with just three candidates on the platform.”
The statement continued: “It is simply not practicable to hold a question time with more than five speakers and with ten candidates a choice has to be made. On Sunday the three main candidates were joined by the Green candidate Peter Allen, whose party has a councillor on Oldham Council, and Paul Nuttall the UKIP candidate, who is also an elected member of the European Parliament for the North West.”
On that point, the BNP has countered that it finished fourth in the Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency at last year’s general election, ahead of UKIP. The Greens didn’t field a candidate in that election.
Police escort Derek Adams off the premises.
The organisers’ statement went on: “The BNP candidate asked for and was given tickets to be part of the audience at the event. Unfortunately, the candidate and his supporters organised a ‘sit in’ protest which disrupted the start of the meeting, their behaviour threatening a breach of the peace. Having repeatedly refused polite requests from the organisers to end their ‘sit in’ protest on the platform and return to their seats in the audience, the organisers had no alternative but to ask the police to escort the BNP candidate and his entourage from the building.”
The statement continued: “The organisers would like to thank the police for the calm and professional way they dealt with a difficult situation. Delph proceeded to have a cracking election meeting which was lively, entertaining and informative.”
The organisers concluded: “We have to wonder why the BNP picked on a small village community group when as far as we know the Oldham Chronicle received no complaints from them about the candidates meeting they organised in Denshaw last Thursday night. Delph Community Association and Delph Traffic Group are non-political community organisations. No councillor from any political party was involved in the organisation of this event.”
After the incident, the BNP published the phone number of the debate venue, the Millgate Centre, on its website and asked its supporters to phone up and complain. The people who run the centre have asked Saddleworth News to make it clear that it had no role in putting on the debate, and has no political affiliation.
A report of the hustings from Saddleworth News can be read here.
To read full coverage of the by-election so far from Saddleworth News, click here.
When an organisation seeks to determine which candidates the public may or may not question during a public election hustings then accusations of bias will always arise. Five candidates were wrongly discriminated against last night. Political advantage, however small, was given to those lucky enough to be chosen to sit on the platform.
Delph Community Association and Delph Traffic Group have demonstrated a weak commitment to the democratic process at best. At worst, they have shown an open contempt for the right of the electorate to make up their own minds at an election.
The problem is that rightly or wrongly, as previously election results have shown, only a small minority of people in the constituency will likely be interested in attending an event like this if they end up listening to every candidate when only a few get the majority of the votes and have a chance of winning. For it to be considered a useful exercise by most of the audience, they will want there to be enough time to hear a reasonable amount from the candidates most in with a chance of winning. Inevitably that means you’ve got to somehow trim the list of candidates to something more practical.
Now, how the final list is determined is a detailed issue in itself, but it seems fairly reasonable that the list is not necessarily the same as the complete list of candidates. However, I would suggest that it is possible that the reputation of a particular candidate and/or their supporters will have some influence that decision. If, in the particular case of the BNP, they wish to be invited to take part in events like this, they aren’t doing themselves any favours by turning up and disrupting an event which they haven’t been invited to take part in beyond being part of the audience.
The BNP polled more votes in this ward than UKIP and the greens put together at the last general election. I’m glad the organiser who called the police has seen the error of his ways, it’s just a shame he lacks the courage to admit it and apologise.
The justifications put forward by the Delph Community Association are unconvincing. They imply that the selection of the panel was based on electoral support. Yet the BNP have an MEP (Nick Griffin) elected for the North West and came fourth in the constituency at the General Election.
They point out that the Oldham Chronicle only invited three candidates. All this means is that the Oldham Chronicle are even less committed to democratic principles than the DCA!
Why the sham? If the DCA feel that only those favoured by the Political Class should be allowed expression they should just say so. Why seek to present this meeting as a genuine hustings aimed at informing the public of the choices available?
Attempts to censor the BNP campaign and hype UKIP should be seen for the manipulation of the democratic process they are. People decide how to vote on the information provided to them (mainly through the media but in other ways too). Sadly, with a few honourable exceptions (like the Saddleworth News) that information is being presented selectively and in a distorted way. Garbage In, Garbage Out as computer programmers say!
Here’s a question for you. If there was a party which supported paedophilia, would you allow them to speak?
I wouldn’t. But, of course, censorship is a no no this day and age isn’t it! we mustn’t allow people’s opinion’s to be “impaired” in any way must we!
