This makes pretty disappointing viewing:
https://twitter.com/mrpaulstott/status/1006820525514076160?s=21
Here’s a bit more about @DavidKurtenAM, whose speech was cut short by the protesters (before the police shut the whole event down due to the mob outside)
More here: https://www.davidkurten.net/collection
I am not a UKIP voter but I cannot bear to see this gentleman get treated so appallingly by the hypocritical thugs of the hard left.
“Thugs”
Nothing to do with Corbyn or, in fact, labour at all.
I for one am in agreement. David Kurten should have been given his time on stage and the opportunity to respond to questions from the audience, themselves who had the right to ask them. The loud booing from the audience was the right response.
Alongside Kurten’s exemplary work with school kids on science, the audience missed out the opportunity to hear and question Kurten’s views on homosexuality as well as his belief that UKIP remains the only political party to stand up for Judaeo-Christian values and “traditional” marriage and “traditional” families.
Looks like more far left scum to me - The Far left and far right are all as bad as each other.
Does it? Based on what? And I don’t think scum is really appropriate to use here, do you?
Heavy “Stand Up To Racism” presence - an organisation which commenters on both the Left and Right have identified as a front for the Socialist Workers Party
Socialist workers party I can believe yes but that has nothing to do with Labour…
Was referring to the chap outside screaming abuse in the guys face - point taken on momentum bit tho so ive edited.
Without even looking at the content, this is yet another example of what appears to be political propaganda in disguise in this forum - following the reoccurring pattern of aiming to say “left=bad, right=good”, fuelled by tabloid-esk headlines. On this occasion, it doesn’t even fall short of standing up for an individual who suggests homosexuality is linked to child abuse.
If this was an opinion blog I wouldn’t mind it so much but I’m not sure it should (repeatedly) take such a prominent place in what aspires to be a forum for the local community.
Perhaps take a look at the context - and you’ll see that it’s entirely fair and factual to report that this event was disrupted by hard-left activists.
And likewise it was factual to report that a Conservative councillor candidate was suspended for anti-Islam statements earlier on this forum (our posts in #local-politics have reported on many angles of local politics, not just anti-Left angles).
I make no secret of the fact I dislike Labour/Left politics. Conversely, most other prominent members of the forum are pro-Labour. So there is a balance.
Forums are places where viewpoints across the political spectrum can be expressed - and here, they are.
Coudn’t agree more. I appreciate this forum as a great community asset, but leave political bias out of it. It crops up far too often 
I’m interested in this notion of “bias”
So how would you have reported what happened to this hustings?
Or perhaps it should be brushed under the carpet?
Agreed. I rarely look at this forum anymore as it’s just a political mouthpiece for an agenda it seems. A pity as I enjoyed the local info.
No at all. It’s a perfectly valid sory to share. For the record I’m not one bit in support of the portestors actions.
Bias could be interpreted in the headline, the sources from which David Kurten’s biog has been selected and the tweets selected in support of him. (As a UKIP member many would consider him a ‘hard-rightist’ but there’s no mention of this). Also, this is not an isolated type of post as others have mentioned, which compounds the bias in my opinion.
As mentioned I’m a great fan of this forum and it largely works well (a smashing job) but to be so aware of its founder’s strong political standing could alienate some members. I hope you appreciate I’m trying to be constructive.
Fair comments - but we are all free to post whatever take we like on these events.
We could focus on painting Kurten as a “far-right” person (which IMO, having met the man, would be a gross mischaracterisation) - but that would hardly be fair in the context of these events where he was shouted down by a white women who claimed he was racist.
There may be other opportunities you could take for attacking Kurten’s character - but in the context of last night, the real story here is the behaviour of the protesters, surely?
While definitely an event of local interest, I might not have chosen to quote this story directly from the far right website ‘Westmonster’, where the headline and video for this thread appears to have originated. The story in Westmonster, understandably for an extreme right viewpoint, placed the blame on ‘left wing thugs’ because it would play to their usual narrative and appeal to their readers.
from a different perspective, the story published by local media was that the disruption was by anti racism protesters, whose aimed to deny a platform (yes , I know…) to a well known extremist and alleged racist who planned to speak at the hustings, and who both Conservative and Labour candidates found themselves unwilling or unavailable to share a platform with.
