Reform UK discussion

[TUC]

Do you think that the people I know who are from places like Ukraine, India, Pakistan, Poland, Afghanistan etc should be sent back or should never have been here in the first place?

Bear in mind that I have a Nigerian son-in-law so I'm unlikely to be against all immigration. Your question is too broad. Where someone has leave to remain in the UK and has a long settled life here, it would be quite wrong to disturb that. That is a different issue to needing to make much quicker decisions on asylum claims, for which it is unlikely in most cases that more information has been gained from taking one year rather than one month to reach a decision.

Do you believe we should stop supporting Ukraine against Russia?

The focus within Reform has been on the need to significantly strengthen the UK's defences against Russia and other threats, so they're inherently unlikely to want to see Russia win in Ukraine.

Are you with the anti-immigrant protesters - who support the racist parties Reform or Restore - or Stand up to racism?

There's two logic leaps in your question.

One is in calling Reform racist. (I can't speak for Restore.) Given the number of black and asian members who were both at the party conference and who were candidates in the May local elections, I don't think that stands up to scrutiny. Wanting to significantly control immigration is not the same thing as racism.

The other is in assuming that the protesters were connected to Reform. They weren't. Some of them may be Reform voters, but others will support other parties, but either way these were in no sense Reform-related protests.

What is your view on Stephen Cooling, and what is your view on the crowd who cheered him on? Do you condone or condemn Jenrik's support of Cooling and the reaction of the baying crowd?

I was at the conference, but the protesters were in another part of the very large auditorium so the vast majority of these there, including myself, couldn't see what was going on. The cheers were for the security staff as they ejected the protester. In no way were they for Stephen Cooling because we didn't even know there had been any kind of incident.

 

[yorkie]

I was at the conference, but the protesters were in another part of the very large auditorium so the vast majority of these there, including myself, couldn't see what was going on. The cheers were for the security staff as they ejected the protester. In no way were they for Stephen Cooling because we didn't even know there had been any kind of incident.

You're in denial then. Look at the video and look at the faces of the people nearby. They should have been shocked and appalled that a woman was being treated that way; instead they were absolutely loving it.

You aren't condoning that behaviour, which is very telling.

What about Jenrick's views on what happened to her? This is an MP that represents Reform, so the idea that his views aren't representative, are simply unbelieveable.

Jenrick mocks protester who was dragged out by her hair at Reform conference

Robert Jenrick hit out at protesters who tried to disrupt Reform UK’s conference in Birmingham

www.independent.co.uk

Robert Jenrick has told protesters at the Reform UK party conference to “get a life” and reacted to a video of a woman being dragged out by her hair by simply saying “boohoo”.

Footage from the party’s gathering in Birmingham showed audience members pulling the protester’s hair and grabbing her head, with a man then hitting her with a walking stick.

Asked about the incident on Sky News’s Sunday Morning programme, Jenrick replied: “Oh boohoo.”

Jenrick then told presenter Jon Sopel: “We’re now in a country, Jon, where somebody who is – whatever she is – a far-left protester, goes into a party conference, tries to wreck the leader’s speech, and cries foul if a pensioner knocks her over the head with their Zimmer frame, I mean, come on, get a life.

“This person knew what they were doing. They were trying to cause trouble, and they probably got more publicity out of it as a result of what happened.”

This was a criminal act by Cooling, and a Reform MP has condoned the behaviour.

Anyone who supports a party whose representatives condone criminal behaviour needs to seriously look themselves in the mirror and reconsider.

You, and Jenrick, are making excuses for the inexcusable.

This seems the beginnings of 1930s Germany and I will not stand by and let this happen, and millions of others won't either.

 

[Harpo]

£36m x 2

Philanthropy? Purchase? Investment?

 

[TUC]

You're in denial then. Look at the video and look at the faces of the people nearby. They should have been shocked and appalled that a woman was being treated that way; instead they were absolutely loving it.

You aren't condoning that behaviour, which is very telling.

What about Jenrick's views on what happened to her? This is an MP that represents Reform, so the idea that his views aren't representative, are simply unbelieveable.

