Douglas Carswell shoved and taunted by anti-austerity protesters

Wow. Chatting with @DouglasCarswell at St James. And some friends turned up... pic.twitter.com/POVjAwu6Cu
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) May 27, 2015

pic.twitter.com/vpY7BEbg0B
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) May 27, 2015

darknessss wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh right, and yet you still managed to judge the girl.

Yes ..simply because it was a Trail hunt...hence she had NO business there....
and certainly no business to be disrupting.....

she brought it on herself (in moral terms at least ) though the law of course differs....

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Ah, we don't want to talk about this. Let's talk about petty shit like hunting protests. Because we tackle what matters on this forum.

It might be petty shit to you, but it's not to me. Hunting with dogs is animal abuse, and if you think that's petty, well ...

I voted Labour mainly in order to get this disgusting practice wiped out - twice!

The trouble is that it's hard for the police to monitor the hunts, even if they wanted to - and a lot of them do want to. Therefore, some people become hunt monitors to make sure that the hunters aren't abusing animals and breaking the law.

darknessss wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It might be petty shit to you, but it's not to me. Hunting with dogs is animal abuse, and if you think that's petty, well ...

I voted Labour mainly in order to get this disgusting practice wiped out - twice!

The trouble is that it's hard for the police to monitor the hunts, even if they wanted to - and a lot of them do want to. Therefore, some people become hunt monitors to make sure that the hunters aren't abusing animals and breaking the law.

so then why when its a trail hunt they are "monitoring" do they then riot and disrupt.....not monitors...criminals

Raggamuffin wrote:

darknessss wrote:

Yes ..simply because it was a Trail hunt...hence she had NO business there....
and certainly no business to be disrupting.....

she brought it on herself (in moral terms at least ) though the law of course differs....

She might have been monitoring it to make sure they didn't break the law.

I should hope the law does differ - if it wasn't an accident.

darknessss wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She might have been monitoring it to make sure they didn't break the law.

I should hope the law does differ - if it wasn't an accident.

yes and monitoring involves sounding horns attempting to make the horses throw riders with fire works etc etc etc

it involves obstructing the riders paths (which is what she was doing, so her injuries as far as I am concerned are self inflicted)

REALLY ??? thats "momitoring is it.....what an odd world you live in

Raggamuffin wrote:I think I found that incident Victor. The woman was knocked over by a bloke called Mark Doggrell. He was initially arrested, but there were no charges as it was decided that he couldn't have foreseen what would happen.

He should have been more careful though, and he should have stopped to see if the woman was OK instead of just galloping off.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Yeah, because this is about winning and losing elections

Raggamuffin wrote:It's the hypocrisy which is the worst thing - the way that some people imply that "left wing" thugs are somehow more virtuous than "right wing" thugs. I always thought that about UAF as well.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It is in a way because the demonstrators were protesting about austerity - ie, they were protesting against the Tories winning, and anyone they see as being allied to them in any way.

So austerity is just this abstract concept, with no repercussions on real people's lives.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That doesn't alter the fact that they were protesting about the Tories winning the election.

Ah, so now austerity has nothing to do with it.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Ben, I have nothing against people protesting.
Here though people turning up with their faces hidden, gives you a clue to the intent of those doing so.
One that clearly is intent on creating trouble. This is then backed up by the fact there was clashes with the Police
No MP no matter their views should be subjected to such intimidation.
Like I say, the far left are no different to the far right.

No, there is a difference. The far left don't cut the throats of the poor to pay down the debt.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Ben, are you seriously defending the people who threatened Douglas Carswell in that manner?

Fuck Douglas Carswell, the little prancing ninny wasn't hurt, was he?

How many will be hurt by his ignorant policies?

Matthew 23:24

darknessss wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think I found that incident Victor. The woman was knocked over by a bloke called Mark Doggrell. He was initially arrested, but there were no charges as it was decided that he couldn't have foreseen what would happen.