The anti racist organisation in question presented the story thus:-
http://www.standuptoracism.org.uk/far-right-anne-marie-waters-for-britain-stopped-by-anti-racists-in-lewisham/
So just to be clear, you’re criticising what you imagine to be my sources (incidentally, I did not quote this story from Westmonster - the video was on Twitter), but you’ll post an article whose rhetoric includes:
Due to the threat of violence from these alleged “anti fascist” protesters, Anne Marie Waters had already withdrawn from the event. So there is little justification for them to disrupt it as they did, causing it to be shut down. It was a peaceful event. Kurten was not preaching hate. I notice the woman who stormed the event actually singled out the Lib Dem candidate for abuse too. Completely unacceptable IMO.
I advise everyone to watch the video of proceedings rather than judging based on the rhetoric from either side.
apologies - I spent a minute looking for the source and Westmonster popped up immediately- guess it found its way onto Twitter too.
Dear Chris,
Thanks for forwarding your posts. I’m glad they liked my speech - I tried to carry on in the face of all the heckling. it is terrible that the mob of thugs outside closed down an election hustings - we are in new territory not seen since the 1930s I fear - and Labour is heavily involved…
Best wishes,
David
I agree, everyone has the right to be heard and the scenes on the video are unpleasant and over the top. Though freedom of speech does not give freedom from the consequence of what you say.
In this case I may have been in a more peaceful crowd that day:
“The latest scientific studies show that incidence of homosexuality in adults decreases with age, so it is unlikely to be fixed at birth.Study after study also shows that the incidence of homosexuality is much higher among people who have been sexually abused as children”.
This is bonkers. It almost doesn’t warrant a response - it’s the stuff of the dark ages and yet he is given a platform and fine British voters back him.
Finally and more on topic, despite his questionable outlook on life, he spoke reasonably well - but as ever for UKIP, much rhetoric about needing to leave and regain control of laws, there’s no indication of what our destination is and what laws we will overturn.
Hi David. I thought you did very well to keep your cool in such a threatening (and distracting) environment.
Whilst I find it heartening that a lot of leftists agree that the mob was wrong - I am still concerned that people aren’t clocking the SWP connections here.
As I’m sure you know, the moderate Labour Party (which is dying a sad death under Corbyn) once proscribed the SWP, which has an awful history and reputation.
Under Corbyn and his goons in Momentum we’re seeing tacit approval of the hard-left and their ugly tactics (although at least they seem to be working in favour of Brexit, for some small consolation!)
For “Stand Up To Racism” to claim that they are “anti-fascist” is laughable. Storming a peaceful hustings event to shout down any party they disagree with - that’s textbook fascism.
Stay safe David.
There are plenty of people with much harder and more unpleasant views on homosexuality. For example:
Would you “no-platform” half of all British Muslims, @Nylon?
I’m concerned at this idea of “consequences of what you say “ as a natural limiter to free speech.
It means free speech for some , up to a point , which I’m sure Anne-Marie Waters would have alluded to had she spoken.
Trying to disrupt the process of local democracy by threatening and intimidating behaviour is no better than what we see in some of the worst human rights abusing countries and it highlights the mess that the left is in . I doubt anyone at those hustings were actual “ racist scum “ and in need of being “ off our streets “ though I suspect some of the demonstrators fit that profile did they but know it .
A few thoughts on this thread.
These styles of threads are very depressing to read and completely detract from sense of community that SE23.Life initially set out to create.
There are several different viewpoints being expressed by different people on this topic. A viewpoint is not the same as an agenda.
Parliament is a lively debate. That is not the same as mob intimidation, and certainly does not justify it. I find it worrying that people can be so blasé about what happened at these hustings. Democracy depends on freedom from intimidation.
That’s not what I said, or what I believe.
Yet you skirt around the fact that half the population of one of our fastest growing demographics in this country (and no, I’m not talking about a race) hold far more extreme views than David? Why?
SE23.life set out to create a platform for respectful debate.