You're making excuses for the inexcusable.

This seems the beginnings of 1930s Germany and I will not stand by and let this happen, and millions of others won't either.

To be clear, I'm not at all making excuses if anyone was attacked. That would clearly be wrong. I do also think it is wrong for protestors to disrupt any party's conference. If someone has different views then they should join a party and engage in debate, not seek to shut down another party's debate. My answer about cheering was in terms of the overall conference crowd cheering at the protestors being removed, which is what I took your question to refer to. I'm not at all seeking to justify those nearby cheering.

 

[yorkie]

To be clear, I'm not at all making excuses if anyone was attacked. That would clearly be wrong

OK so you disagree with Jenrick? If so, why support a party who has an MP with the view that what happened to her was deserved?

And what do you mean by "if"? Are you saying you've not seen the video, as if you had, you'd not be saying "if"?

I do also think it is wrong for protestors to disrupt any party's conferenc. If someone has different views then they should join a party and engage in debate, not seek to shut down another party's debate.

We are talking about someone being assaulted. You are deflecting blame onto the victim. If someone protests, you can't assault them, and an MP cannot support that assault.

My answer about cheering was in terms of the overall conference crowd cheering at the protestors being removed, which is what I took your question to refer to. I'm not at all seeking to justify those nearby cheering.

No, look again; they are clearly cheering as she is being attacked by the crowd. Anyone who is remotely normal would be appalled to see that.

What do you think about the way she was attacked?

 

[TUC]

I think we're talking about two different sets of cheering. There was general cheering from the conference as protesters were removed. As said, the overwhelming majority of us were not even aware of any specific cheering at the incident in question. You are being selective in focusing upon Robert Jenrick's comments when the same Independent report you link to also states 'Reform UK’s home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf condemned members who pulled the hair of the heckler'.

 

[yorkie]

I think we're talking about two different sets of cheering. There was general cheering from the conference as protesters were removed. As said, the overwhelming majority of us were not evrn aware of any specific cheering at the incident in question. You are being selective in focusing upon Robert Jenrick's comments when the same Independent report you link to also states 'Reform UK’s home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf condemned members who pulled the hair of the heckler'.

You've not answered any of my questions above. You have every right not to answer, but it's very telling.

Is Reform as a party going to do anything about Jenrick for making the comments that he did?

And if they aren't going to do anything, how can you continue to support them?

Here is an opportunity for them to clean up their act; I see no evidence they are taking it up.

Here is an opportunity for you - and others who have been mislead into supporting this disgusting party - to see the light, too...

 

[TUC]

To be clear, pulling someone's hair is clearly wrong. What I am however seeking to avoid is falling into the trap of an approach which assumes that the position of any political party on a particular incident stands or falls upon what one MP says, or that party members have to justify what they say. That is no more the case here than for Labour party members if Angela Rayner made a comment or Conservatives if Andrew Griffith made a comment.

 

[yorkie]

To be clear, pulling someone's hair is clearly wrong.

OK but you admit you support a party who has an MP who supports the pulling of someone's hair, right? And that the party has no intention of taking any action against that MP, right?

Also, they didn't just have their hair pulled!

What I am however seeking to avoid is falling into the trap of an approach which assumes that the position of any political party on a particular incident stands or falls upon what one MP says, or that party members have to justify what they say.

It's not just about "what one MP says"; if an MP of any respectable party supported criminal acts, do you think the party would/should do nothing about it?

That is no more the case here than for Labour party members if Angela Rayner made a comment or Conservatives if Andrew Griffith made a comment.

Do you think either of them would support criminal assaults on people? And, if either of them did make comments supporting criminal assaults, do you think their respective parties would just sit by and do nothing about it?

 

[GusB]

One is in calling Reform racist. (I can't speak for Restore.) Given the number of black and asian members who were both at the party conference and who were candidates in the May local elections, I don't think that stands up to scrutiny. Wanting to significantly control immigration is not the same thing as racism.