He should have been more careful though, and he should have stopped to see if the woman was OK instead of just galloping off.

ahh right ...I didnt find what subsequently happened

and NO i dont support "abuse" of animals

you are using one of bens false arguments here

there was at one time some footage from a camera phone (belonging to the antis)
but it seems to have dissapeared...I suspect becasue on careful watching it DOESNT show what they wanted it to show...

from memory it would seem that the girl was shoved into the horses path by her "mate" who "arse bumped" her...

Its unlikely that the rider could have forseen that and it is quite possible, given the timing of it all, he was unaware of the fact the horse had hit her

when you stand in the way of 3/4 tonne of horse burger on the move.......it behoves you to pay attention to what is going on around you...not play silly games....

as for not stopping...given that this was only a few weeks after that huntmaster was battered senseless with iron bars.....would YOU have stopped

there were plenty of people there to help
unless he was a trained medic he could NOT have made a difference in any case...
and he DID "turn himself in" later....

oh and finally ...just to show what antis are made of they "claimed" that huntsmen had obstructed the air ambulance and staff

a report that was denied by...................... the air ambulance staff and pilot....

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you are defending them. At least you admit it.

They didn't ruffle a hair on his precious little head, the raging whiner. Yeah, I wish one of them had punched him in the face. People like him are too sublimely idiotic to understand anything else.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

No, there is a difference. The far left don't cut the throats of the poor to pay down the debt.

the only people cutting throats are those that Obama has let prosper in the middle east

Belatucadros wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Fuck Douglas Carswell, the little prancing ninny wasn't hurt, was he?

How many will be hurt by his ignorant policies?

Matthew 23:24

Wow, so you basically back intimidation when democracy does not go your way.
Again there is nothing wrong with protests but by you backing intimidation for not liking something you thus allow any intimidation to anyone based off the same principle Ben.
That means you should then not argue if someone intimidates a Muslim for not liking Muslims.
Sorry I happen to disagree with you thinking its ever okay to intimidate anyone.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

UKIP? They only have one MP.

They, as in the idiot right of your benighted country.

Raggamuffin wrote:I will give Ben the benefit of the doubt here. He is defending those yobs because he doesn't like UKIP. If some anti-hunt protestors said mean things to a hunter, I'd probably defend them.

I wouldn't support direct threats though - well not much.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I will give Ben the benefit of the doubt here. He is defending those yobs because he doesn't like UKIP. If some anti-hunt protestors said mean things to a hunter, I'd probably defend them.

I wouldn't support direct threats though - well not much.

doubt? what doubt? the man is an open racist and hates the brits which a passion. he and people like him are the problem, not the solution.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

UKIP have nothing to do with Tory austerity measures. The man was merely waiting at a bus stop and he was attacked.

Didn't UKIP want to privatize the NHS? Before, of course, they wanted to protect it

darknessss wrote:cops should have shot them (the so called "protesters", the masked cowards and common bandits)

ad then sent the bill for the police actio to their relatives


scum

it is perfectly possible to protest peaceably and without making any kind of contact with the object of your dislike...

just like the anti hunting idiots....

like that silly girl that got flattened by a horse...protesting at
NOT a "live hunt "   NOTE that it wasnt a "live hunt" but a trail hunt (which shows the distinct lack of IQ involved here)

IF the idiot protestors had merely "protested" in a reasonable manner

AND NOT DELIBERATELY tried to disrupt people GOING ABOUT THEIR LAWFUL business then that accident would not have happened

she brought it on herself   (with the moronic aid of her friend?  as the footage shows)

darknessss wrote:I wouldnt ban protests

but I WOULD make it law that the protestors (and any item they have )

MUST be at least 10 feet from their intended object of protest

any closer would be considered "riot" and punished appropriately(with life improisonment or death or something )

Ben_Reilly wrote:Meanwhile, let's hear a bit from people who have been affected by austerity measures:

In the United States, more than five million Americans have lost access to healthcare since the recession began, essentially because when they lost their jobs, they also lost their health insurance. And in the UK, the authors say, 10,000 families have been pushed into homelessness following housing benefit cuts.