It is not “anti-community” to write in support of free speech, and peaceful hustings for the benefit of local people.
On the other hand, getting offended on behalf of other people is not conducive to a healthy debate. Everyone is free to participate here and to correct any factual innacuracies in my posts or others, if they find any.
When you’ve twisted what I actually said about Karen into that shape it certainly does sound worrying, I agree.
I’m not sure in what way I’ve twisted anything? Unless I dreamt the whole thing you made many posts supporting her right to make the comment?
I would quote/screenshot but the posts have all been moved now to a thread I can’t access.
Here’s what I said:
And as if my comments on Godwin’s law needed reinforcement, the article posted in support of the protesters by @ThorNogson compared the hustings attendees with Hitler.
As with Karen’s tweet, I don’t think they should lose their jobs for saying that.
But anyway, this topic should not be turned into a discussion about me and my views - let’s get back to discussing the events of the hustings, and the people involved in that.
Evidence that labour in any way supports this behavior please?
I didn’t and was in fact in the process of checking if that picture in fact relates to the events in question. The hysterical implications he used have already rendered sensible rebuttal difficult.
Yes you did say that… amongst many, many other things. But as I’m not in a position to pick and choose quotes there’s no discussion to be had.
Anyway to conclude, I think you need to practise inclusion and community on the forum not just preach it. I worry about the impression people must get about the community in SE23 when they read these posts when researching the area.
They’ll see a healthy forum that practises inclusion of all viewpoints from the community, and does not bully out other people due to intellectual disagreement.
Forums are for sharing and debate. I post my views, you post yours. We discuss the views themselves, not the people making them.
Agreed, but when one voice instigates a large number of discussion points from the same viewpoint and always vociferously argues that position it can certainly appear that the debate can be less than balanced.
It’s a pity that to some people, the forum appears that way. But it’s simply that I spend a lot of time on this website, due to my interest in building it, and my interest in the local community.
I have started lots of topics on all sorts of apolitical and political things, and obviously I will represent my own viewpoints rather than pretending to represent other people’s.
I will support anyone who wants to post here, provided they follow our simple guidelines, which include:
Not all forums support the posting of views across the whole political spectrum - so if you’d prefer a forum that restricted posting by right-of-centre members then you’re in luck, as there are other local options.
Your response to this is hysterical. I do not agree that you were shouted over but the right to peaceful protest is a bedrock of democracy- as others as said, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence and to draw the implicit comparison that you do is the laziest form of response and suggests you have no sense of proportion.
A couple of things about the video at the top of the thread: (1) I applaud the non-violent civilized process of removing the person interrupting the meeting; (2) It’s disappointing that the police apparently allow a small demonstration outside the venue to be a determining factor in their decision to close an important public meeting - a hustings of official candidates for an election to parliament. What this signifies to me is that the police attribute insufficient priority to these scarce but vital events. If the demonstration was a threat to public order, why not deal with that problem, rather than suspend democracy?
I for one am thrilled to see @DavidKurtenAM re-engage with the Forum. I had high hopes when he joined over a year ago and quickly made his first, though until this morning last post the following day. Perhaps he’ll choose to engage more regularly without the need for prompts from admins. I’d relish a robust debate with him on a matter of issues, notwithstanding his position on the LGBTQ community.
Perhaps other politicians, or political candidates for future elections can follow suit.
In my opinion David Kurten and the other c. 30-40% of British Christians who believe sexual relations between people of the same sex is wrong are on the same level as the British Muslims you reference above. One is no better than the other in this regard.
I don’t think @DavidKurtenAM wants to make homosexuality illegal. So no, I wouldn’t say they were on the same level.
From Wikipedia:
@moderators I’m happy for any of my posts in this side conversation about LGBT issues to be moved into Ethikos/General Poltics if need be.
Are any of these countries fielding candidates in Lewisham elections?
Did I claim they were?
You made comparisons of Christians in general and Muslims in general - I was responding to that.
And I applaud you for creating a very useful and well-managed forum that is clearly an asset for the local area and you obviously invested significant quantities of time and money on it.