Wanting to control immigration and racism aren't exactly the same thing, but there's a significant overlap between the two where some voters are concerned. It may not be official party policy, but you only have to look at Zia Yusuf's comments about the leader of Camden Council to see how some of the leadership think:

Zia Yusuf’s post about Camden council leader is ‘straightforward racism’, says minister

Senior Reform UK figure has faced criticism within party after post about Sagal Abdi-Wali, a former child refugee

www.theguardian.com

Labour has accused Reform’s Zia Yusuf of “straightforward racism” after he suggested the party’s frontrunner to replace Keir Starmer in the Holborn and St Pancras byelection was not British.

Sagal Abdi-Wali, a former child refugee from Somalia and the leader of Camden council, has been tipped as an early favourite to contest the London seat for Labour after the former prime minister’s resignation.

Yusuf, Reform UK’s home affairs spokesperson, posted on X last week: “The frontrunner being foisted on the people of Holborn by Labour to replace the former prime minister Keir Starmer in our parliament was born in Somalia. Do you understand what’s happening?”

The other is in assuming that the protesters were connected to Reform. They weren't. Some of them may be Reform voters, but others will support other parties, but either way these were in no sense Reform-related protests.

It's my view that Restore would probably better represent the Patriot Platform thugs, but to say there's no connection to Reform isn't really accurate.

Protest organiser confronts Zia Yusuf at scene of Portsmouth migrant arrivals

Mr Yusuf told Daniel Thomas to ensure there was no violence from his group towards the police.

www.independent.co.uk

The founder of a group of protesters who blocked roads in Dover on Saturday has confronted Reform UK’s Zia Yusuf, telling him his party leader Nigel Farage needs to be “careful with his words”.

Daniel Thomas, known as Danny Tommo – who is an associate of ring-wing activist Tommy Robinson, claims to have organised a protest in Dover on Saturday which saw men in black clothing and balaclavas blocking roads.

He was also on the scene when migrants arrived in Portsmouth on Sunday.

Oh, look - it's Zia Yusuf again. If there's no Reform connection to the protests, why was anywhere near there?

To be clear, I'm not at all making excuses if anyone was attacked. That would clearly be wrong. I do also think it is wrong for protestors to disrupt any party's conference. If someone has different views then they should join a party and engage in debate, not seek to shut down another party's debate. My answer about cheering was in terms of the overall conference crowd cheering at the protestors being removed, which is what I took your question to refer to. I'm not at all seeking to justify those nearby cheering.

There have been hecklers at other party conferences and normal procedure should be for security staff to peacefully escort them from the building, not for the crowd to have a pile-on. In effect what happened was that a woman was assaulted for speaking out of turn - not a good look, is it? Even if she was being disruptive, in no way does is justify the treatment she received. In any case, what happened to the party of free speech?

 

[yorkie]

@GusB thanks for typing that up so eloquently.

There have been hecklers at other party conferences and normal procedure should be for security staff to peacefully them from the building, not for the crowd to have a pile-on. In effect what happened was that a woman was assaulted for speaking out of turn - not a good look, is it? Even if she was being disruptive, in no way does is justify the treatment she received. In any case, what happened to the party of free speech?

Quite. And that would be bad enough, if it wasn't for Jenrick's reaction, justifying and condoning the attack. And there has been no sign of any action being taken against him for supporting the criminal acts. It really beggars belief but it shows their true colours.

It is becoming increasingly harder for Reform, and their supporters, to argue that they aren't a party that supports criminal acts, racism, xenophobia and goodness knows what else.

 

[edwin_m]

The focus within Reform has been on the need to significantly strengthen the UK's defences against Russia and other threats, so they're inherently unlikely to want to see Russia win in Ukraine.

The former leader of Reform in Wales, Nathan Gill, was convicted of taking bribes from Russia to promote their interests, including in Ukraine.

Former Reform in Wales leader Nathan Gill jailed for pro-Russian bribery

Nathan Gill, 52, is sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison after admitting taking bribes while an MEP.

www.bbc.co.uk

The former leader of Reform UK in Wales has been sentenced to 10-and-a-half years in prison after admitting taking bribes for pro-Russia interviews and speeches.

In return for money he gave two TV interviews to 112 Ukraine in support of Medvedchuk, a pro-Russian Ukrainian politician who faced treason proceedings at the time.

Medvedchuk was arrested by Ukrainian authorities at the start of the 2022 Russian full-scale invasion, and was later swapped with Moscow in a prisoner exchange.

Medvedchuk was connected to two TV channels - 112 and NewsOne - which in 2018 and 2019 were under threat of closure by the Ukrainian authorities.

Gill gave two speeches defending the channels in the European Parliament, both on request from Voloshyn, whose wife was a presenter on 112 Ukraine.

Reform did condemn his actions but it's telling that a former senior member of the party thought it was acceptable.

 

[GusB]

I didn't want to add this until I'd found the source, but one of the protestors involved at the conference was interviewed by LBC and describes her treatment here:

(Link is to Novara Media

)

I was yanked by my
6:31

hair. Um, I had people pull me in various different directions. I've already shown you the bruise that I've got on my arm. Um, and this was within
6:38

the first 5 minutes. Um, I then got um pulled my hair pulled multiple times by the security guards. Um, and then when I
6:47

complained and said, "Please don't pull my hair again." I was put on the floor and when they went to pick me up again, there was a security guard stood on my
6:56

hair, which was obviously incredibly painful. And when I complained once more, they held my weight from my hair.

"Defending are wimmen and gurls".

*Edit* I don't know if this was the same protester that was hit over the head by the pensioner, but it doesn't really matter.

 

[AlterEgo]

Bear in mind that I have a Nigerian son-in-law

Makes no difference. This is "I have black friends".

I'm not racist, I have black friends - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"I'm not racist; I have black friends" (variant: "Some of my best friends are black"[1][2]) is a saying, most commonly used by white people, to claim that they are not racist towards black people or people of color. The phrase, which gained popularity in the mid-2010s, has since sparked many internet memes and debates over racial attitudes.[3][4] Its use in a discussion related to the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president in 2016, on the American television show Black-ish,[5] led to widespread discussion in the media of the "old trope"....

Given the number of black and asian members who were both at the party conference and who were candidates in the May local elections, I don't think that stands up to scrutiny.

This is the same fallacy - like saying a person cannot be sexist because they have a mother or a wife. In the same way, people who are disabled or know disabled people might hold ableist views, or perhaps some women have internalised sexism.

"I have black friends" is not usually a very convincing way for anyone to start a defence that they not hold racially biased views.

"Defending are wimmen and gurls".

"Ah but there were women at the conference, so that means Reform cannot be a structurally sexist organisation!"

 

[DerekC]

£36m x 2

Philanthropy? Purchase? Investment?

Investment. Relaxing the rules on Cryptocurrency as Reform is promising them the donors they would do will recoup their investment a hundred times over. AKA corruption.

 

[jon0844]

There have been hecklers at other party conferences and normal procedure should be for security staff to peacefully escort them from the building, not for the crowd to have a pile-on. In effect what happened was that a woman was assaulted for speaking out of turn - not a good look, is it? Even if she was being disruptive, in no way does is justify the treatment she received. In any case, what happened to the party of free speech?

In an ideal world, the heckler would be given a chance to speak and the people on stage would be able to respond (and like any comedy night with a heckler, the person on stage has the benefit of the microphone).

Otherwise you coerce the person to leave, using minimum force (i.e. not strangling them, pulling their hair or hitting them with a crutch).

What Reform had happen at their conference is insane, but hardly surprising. People have been told over and over again to be angry at everything, making their lives even more miserable than they perhaps were before. This means they'll hit out at anyone, and they feel like they're part of a tribe in the conference as they cheer their leader on who shouts 'boring! boring! boring!' to anything that might harm the party mission.

They're made to vote for a party that doesn't have their best interests at heart (every penny changed from cuts will be a penny cut, not money to give to anyone else - they're a party of small Government and tax cuts. If you're not paying huge sums of tax, this doesn't benefit you at all).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 00:16 ==

"Ah but there were women at the conference, so that means Reform cannot be a structurally sexist organisation!"

If anyone at the conference suddenly had a moment where they realised they were being lied to and said anything to that effect, I wonder what they'd expect to happen to them.