The most extreme case, says Stuckler, reeling off numbers he knows now by heart, is Greece. "There, austerity to meet targets set by the troika is leading to a public-health disaster," he says. "Greece has cut its health system by more than 40%. As the health minister said: 'These aren't cuts with a scalpel, they're cuts with a butcher's knife.'"

Worse, those cuts have been decided "not by doctors and healthcare professionals, but by economists and financial managers. The plan was simply to get health spending down to 6% of GDP. Where did that number come from? It's less than the UK, less than Germany, way less than the US."

The consequences have been dramatic. Cuts in HIV-prevention budgets have coincided with a 200% increase in the virus in Greece, driven by a sharp rise in intravenous drug use against the background of a youth unemployment rate now running at more than 50% and a spike in homelessness of around a quarter. The World Health Organisation, Stuckler says, recommends a supply of 200 clean needles a year for each intravenous drug user; groups that work with users in Athens estimate the current number available is about three.

In terms of "economic" suicides, "Greece has gone from one extreme to the other. It used to have one of Europe's lowest suicide rates; it has seen a more than 60% rise."

In general, each suicide corresponds to around 10 suicide attempts and – it varies from country to country – between 100 and 1,000 new cases of depression. In Greece, says Stuckler, "that's reflected in surveys that show a doubling in cases of depression; in psychiatry services saying they're overwhelmed; in charity helplines reporting huge increases in calls".

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/15/recessions-hurt-but-austerity-kills

A 60 percent rise in suicide attempts. 10,000 more homeless families in the U.S. But OH MY GOD, SOME POSH FUCK GOT SHOVED. SAME THING.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

darknessss wrote:cops should have shot them (the so called "protesters", the masked cowards and common bandits)

ad then sent the bill for the police actio to their relatives


scum

it is perfectly possible to protest peaceably and without making any kind of contact with the object of your dislike...

just like the anti hunting idiots....

like that silly girl that got flattened by a horse...protesting at
NOT a "live hunt "   NOTE that it wasnt a "live hunt" but a trail hunt (which shows the distinct lack of IQ involved here)

IF the idiot protestors had merely "protested" in a reasonable manner

AND NOT DELIBERATELY tried to disrupt people GOING ABOUT THEIR LAWFUL business then that accident would not have happened

she brought it on herself   (with the moronic aid of her friend?  as the footage shows)

remember those massive riots when 1million countryside league protesters marched in london? no nor do I. therein lies the difference between left and right.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think I found that incident Victor. The woman was knocked over by a bloke called Mark Doggrell. He was initially arrested, but there were no charges as it was decided that he couldn't have foreseen what would happen.

He should have been more careful though, and he should have stopped to see if the woman was OK instead of just galloping off.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think I found that incident Victor. The woman was knocked over by a bloke called Mark Doggrell. He was initially arrested, but there were no charges as it was decided that he couldn't have foreseen what would happen.

He should have been more careful though, and he should have stopped to see if the woman was OK instead of just galloping off.

a horse is not a car and anyone fucking around in front of one can't complain if they get squashed

Belatucadros wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
the only people cutting throats are those that Obama has let prosper in the middle east

Absurd reasoning.
How did Bush stop insugents blowing people up and heads being chopped off?

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
doubt? what doubt? the man is an open racist and hates the brits which a passion. he and people like him are the problem, not the solution.

What I mean is that he seems to be very angry with UKIP for some reason, and that is affecting his judgement. He is quite bigoted though, but he claims to be against bigotry.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

So austerity is just this abstract concept, with no repercussions on real people's lives.

austerity is an abstract concept as what it actually means is living within your means. something the left seem to have no concept of.

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
remember those massive riots when 1million countryside league protesters marched in london? no nor do I. therein lies the difference between left and right.