I obviously do not want to restrict posting of a range of views- debate is of course healthy. When one voice can appear (to the casual observer at least) to dominate the discussion this can become problematic- in this regard I appreciate your effort to ensure the moderation team reflects different political flavours but the balance of power is still ultimately unequal, or at least could be perceived so.
Fair enough. I think the whataboutery began with the somewhat off-topic comparison of Kurten’s views to that of British Muslims. I was responding to that.
ETA. Though on the above I was specific about British Muslims and British Christians one of the latter who WAS standing for election in Lewisham East.
Fair enough - I do post a lot. In my defence, a lot of people ask questions or directly respond to me - and I feel it’s fair to respond to them all.
The more people make the discussion about me, the more it will appear I’m dominating.
Ideally I’d rather be discussing the issue in hand as opposed to more general or personal concerns, but you’re welcome to challenge me or this forum’s administration.
LeeHC , the ways of undermining free speech are subtle . I can’t be bothered quoting verbatim so I paraphrase .
Anti abortion is misogynistic- no , it’s anti abortion . Hating women for being women is mysoginistoc .
Agenda - as Chris B says - no , consistent point of view shared by more than one person .
Dominating a thread - no , it’s just robust argument and more than one person supporting that argument .
The real danger is the notion of “ wrong thought “ which kind of underpins the hateful politically correct thinking . I personally hated thatcher for her callousness but I didn’t think her views were “ wrong “ and somehow offensive - she just had a totally different world view and set of sympathies .
It’s noticable that only the left seems to use this notion of inherently offensive views and this leads to the kind of intolerance and hate we saw from the Stand Up to Racism ( whatever the hell that means ) morons.
Quoting who verbatim?
I’m not sure anyone was supporting shouting down a hustings- merely that protesting a candidate is perfectly legal thing to do, even if you disagree with their opinions, by your own admission unless you yourself consider their views ‘wrong thought’ then they are entitled to hold them.
I don’t understand your point on agenda, sorry.
Were they suggesting his views are ‘wrong thought’ or inherently offensive? Offensive to them personally yes, possibly even abhorrent to their world view but, as always, free speech goes both ways.
[quote=“ChrisBeach, post:32, topic:9503”]
And as if my comments on Godwin’s law needed reinforcement, the article posted in support of the protesters by @ThorNogson compared the hustings attendees with Hitler.
[/quote] to be clear I did not want these hustings halted. The article I posted was as politically and rhetorically biased as the original post and title of this thread. Which was the point I was trying to make.
What’s the point in a one-upmanship of bias?
My original post was pro-Kurten - but only in the sense that it refuted protesters’ accusations of him being “right wing racist scum.”
As I’ve said to several people here - you have your views, I have mine. Accusing each other of “bias” or “agenda” is not constructive.
And yes, before anyone hits the search tool, no doubt in one of my thousands of prior posts I’ve accused someone of bias.
But in this case, accusations are unfounded. As I said in the OP - I am not a UKIP or For Britain voter.
I feel like while this is tagged as “local politics”, and may ostensibly have started as such, it’s moved beyond that into wider political debate and a bit of mud-slinging.
Didn’t we used to have a group for general political debate? Has that closed?
Hi Fran, we do have a general politics opt in category. As long as the subject stays within the bounds of local politics and politicians then it can remain as such, once it hives off on a tangent it can be moved, split or ended. If there is any point you feel is not local please let one of us mods know why and we will deal with it.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I do feel this has veered off local and into slightly more aggressive territory. Perhaps that’s just my reading!
Yes, you’re right @anon5422159 we’re in a dangerous place if we only give a platform to those we agree with. We should listen all view points. However it’s the absurdity of the point that staggers me above and beyond how distasteful it is from my personal point of view.
What possible causation is there between child abuse and homosexuality? One is physical act of violation while the other is a natural emotional state. It’s the same as saying that heterosexuality is higher amongst those that that enjoyed strawberry ice cream as child. It’s complete gibberish.
I think my point is, poorly made on its first outing is that we should hold politicians to account for what they say. If so, then Surely, whether we agree with them or not we can’t give a platform to those that use it to persist nonsensical misinformation.