The BNP have been found out on numerous occasions as being a racist, anti working class bunch of hooligans. Their views, when articulated, incite racial hatred, and are thus illegal! simple as.
well done to the community organisers for sticking to their guns and not allowing the BNP to bully them into giving them a platform to spout their hatred of all things not white and rich.
Why are the oranisers so frightened of Mr.Adams.The BNP in this seat got more votes than UKIP ,and the Greens didn’t even contest it.
Just been reading on another Saddleworth News page at the comments, it seems other candidates were refused to be allowed on the panel by Councillor Hulme. As it was a public building and open access it has been said that it breaks electoral commission rules. If you believe in equality then every candidate should have been allowed a voice if you agree with their policies or not. That is supposed to be our democratic right to hear what each candidate has to say regardless of how many votes they got last time. This is dictatorship.
[…] News has more information here, and here. Frankly, no-one comes out of this shameful episode well… Wikio Wikio This entry was […]
@ Matthew Jeffery
“The BNP has been found out on numerous occasions as being a racist, anti working class bunch of hooligans”
Matthew, I’m a BNP member from Wigan, I’m very proud to say that I’m WORKING CLASS, NON -RACIST and certainly NOT A HOOLIGAN (I have NO criminal record!).
I know virtually all of the BNP activists in the Lancashire/Greater Manchester area, and virtually all of them are also WORKING CLASS, NON-RACIST and NOT HOOLIGANS (the vast majority have no criminal record).
I am 41yrs old, married with 2 children, I help coach local children at my local football club and also help local disabled people in my spare time, when I am not working and looking after my family. Most of my fellow BNP members live similar lives, and many are well respected in their local communities.
If you really believe what you read about the BNP and it’s members in the biased newpapers, and on the marxist BBC ……then you really aren’t as clever as you think you are.
The average age of BNP members in my area must be about 70yrs ……….
…..and you think we’re hooligans!!!
Grow up.
To Mr Matthew Jeffery.
I did not think that the BNP had been declared an illegal political party?
By whom, exactly? Apart from your good self, that is.
They may well trip over themselves in their views, in which case we would be able to make our own judgement. Please do not attempt to inflict your inaccurate personal views on me, or tell me how to think. I am capable of thinking for myself.
I just find it hilarious that the BNP complains about being excluded from a debate when in the unlikely event of getting into power, the BNP will exclude about 30% of the people of this country from being able to vote and indeed will encourage them to leave the country.
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
Aimed towards Mike Beecham. It is fantastic that you are involved with your community. More should be. And ok. My post does include some strongly worded views. Hopefully you can forgive me on that. If you’re up for a discussion, I’d be up for it!
To start with, if you wish to, Could you outline your party’s main beliefs for me?
Towards James Cheetham - I did not say that the BNP ARE an illegal party, but I am suggesting that they should be, as I believe that they incite they incite racial hatred.
to Tim Hill
“the BNP will exclude about 30% of the people of this country from being able to vote and indeed will encourage them to leave the country”
Tim
You clearly haven’t read any of the BNP’s policies or election manifesto’s!!! So you’ve chosen to tell some porkies!!
The BNP’s official policies on immigration are:
1) A complete halt to any further immigration.
2) Deportation for foreign criminals
3) Deportation for all ILLEGAL immigrants
No-one else of any race or religion, except foreign criminals and Illegal immigrants would be forced to leave the country - and nobody who
is in this country legally would ever be denied the right to vote.
I suggest that you refrain from making up stories and start educating yourself……
…….preferably before you reach puberty.
@Ruby
Regarding your comment that “it has been said that it breaks electoral commission rules”, I can’t find anything to suggest that to be accurate. You can find a guide to hustings events on the Electoral Commission website.
As far as I can determine, the only rules that there are relate to a candidate’s spending limits. The document recognises that it may not always be practical to invite all candidates. It does recommend that where not all candidates are invited, organisers should be prepared to explain the reasons. You may disagree with the reasons given in this case to invite only certain candidates but they seem in keeping with the recommendations.
The most important point of all this is, as I’ve said, the organisers do not have to invite all candidates.
So much for democracy. The campaign being waged by the Fat Cats and their lickspittles in the press against anyone who dares to question their PC agenda just beggars belief.
The BNP have been warning us about the grooming of our children by paedophile gangs - not an asian phemenon and what an insult to Hindus and Sikhs to call it so - what else have they been correct about? We see now just how scared the old parties are of the truth.
Instead of debating who should and shouldn’t be at the hustings, why don’t the organisers have more than one so that all parties can air their views ?
The point is do we or do we not have freedom of speech in our country or not? I would say not, especially when a political party, in this case the BNP, who whether you love them or loathe them, are denied the opportunity to address a public hustings.
Why is it that the liberal political elite seek to deny free speech to a legally constituted political party who happens to oppose their political views? What is it they fear from the BNP being heard?
The quote misattributed to Voltaire springs to mind,’I abhor what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it’. In a true democracy political parties are not gagged!
misattributed to Voltaire
Do you like me Dare to care about what matters in your own country, Like me more and more people are sick of the way this whole country is run and the threat that is posed by membership into the EU as per the un ratified un elected lot that pushed the Lisbon treaty through and signed more of our powers away to the EU and even worst the threat of failed left wing leaders who could return as the EU presidents after being unwanted in the UK is a complete outrage.
I am not a Fascist or Racist and I simply believe this party is the only one that is looking out for the British people (even those who have not been here that long), it’s time for a change for the better as this country is sick and as long as the 42 Million per day EU swindle continues this country will never recover from being cash strapped and will continue to sink into nothingness that the left wing elite would want divided broken and defeated. If population was a health and safety quota we would be shut down as the country is now over loaded with no sign of recovery unless we adopt policy like Australia and New Zealand and control our borders and control our TAX payers own money we are doomed and more and more people are waking up but how long does it take and what must it take. It’s not even selfish or a crime to want to protect your children or your children’s children and let us not forget our fore bearers who gave their lives in 2 bloody world wars so that Britain could be free from the grip of central Europe and it’s communistic directives driving the rich poor divide even further into warped proportion. I want to see a Great Britain with British jobs for British workers, free further education, better health services, free dental treatment and free heating and more money for the old people that paid their TAXES and paved their way for our generation to be here – were are the new houses to replace the ones big gov sold off.
So little has been done that has been in our interest as a Nation it’s no wonder people are feeling abused and 2nd class.
I vote BNP
RIP those who fought for our democracy
To Mike
I suggest you read you party’s web site instead of the air-brushed manifesto instead.
To Mike
My point remains.
The BNP complains about being excluded from a democratic debate when if it got to power, democracy would be abolished.
For reference, please read many articles by senior BNP members about how democracy is a luxury this country can do without.
Autocracy is a much more preferable option in the eyes of those senior BNP members.
In my view, you have a right to say what you believe and I will defend to the death your right to say it but:
a) Don’t pretend to be democrats when you are quite clearly not.
b) I profoundly disagree with you and your party’s views.
c) I would have had all 10 candidates on the stage but the organisers have the right to invite who they want to and no electoral law has been broken by them.
As for your puberty remark, that is a very good example of how the BNP reacts when challenged in a public way.
To Matthew Jeffery at 11.08 am:
You deny in a later post that you said the BNP are an illegal party. I quote you from that first post:
“Their views, when articulated, incite racial hatred, and are thus illegal! simple as.”
As you apparently do not know what you are saying, perhaps we should take with a pinch of salt your other allegations against members of the BNP?
Actually, I don’t blame you, or others, for trotting out these tired and misleading cliches. I’ve seen the same kind of propaganda splattered all over the media; I learned a long time ago not to believe all I read in the papers, or heard on TV, but so many still suck it all in then repeat it without thought. Much closer to the truth are those comments by Mike Beecham, above. One odd thing is this; I went onto the web page of the Delphi Community Association, who I believe were the Organisers of this hustings. What they set out to do, managing their land and attempting to preserve the rural character of their area closely mirrors the BNP’s ideals. We have campaigned in many areas in Britain to do just that - I am campaigning in my own village to save green belt/wildlife habitat here.
It seems that each party is generally known for one policy: UKIP on the EU, Cons on business, Labour for immigration and Union action, etc. In reality, all parties, including BNP, have many policies but it is the media which guides our thinking down certain paths, often to the detriment of the public, who are only shown what they want you to see (witness those PM’s debates, turning the main contenders at the last GE into “celebs”. Is anyone happy with the result they shaped?)
We desperately need all views to be heard and I was thinking along the same lines as TopGuy1, who suggested 2 hustings, which would have enabled all candidates to be heard, and questioned. Perhaps then, we wouldn’t have witnessed the bullying tactics by the Labour Councillor, who IMO appears to think that he is solely in charge of running this election!
to mike Beecham: you said that the BNP’s policies were thus -
1) A complete halt to any further immigration.
Of course you do realise that if this came about the country would in effect cease to work? We have an ageing population, with high emigration levels. This country is only able to sustain it’s economy because of immigration, not in spite of it. Now as a follow up, what are the arguments for this policy?
2) Deportation for foreign criminals
Whilst there are obviously exceptions to this rule, it is policy to consider those who commit crimes with a prison sentence for deportation. Taken from the beeb website -
“Foreign citizens face the prospect of deportation from the UK if they are convicted of committing a crime that carries a sentence of imprisonment.
The Prison Service is expected to notify the Home Office’s Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) that a foreign inmate subject to possible deportation is being held before they are released.
In March 2005 ministers circulated a document entitled Prison Service Order 6000 to all prison governors in an attempt to tighten up this process.
Under the order, governors were told to begin talks over deportation at least 26 weeks ahead of offenders’ potential release.
With higher-risk offenders, the process should start 45 weeks before potential release date.”
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4939376.stm
Of course, there are muck ups, and slip ups, but that is the rule. Again, there are exceptions, and rightly so. For example, it would be highly immoral to send a criminal back to a country where they would be persecuted or tortured, and would contravene our obligations towards various UN conventions we are signed up to.
3) Deportation for all ILLEGAL immigrants
Of course, this is a prickly issue, and one which government does have to look into without a doubt. However it is obviously important to note that there are various “types” of immigrant - illegal, economic, Asylum seeker, destitute asylum seeker etc. not all types of migrant are illegal. I’m sure you are aware of this, but not all are.
The Policy that the BNP have to bring this about - Voluntary repatriation - is nothing short of grossly immoral, due to where he would get the money from. He proposes that as a country we halt foreign aid, and re-channel some of the money towards this scheme, and towards giving more money to pensioners. I’m not complaining about giving more money to pensioners, but it can come from other sources - giving up trident would free up a mass of money, as would a higher tax upon banks, and the richest in our country.
Foreign aid is given because thankfully, the majority of people in our country recognise that the British are not the only humans in the world. we have a commitment as humans to humanity, whether they be from Britain, Romania, Africa or even France! The money goes to places which desperately need investment in order to bring living standards to a half decent level. How dare we think that the gross inequality we have in the world is acceptable, because we are at the top.
And actually, if you truly want to stop the amounts of immigration into this country, the best way to do it would be to increase foreign aid, not cut it. by raising up standards of living in other places, there is less of an incentive to up sticks and leave. Most immigrants don’t come to this country because they believe us to be easy, but because there are little or no opportunities for them in their own countries. What if we invested in these countries? What if we cooperated with their countries, which are undoubtedly struggling with the exodus of their brightest and best, and help them raise the standards of their own countries?
Of course, this isn’t even getting into the topics of same sex marriages, the burkha etc.
But one more question on the topic of immigration. What are your party’s policies on emigration? Until last year, there were more people that emigrated from our country than came in. Would your party recall all expats, or force British people to stay on our shores? To not do so would seem to be having a colonial mindset, which brings me onto my last point.
Our country roamed around the globe, forcing people, most of the time at gunpoint, to pay tribute to our country for the best part of 200 years. Surely, that reason alone is good enough for our country to be part of rebuilding our world, when we were a massive part of it’s upheaval. Just look at most of the countries we used to rule, and the mass corruption that goes on. Where do you think they learnt it from?
to sue - I believe that the BNP SHOULD be illegal, due to the fact that they incite religious hatred. Of course, at this moment in time, they are not - but I believe their views on immigration, racial separation, homosexuality, religious liberty all technically could come under inciting hatred, and thus should be illegal. Of course, I am not a politician, so do not always carefully qualify every single sentence I write. But hopefully now, my view is clear on the issue.
Well, thankyou for not blaming me, I suppose. I’ll be honest with you though, I trust that you understand that my views are my own - I have seen Mike Beecham’s comment, and I disagree with it.
Which Labour councillor was this Sue ? I didn’t see any Labour councillors at the hustings - let alone running the event.
And why is a small non political community group being vilified and abused in this way.
What did the Oldham Chronicle say when the BNP and English Democrat candidates asked to speak at the hustings the Chron held last Thursday and the Chron refused them ?
Why isn’t Sue and all the others who are attacking a small village community group saying one word against the Oldham Chronicle ? Not as easy to push the Chron around perhaps ?
Why don’t Sue and all those who share her views organise a public meeting for the BNP - no-one is stopping you from organising your own event ?