Between 300,000 and 400,000 actually.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Between 300,000 and 400,000 actually.

and the riots and looted shops?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Absurd reasoning.
How did Bush stop insugents blowing people up and heads being chopped off?

during obamas time of burying his head in the sand over the rise of daesh we have seen thousands beheaded by those people. We have seen the worlds heritage destroyed in their attempt to initiate year zero .
the rise of daesh can quite clearly be linked to the west and america in particular throwing the syrian people to the wolves.
the fear of another middle eastern war affecting a presidential run paralysed america and allowed the jihadi groups to flourish in the vacuum left. when the syrian uprising started there were no jihadi's there. It was a fight between the assad regime and barely armed civilians. the fact that the west did not step in stop assad killing unarmed protesters is a most shameful thing.
The rush to get out of iraq before the iraqi army was in anyway ready is why iraq is slowly, or not so slowly, falling to Daesh. All of that can be laid firmly at the door of Barak Hussein Obama.

Raggamuffin wrote:

darknessss wrote:

ahh right ...I didnt find what subsequently happened

and NO i dont support "abuse" of animals

you are using one of bens false arguments here

there was at one time some footage from a camera phone (belonging to the antis)
but it seems to have dissapeared...I suspect becasue on careful watching it DOESNT show what they wanted it to show...

from memory it would seem that the girl was shoved into the horses path by her "mate" who "arse bumped" her...

Its unlikely that the rider could have forseen that and it is quite possible, given the timing of it all, he was unaware of the fact the horse had hit her

when you stand in the way of 3/4 tonne of horse burger on the move.......it behoves you to pay attention to what is going on around you...not play silly games....

as for not stopping...given that this was only a few weeks after that huntmaster was battered senseless with iron bars.....would YOU have stopped

there were plenty of people there to help
unless he was a trained medic he could NOT have made a difference in any case...
and he DID "turn himself in" later....

oh and finally ...just to show what antis are made of they "claimed" that huntsmen had obstructed the air ambulance and staff

a report that was denied by...................... the air ambulance staff and pilot....

The sabs suspected that the hunt were about to illegally kill fox clubs apparently. The woman was standing at the entrance to a field, and the bloke hit her as he galloped past on his horse. It does seem that it was an accident, although the bloke was a bit reckless. It might be a different incident that you're thinking of.

Look, I have no objection to people going out on their horses all dressed up, following false trails. The trouble is that some of them don't stick to that - hence the need for hunt monitors.

darknessss wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The sabs suspected that the hunt were about to illegally kill fox clubs apparently. The woman was standing at the entrance to a field, and the bloke hit her as he galloped past on his horse. It does seem that it was an accident, although the bloke was a bit reckless. It might be a different incident that you're thinking of.

Look, I have no objection to people going out on their horses all dressed up, following false trails. The trouble is that some of them don't stick to that - hence the need for hunt monitors.

the sabs "suspected"  

and these "self appointed "monitors""

then proceed to disrupt ...not merely monitor, but actively disrup the hunt


where did they suddenly aquire lawful police like powers?
where did they aquire suddenly the ability to develop such suspicions

seems more likely to me they were common criminals out for a bit of aggro that went wrong
gaining there so called suspicions from some nonsense posted on the net no doubt....



I see and you thinlk thats right...interesting

perhaps i am corect then in my thoughts about some foreigners here


I "suspect" they may be up to no good

so we can send em ALL home??

see Raggs...I dont support fox hunting


I do however support people carrying out "lawful business"
and the RULE of LAW...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

darknessss wrote:

the sabs "suspected"  

and these "self appointed "monitors""

then proceed to disrupt ...not merely monitor, but actively disrup the hunt


where did they suddenly aquire lawful police like powers?
where did they aquire suddenly the ability to develop such suspicions

seems more likely to me they were common criminals out for a bit of aggro that went wrong
gaining there so called suspicions from some nonsense posted on the net no doubt....



I see and you thinlk thats right...interesting

perhaps i am corect then in my thoughts about some foreigners here


I "suspect" they may be up to no good

so we can send em ALL home??

see Raggs...I dont support fox hunting


I do however support people carrying out "lawful business"
and the RULE of LAW...

Well of those moronic animal abusers kept to the law, nobody would need to monitor them.

darknessss wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

look at 0:25


where the other one knocks her backward into the path of the horse

also how convenient

this has been even MORE "edited " than since Last time I saw it

one thing is for sure...it would not be admissable as "evidence" in any court as it is.....

OH and just becasue the SABs say they were illegally hunting dont make it so....I mean ...they would wouldnt they....

where is the evidence of their "suspicions"???

ALSO and more importantly note the women were IN THE FIELD


now THAT is agravated trespass nowadays

"trespassing with intent to disrupt someones lawful business" Is now a criminal offence....

both of em ought to be prosecuted....

but certainly they had NO right to be there....


common criminals.......

darknessss wrote:
why not gallop...the people should NOT have been that close to what was OBVIOUSLY the path the horses were going to take...

they put themselves in danger ...no one else

I dont think he was aware there had been contact...

and as I said, bearing in mind the violent murderous nature of hunt sabs...as clearly demonstrated by those that beat the huntmaster (again on a trail hunt) with iron bars to the point of permanent disability....I wouldnt blame him for not stopping

and he did the decent thing and turned himself in later....

he would not have been able to give any more help than what was already there...

plenty of other folks with phones to summon ambulance.....

Raggamuffin wrote:

darknessss wrote:
why not gallop...the people should NOT have been that close to what was OBVIOUSLY the path the horses were going to take...

they put themselves in danger ...no one else

I dont think he was aware there had been contact...

and as I said, bearing in mind the violent murderous nature of hunt sabs...as clearly demonstrated by those that beat the huntmaster (again on a trail hunt) with iron bars to the point of permanent disability....I wouldnt blame him for not stopping

and he did the decent thing and turned himself in later....

he would not have been able to give any more help than what was already there...

plenty of other folks with phones to summon ambulance.....

It doesn't matter - it's obviously dangerous to gallop that close to someone. Would you just knock someone over who was cycling on the pavement because they shouldn't be there? If you did, would you just say - oh well, someone else can help them?

I think he knew he'd knocked someone over - he was probably late for the barbecue or something.

darknessss wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It doesn't matter - it's obviously dangerous to gallop that close to someone. Would you just knock someone over who was cycling on the pavement because they shouldn't be there? If you did, would you just say - oh well, someone else can help them?

I think he knew he'd knocked someone over - he was probably late for the barbecue or something.

firstly they were not cycling on the pavement.....they were playing marbles in the fast lane of the M1
secondly they should not have placed themselves in danger
thirdly, given the viscious nature of hunt sabs no I wouldnt bloody stop...
fourthly unlike in a vehicle incident there is no legal requirement to "stop at the scene"


like i said earlier there should be a law passed to restrict how close protestors can be to the object of their protest, that would havve prevented this, or at least made a clear line of who was in the wrong

criminal scumbags out for aggro

Raggamuffin wrote:

darknessss wrote:


look at 0:25


where the other one knocks her backward into the path of the horse

also how convenient

this has been even MORE "edited " than since Last time I saw it

one thing is for sure...it would not be admissable as "evidence" in any court as it is.....

OH and just becasue the SABs say they were illegally hunting dont make it so....I mean ...they would wouldnt they....

where is the evidence of their "suspicions"???

ALSO and more importantly note the women were IN THE FIELD


now THAT is agravated trespass nowadays

"trespassing with intent to disrupt someones lawful business" Is now a criminal offence....

both of em ought to be prosecuted....

but certainly they had NO right to be there....


common criminals.......

I'm not saying it wasn't an accident. The bloke was going too fast though - you don't gallop that close to people, and you don't just take off after you knock someone down - you go back to see if they're OK or not.

I'm on the side of the sabs - they're doing a good job of monitoring these morons so they have to keep looking over their shoulders.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not saying it wasn't an accident. The bloke was going too fast though - you don't gallop that close to people, and you don't just take off after you knock someone down - you go back to see if they're OK or not.

I'm on the side of the sabs - they're doing a good job of monitoring these morons so they have to keep looking over their shoulders.

That was no accident that was intentional assault with a deadly weapon ie the horse