Did any part of David’s speech cover his personal views on homosexuality? Is it part of his manifesto? If not, we risk going off-topic here.
I vehemently disagree with the nonsensical personal views of other candidates (those that believe in bringing down capitalism, for example), but I don’t think this gives me the right to no-platform them, however dangerous I believe their views to be.
The best way to exercise our democratic rights and to come to consensus is to let them stand up and represent their views - and then to take this opportunity to challenge them, surely?
While @anon5422159 we don’t always see eye to eye, I think you manage this wonderful forum without bias. I think it’s unlikely you run the forum to propagate a political agenda!
The reason I post here is I get to hear other perspectives that I may not have considered. While we can disagree with one another, let’s keep it fluffy!
For me, there’s a difference between a view supported by reliable data and one that isn’t. We’re off topic, but you can have the last word if you like…
I don’t know whether i’m off topic or not or whether I’m allowed last word ;-). I’m just tagging on really so apologies for that. I actually don’t care who stood for what side. The fact is that an election hustings is part of a democratic process that allows those voting to understand, and challenge, the manifestos of those standing, as part of providing an opportunity for those who vote to do so in an informed way. That the hustings had to be closed because of a violent protest outside seems to me to go against the grain of democracy and, if true, I find that deeply worrying, irrespective of which party/group was doing the shouting.
Almost everyone in this thread I think is in agreement of that.
Generally I feel like these types of politically loaded threads just end up dividing and angering and, on the whole, take away far more than they add to the forum.
For those that would prefer not to see politics on SE23.life, browse here: #local-politics and then choose the following:
Well I guess that’s the end of that discussion then 
In fairness, that shows only that Labour supports a peaceful protest.
Unless there’s a footnote on the back asking attendees to go beyond that, which we can’t see from this photo.
This mob, which was so threatening that it caused the police to shut down the whole hustings, was organised by a Labour and SWP affiliated organisation.
I don’t feel comfortable with this being casually brushed off. Democracy, and freedom of politicians from intimidation is very important.
Imagine if the hustings had been interrupted by a member of the EDL storming the room and verbally attacking Sakina Sheikh while she was speaking, whilst an angry EDL mob outside caused the whole event to be shut down by police?
Sounds scary, right?
We’d investigate the EDL organisers and we’d try to make sure this never happened again, wouldn’t we?
Or would we all pile onto the local forum to lead a character assassination of Sakina Sheikh (as happened here on this topic with David Kurten)?
What I am actually saying is that you can’t lump the quite obviously poor behaviour of some individuals under a banner that screams “the whole of the Labour Party is evil”.
Did anyone say that?
Should ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson be able to use a similar defence? “Well, yes - there are plenty of intimidating skinhead neo-Nazi’s at our protests, but we’re an otherwise sound organisation and we should just carry on regardless?”
Not in as many words, but people seeming to repeatedly blame this unfortunate occurrence on the Labour Party and the Labour organisers seems to imply it?
So just to be clear - this mob represented an organisation whose president is the Labour shadow Home Secretary, but we’re not convinced Labour had anything to do with it?
In any case - this wasn’t the central point in my argument. I think it’s far more worrying that the SWP are connected to this anti-democratic intimidation.
The SWP are an organisation once proscribed by Labour, yet they now seem to be working with them to disrupt peaceful hustings events.
Regardless of who’s ultimately to blame - rather than spending our energy in apologism/denialism on behalf of any one political party, shouldn’t we be trying to make sure this doesn’t happen again?
I’m not apologising for anyone or denying their involvement! Clearly they organised and promoted what may have been intended as a peaceful protest (rather than a statue-defacing, blood-drawing EDL one, or the disappointing unnecessary farce that this one became).
I only wanted to suggest that perhaps it turned nasty in the way that it did because of radical individuals, who aren’t representative of the party as a whole. I am not in support of them derailing it, or of the politics or motivations of SWP, or their affiliates.
I think I need to go and read about foxes and cafe openings. Is it too early for gin?