The women are essentially useful idiots. Reform and Restore would be very much like MAGA and Christian Nationalists who would really quite like women to stop working and go home and have babies like they should.

 

[TUC]

Robert Jenrick (whom, although I don't know him, I don't like much from what I see of him. He comes across as a posh public schoolboy who'd join in with the in-crowd in piling in on someone just to be part of the gang) was an idiot and profoundly mistaken to not condemn those involved with the incident, which was clearly wrong. They should have just left security to remove the protester, which they did and, as I said above, that was all the overwhelming people there were cheering because that was all they saw.

 

[yorkie]

Robert Jenrick (whom, although I don't know him, I don't like much from what I see of him. He comes across as a posh public schoolboy who'd join in with the in-crowd in piling in on someone just to be part of the gang) was an idiot and profoundly mistaken to not condemn those involved with the incident, which was clearly wrong. They should have just left security to remove the protester, ...

Agreed. However, the party chairman supports the actions of the attackers:

Jenrick mocks protester who was dragged out by her hair at Reform conference

Robert Jenrick hit out at protesters who tried to disrupt Reform UK’s conference in Birmingham

www.independent.co.uk

..party chairman Lee Anderson said the party would be having a “whip round” for an audience member who was seen hitting the protester with a walking stick...

So, you have an interesting choice to make... Do you continue to support a party who supports attacking women in this way?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 07:04 ==

... and, as I said above, that was all the overwhelming people there were cheering because that was all they saw.

You're in denial there. Just watch the video.

 

[TUC]

The women are essentially useful idiots. Reform and Restore would be very much like MAGA and Christian Nationalists who would really quite like women to stop working and go home and have babies like they should.

What is striking from this and a number of other comments above is how much those who, I assume would rightly be critical of stereotyping people and groups, are happy to do this when it comes to those they disagree with.

How do comments like this fit with Suella Braverman or Sarah Pochin? How do they fit with the multiple women who chair Reform UK branches, including my own? How do they fit with the conference having a similar male/female mix in attendees to the conferences of other major parties? How do they fit with the multiple Reform UK female councillors.

The reality is that comments like this are sexist stereotyping, not reality.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 07:22 ==

Agreed. However, the party chairman supports the actions of the attackers:

Jenrick mocks protester who was dragged out by her hair at Reform conference

Robert Jenrick hit out at protesters who tried to disrupt Reform UK’s conference in Birmingham

www.independent.co.uk

So, you have an interesting choice to make... Do you continue to support a party who supports attacking women in this way?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 07:04 ==

This is the reason for me not directly responding re: Jenrick last night, because I've seen this situation before and I know it's a zero-sum game. You get asked to condemn one person's comments and you do, so then you get asked 'so what about what 'y' said?' and you respond, amd then 'what about 'z'?' is asked? (Never citing people who've made comments in the opposite direction or people in other parties who've made intemperate comments about other situations.) I was asked about Robert Jenrick and I've responded.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 07:27 ==

You're in denial there. Just watch the video.

I've watched it. What I saw was what I described. A recording of the close-up situation (for which I've said the behaviour of those around the protestor was wrong), but which was not visible to the overwhelming number of people there, whose cheers were either joining in with the 'boring, boring, boring' slogan or were cheering at the security removing the protestor.

It's as meaningless to link the cheering of the crowd here to that individual behaviour as it would be to ask a football crowd why they cheered when someome causing trouble on the far side of the stadium was ejected.

 

[Harpo]

Robert Jenrick

comes across as a posh public schoolboy who'd join in with the in-crowd in piling in on someone just to be part of the gang)

At last. Something we can agree on.

 

[D1511]

This is what we're dealing with, folks.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think it's quite likely that most people in the room only saw a protestor being removed and not the violence that went along with it, so perhaps most people were indeed cheering at her simple removal. But the people surrounding the incident seemed very keen at the goings on, as she got her hair pulled and her head yanked off her neck and she got smacked with a metal crutches. Those people got their digs in as she was being appropriately restrained and lawfully removed by security because they're thick cowards who felt safe and enabled to it.

What is striking from this and a number of other comments above is how much those who, I assume would rightly be critical of stereotyping people and groups, are happy to do this when it cokes to those they disagree with.

How do comments like this fit with Suella Braverman or Sarah Pochin? How do they fit with the multiple women who chair Reform UK branches, including my own? How do they fit with the conference having a similar male/female mix in attendees to the conferences of other major parties? How do they fit with the multiple Reform UK female councillors.

The reality is that comments like this are sexist stereotyping, not reality.

A good start to this sort of analysis is to ask the question:

Are there any political parties in the Western world which are definitely, absolutely sexist and do stand for the reversal of women's rights? And, given those parties invariably have plenty of women in them, does this provide a defence to the allegations that they are sexist?

Reform is more popular among men compared to women. This is also reflected in the fact that only about 20% of their elected representatives are women, which is the lowest percentage of any large UK political party. And Reform is much more popular amongst men than it is women - and particularly young women, who strongly disfavour them. That's probably largely because Reform's stated policy is to revoke the Equality Act and replace it with something cooked up by its overwhelmingly male hierarchy, and also because women don't necessarily like the abrasive style and authoritarianism which defines the party.

Nonetheless, I do think it is unfair that you are being asked to account for the actions of others in the party. I voted Green and said so at the time of the last elections. Nobody asked me about any of the problematic actions of its leader or some of its radical members whose actions can amount to antisemitism. There would be a multitude of difficult questions anyone might be asked about party members regardless of affiliation. Many of us use voting or political affiliation as vehicles to enact some sort of change; I lent the Greens my vote and don't regret it although I'm unlikely to lend it to them again.

I live in rural Northamptonshire. West Northamptonshire Council is run by Reform who have an absolute majority. They won more than half the seats. But I cannot live my life going around and talking to parents at nursery and going to the local beer festival or the bale push or the dads' support group or the supermarket etc etc...and think half the people I bump into are "bad". I don't recognise the criticism that Reform voters are all unpleasant or stupid; it stands to reason that most of them are decent and hard working and want certain political objectives met. And some of those objectives I personally support, even if I disagree with the method by which they are achieved.

A lot of Reform voters are just like about half the population - floating and transactional voters who are with Reform because they want a small number of political objectives met, like a reduction in asylum claims or a reduction in welfare dependency. The question always has to be how those people can be won back by other parties.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Its interesting that Reform are now piling onto the demographics "issue" so beloved of racist grandad Lowe.

Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) on X

The share of white British kids at grammar schools has fallen from 66% to 44% in just 10 years Biggest falls: Colchester girls 69% -> 24% Chatham girls 78% -> 33% Dartford girls 52% -> 7% All consistent with Suicide of a Nation. Source: The Times

x.com

(Link is to a tweet by failed Reform candidate Matt Goodwin highlighting the declining proportion of "white British kids" at grammar schools)

But we're told the issue they have with immigrants is dependence on the state and a failure to integrate.

And yet when people with brown or black skin show signs of aspiration and want to integrate by having the best possible education, its suddenly a problem

I'm sorry, but they are racists

 

[35B]

I've watched it. What I saw was what I described. A recording of the close-up situation (for which I've said the behaviour of those around the protestor was wrong), but which was not visible to the overwhelming number of people there, whose cheers were either joining in with the 'boring, boring, boring' slogan or were cheering at the security removing the protestor.

It's as meaningless to link the cheering of the crowd here to that individual behaviour as it would be to ask a football crowd why they cheered when someome causing trouble on the far side of the stadium was ejected.

I believe you, though I think the old saying of "if you lie with dogs you'll get fleas" is relevant. What's more interesting are two other things. Firstly, the fact that a party that has made a point of security being important should have such inept stewarding that their members were able to form that ruckus. Second, that senior people within the party defended it rather than immediately and absolutely condemning it.

Together, they tell me all I need or want to know about the party.

 

[BAFRA77]

I do also think it is wrong for protestors to disrupt any party's conference.

So you're against Freedom of Speech then?

Bit weird seeing as how Reform keep banging on about Cancel Culture etc.

 

[AlterEgo]

So you're against Freedom of Speech then?

Bit weird seeing as how Reform keep banging on about Cancel Culture etc.

Sorry but heckling a conference speaker who has the floor and getting ejected is entirely reasonable and in fact expected in a free speech society. There are many things to criticise Reform for but what, are they supposed to just let someone drown out the speaker by shouting?

 

[Merle Haggard]

/snip

I live in rural Northamptonshire. West Northamptonshire Council is run by Reform who have an absolute majority. They won more than half the seats. But I cannot live my life going around and talking to parents at nursery and going to the local beer festival or the bale push or the dads' support group or the supermarket etc etc...and think half the people I bump into are "bad". I don't recognise the criticism that Reform voters are all unpleasant or stupid; it stands to reason that most of them are decent and hard working and want certain political objectives met. And some of those objectives I personally support, even if I disagree with the method by which they are achieved.
/snip

I will not comment on the politics as such, but living in Northampton I can perhaps explain their popularity.

The two main parties before the election had demonstrated incompetence (the council went 'bankrupt'), dishonesty (although the Hon David Mackintosh was acquitted of the one offence that went to court) and a failure to protect - my personal issue - listed buildings. They closed a large bus station and replaced it with one too small, so many services can't use it. The old bus station was blown up, another example of the incompetence is that the flying debris unsurprisingly to most did not remain within the confines of the site, but several important roads were closed for days by heaps of rubble. Ten years later, the site still looks like a bomb site (well, technically, it is . ) An unsecured loan of £10,250,000 to the football club where one person involved was, I am led to believe, the lawyer that defended Slobodan Milosevic at The Hague. That money disappeared, the only recourse an order to repay a small proportion, which, as far as I can see, has never been repaid. the list could go on ...

I think it was more a 'none of the above' than anything else.

 

[The exile]

There is a substantial difference between being able to speak a languge well enough to get along day to day (even if you were to think of basic employment) versus being able to speak, read and write it well enough to fully use it for certain legal or otherwise complicated situations (like an asylum seeker or refugee may find themselves having to deal with).

Indeed - those latter tasks being beyond a sizeable proportion of native speakers (and not just of English - I speak as a non-native German speaker who remembers having to explain German contracts to Germans)

 

[35B]

Sorry but heckling a conference speaker who has the floor and getting ejected is entirely reasonable and in fact expected in a free speech society. There are many things to criticise Reform for but what, are they supposed to just let someone drown out the speaker by shouting?

I think there are two separate things. One is what's reasonable for hecklers to expect - where I sort of agree with you, but also that good politicians can close down hecklers without needing them expelled. It's worth comparing with the treatment of Walter Wolfgang in 2005.

The other is the idea that no one may disrupt a politician while they're speaking. That is antithetical to free speech, and anyone claiming to value free speech putting that point is taking a dangerous position.

Unfortunately, where Reform is concerned, this is part of a pattern. The party's leaders have consistently been very quick to wail about heckling or attacks, yet are willing to accept that behaviour from themselves.

 

[dosxuk]

So you're against Freedom of Speech then?

Bit weird seeing as how Reform keep banging on about Cancel Culture etc.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want whenever and wherever you want with no consequences.

These protestors rights to express and communicate their feelings have not been restricted by being removed from a private location which did not wish to hear those views - no different to someone getting kicked out a pub because they called the landlord names.

I don't support the right for individuals and organisations to disrupt events for no reason other than trying to get their 5 minutes of fame. Be that the professional protestors disrupting sporting events or political conferences, hecklers who don't shut up at comedy nights or people who jump the barrier to get on stage at gigs. If you've got something you want the audience to hear, set up outside in the public space and make as much of a song and dance about it as you like.

None of this though gives any excuse to the way this was handled in this case. Violence is never an acceptable response to someone saying something you don't like, especially in a situation like this where there are professional staff available to remove the disruptor. All they've done by trying to get their pound of flesh from the woman is make an even bigger thing of what happened and give her a platform to legitimately complain. Everyone would have been far better off if they'd just ignored her and let her be escorted out.