In all honesty, I watched the video and thought “ok - so they’ve opened with 2 aggressive shots, they’ve probably chosen the most aggressive footage available to open with to provide as much shock as possible”. Don’t agree with the man aggressively shouting “scum” or the lady rather distatesfully putting her middle finger up to the Camera but they’re 2 individuals in a crowd. I also don’t agree with the lady who interrupts Mr Kurten but to me this seemed rude yes, aggressive/violent - no. She was there for a number of seconds and doesn’t make her way toward Mr Kurten. Ideally, she should have been evicted and the hustings allowed to carry on, from most of the crowd jeers it didn’t seem they were in favour of her disruption. When I saw that the police then shut the event down I was left thinking “is that more of a result of their weakened numbers than the real threat of violence.” The video shows David Kurten leaving the event in what appears to me to be pretty calm and peaceful circusmstances - there are crowds but he’s able to walk out without a strong police guard.
I’d be interested to see if others have footage from this event, particularly of the outside whilst the hustings was going on. From what I can see there is isolated aggression but not violence - or did I miss something?
Fran and Wattsiccle
You obviously have a higher violence threshold than I .
F you , effing w*****ker, fascist scum , you effing mug, all said with rather hateful demeanour and such proximity that the police had to intervene ( and ultimately close it ) .
Not sure why Fran evokes the EDL who hardly exist and were not there but the left under the heady guise of Labour and Stand up to Racism were and that’s how they interpreted the Democratic process . A uniquely left/liberal style of debate .
Precisely what would they have to do before you would consider it violent and unacceptable and would would this be different if it were say For Britain supporters doing it ? Or Conservative supporters for that matter even though they never seem to behave like this .
Again, and again (and again) - I didn’t condone anything, I didn’t say it was forgivable, all I said was don’t tar the whole of Labour with the brush of a handful of idiots who got overexcited and derailed what was probably intended to be a non-violent protest.
I mentioned the EDL because Chris previously mentioned the EDL.
@NigelA to be fair to @Fran_487 it was me that brought up the EDL analogy.
I don’t think anyone has tarred the whole of Labour, but this incident does hurt Labour’s reputation. For Labour to effectively share a platform with the extremists in the SWP (via SUTR) hurts Labour’s rep, aside from this particular attack on peaceful democratic process.
Diane Abbott should mitigate this damage to Labour by denouncing the mob and saying that they do not represent the organisation of which she is president.
Interesting blog post discussing the media coverage of the hustings incident (and no, I don’t personally condone everything it said, nor does it reflect the views of SE23.life):
I’ve been accused of bias in sharing my viewpoint on these events. But Newsshopper, wow. Off the scale!
Firstly apologies to Fran who only mentioned the EDL in response to our own resident far-left firebrand Chris Beach . I stand corrected and didn’t take the time to read properly .
In relation to the Quiet Society post , I think full marks . As well as a left wing mob calling a black man racist we now have the spectre of the Newshopper calling an ex labour , female Irish lesbian the poster girl of the far right .
The article’s analogy of what would have happened if someone on the right had shut down local debate is so vital and central to political discourse today - everything from MeToo , BLM , SPLC , SUTR, Labour seems to take for granted it’s right to an apology and immediate cease and desist whenever a dissenting voice is heard or might be heard .
The guardian today published a list of 30 odd thousand names/numbers of people who died trying to get into “ fortress Europe “ - they are perfectly at liberty to publish but I wonder how the current febrile left will process that information and whether it will spawn more of the hatred we saw at the hustings incident.
I’m getting fed up with all this, which I believe is putting people off this forum. Could it not be moved to the ‘Politicos’ section, where it need be read only by hard-core addicts and consenting adults? Any local relevance has long been overwhelmed by waves of bile
One man’s “wave of bile” is another man’s interesting and relevant conversation. We are all able to pick and choose the topics we read on this forum. If anyone finds this topic or category overwhelming you are able to mute either/both using our software.
As a side note to all members - the flag system is designed to report abuses of forum guidelines (mainly where members are uncivil to each other). Please do not use flags to expresss personal disagreement. That’s not what they’re for.
Quite a detailed account here, from a minor source but clearly one that’s done their homework:
