Assaulting fascists - a ROF poll

Acceptable or not?  Yes or no

Depends if it's good fascists or bad fascists 

I could watch that Youtube video of Richard Spencer getting sucker-punch on an endless repeat.

I think the argument that assaulting politicians is inherently bad as it discourages good people from becoming political leaders and justifying violence over debate seems to lead to a very dark place.

But I also loved seeing "Tommy" covered in shake.  And Nigel.  

really depends on whether by fascists you mean racist nationalists that think there's a zionist conspiracy

...or whether you mean people that want lo leave the EU

Both Flashers.  I think we've established both.  Yes or no.

Why would you anyone advocate assualting anyone? apart from the protection of others


The Venn diagram of the people who think it's OK to assault people they think are baddies and the people who think not sticking to electoral law is OK if it's people they agree with has quite a crossover

Yeah, end facism by using brute force against those you oppose politically.


*looks to audience with raised eyebrow*

No I don’t think it’s ok to assault fascists (or anyone), and I think the milkshake thing is a bit pathetic, even though there is a fantastic picture of Nigel looking decidedly miffed earlier today.

I mean, of course people shouldn't be throwing milkshakes at Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage.

But that doesn't mean I am not going to laugh.

I think I'd classify egging/milkshaking/emptying a pint over someone as a tort not a crime.

NF is now saying that remainers have been "radicalised".  hehe!

Farage has made a report to Northumbria Police and has said he would ask for charges to be pressed.  

I wonder whether a prison term will be meted out pour encourager les autres?  

Politicians have landed us in this mess, mainly for their own selfish ends and rivalry.  

I disapprove of assaults against individual politicians by private citizens for all the usual reasons.  

But I would be hugely enthusiastic for a law that required ALL politicians to be regularly egged and / or milkshaked in public by rota.  

A few floggings would be good, too.  Strictly on a legal basis.  Perhaps for lying in election or referendum campaigns ?

it's not assault it is freedom of expression, the fascists just need to suck it up and grow a thicker skin or wear a rain coat or something

"it's not assault it is freedom of expression"

Would you be so sanguine if someone pelted you with milkshake and wrote you your nice £700 suit and Hermes tie? Doubt it.

If I was running around saying "Ban breastfeeding" and standing in front of nazi propaganda posters and plotting to sell the NHS to the first Trump company incorporated in Jersey

yeah, I'd be surprised if someone didn't lob a milkshake at me


as anyone who knows how to dress knows, if you spend time worrying about splashing your suit and tie because they are expensive then you are the worst dressed man in the room, confidence and elan sun, in a onsie or a 3 piece. 

No, not its OK. Doesn't stop it being funny but no its not OK.

Also Farage is not a fascist. 

I approve of the asian man who threw a milkshake at Tommy Yaxley. It was fully justified. 

Do I think this should become the standard way to treat politicians you disagree with? no. 



It's assault.  Be it against Farage, Corbyn or anyone there is no justification for such criminal behaviour.

I think it depends on the milkshake flavour.  Chocolate is too good waste but if someone gave me a strawberry milkshake I'd be glad to chuck it in any direction.

Wibble away - what part of assault do you not understand (chocolate or strawberry flavours aside)?

Assault is technically using threatening words or behaviour to lead someone to believe that you may be about to use unlawful violence.  Threatening to throw a milkshake at someone is assault but I'm not convinced actually throwing it is assault and is in fact a separate crime.

Common Assault – s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

An offence of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.

An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.

 (Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551:

"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of: self-defence.


n assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

  • was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and
  • was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?

The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276)


There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75).





I love how a few white men get covered in milkshake and the police immediately instruct McDonald's to stop serving milkshakes wherever they plan to turn up. 

I don't see twitter being banned because someone threatened to rape Jess Phillips. 


It's not ok to throw milkshakes at people obvs. Particularly as it deprives other people of milkshakes 

An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.

That's what I said.

I really don't have an issue with throwing minor objects that are unlikely to cause physical injury.  It's a little different to my friend who worked as a ticket inspector for BR and once had a station bench thrown at him by someone who didn't have a ticket.

Perhaps he had to put the bench down to find his ticket - sounds like your friend was being a little hasty and not doing his job properly, tbh.

The man had already started running away and had carried the bench onto the footbridge before attempting to drop it on my friend who was pursuing him.

Wibble - do you "do law"?  Throwing a milkshake (or an egg) over someone is assault.  It is disgraceful behaviour.

He was clearly taking the bench to a safe spot to pop it down before finding his valid ticket. More targeted victimisation and jobsworthiness backed by unionised protectionism. Sad times.

In the case of the Asian man I referred to above he was being harassed and threatened by Yaxley Lemon and so it was an entirely legitimate use of reasonable force to defend himself. 




Awdit as I said above threatening to throw the milkshake is assault as it leads me to anticipate the use of unlawful force but I believe the impact of the milk shake is battery although they've buggered about with the definitions since I did criminal law so the statutory crime of assault now effectively includes battery.  It's a subtle difference but is indeed a difference.

I just hate to think what Alberto makes of all this.

From the Sentencing Council:

Common assault (section 39, Criminal Justice Act 1988)

A person is guilty of common assault if they either inflict violence on another person – however slight this might be – or make that person think they are about to be attacked.

They do not have to be physically violent – for example, threatening words or a raised fist could lead the victim to believe they are going to be attacked – and that is enough for the crime to have been committed. Other acts like spitting at someone may also classed as common assault.

The offence covers both intentional and reckless acts.  For example, the offender may not have intended to cause the victim to think an attack was imminent but if they behaved in way that was likely to make the victim think they were about to be attacked, and they didn’t care what effect that behaviour would have, the offender is guilty of the offence.

If violence is used in a common assault, it is called a “battery” and the perpetrator would be charged with “assault by beating”. This does not however, mean that the victim was actually ‘beaten up’ or even hit or kicked – it could be that they were pushed, grabbed or spat at. The victim may not therefore have suffered any physical injury, and if any injury was caused, it would need to be quite minor to fall under common assault.

There are some situations in which actions that might fall under the definition of ‘assault’ are lawful, for example in medical interventions, in self-defence, or where it is part of a contact sport like rugby.

The maximum sentence allowed by law for common assault is six months imprisonment, and cases can only be heard in the magistrates’ court. If the assault is racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum sentence is two years imprisonment and cases can be heard in the Crown Court as well.

There are two other offences related to common assault – assault with intent to resist arrest and assault on a police constable in execution of his duty.

Different charge if a battery is involved...

Give over - 10 'C' size Duracells in a sock, sun - monstah monstah.

"a few white men get covered in milkshake"

How is their skin colour relevant?

"He was clearly taking the bench to a safe spot to pop it down before finding his valid ticket. More targeted victimisation and jobsworthiness backed by unionised protectionism. Sad times."

Dunno why, but this made me lol uncontrollably!

I'm the Daddy now.

Seriously though, how can you not think that throwing a milkshake or egg over someone is not assault?


Awdit just read what I've explained several times.  The strict definition of assault does not include the actual act of physical violence but merely the build up.  It's not that hard to grasp and most first year law students manage to understand it.

It's not assault but it is common assault.

Like anyone fucking cares mind you.

english law is weird

but I think the point is, if we all want to be protected from random street attacks we have to make sure everyone is protected from random street attacks

Other than those involving liquid dairy products, ice cream, raw or soft boiled eggs and some of the lighter fruit and veg.

That's the point.  No-one should be subjected to random attack.

being doused in milkshake is not violence, else every child's game show ever shown would have to be withdrawn on grounds of systemic child abuse by 'slime' being sprayed on them

comic relief would be classed as a state sponsored corporal punishment


I think the failure to grasp this is a symptom of the general stupidification of our species

sumo - it is violence

the slime thing was always pathetic and basic and everyone who found it funny is a basic bitch

but it was consensual


oh ahahahahaha my teacher was SLIMED see how authority is lamPOONed

fucks sake

"being doused in milkshake is not violence, else every child's game show ever shown would have to be withdrawn on grounds of systemic child abuse"

A child is perfectly capable of consenting to be slimed for the purposes of entertainment.

What if Nigel were lactose intolerant, and he died as a result? He's not as it happens but did the mouth-breathing prole who threw the drink know that? No.

I think he would need to be literally allergic which isn't that common tbf


next up, bernard righton!

An Englishman, an Irishman and a Pakistani walk into a bar. What a perfect example of racial integration."

Yes properly allergic, I mean.

Miliband handled that smoothly tbf. No pun intended.

Jesus CHRIST how is ed milliband not PM?

Because Bacon Sandwich. 

Or if Corbyn had some kind of egg intolerance (is that a thing?).  Attacking people is just not on.

I think the politics element is colouring many views here. Remove that - is it acceptable to chuck a milkshake / break an egg over someone in public (absent consent in advance or trying to put them out if they're on fire and that's all you have to hand, blah blah, etc)?


It's all fun (or at least sorted by a quick dry clean) until someone loses an eye or becomes another Jo Cox.

"comic relief would be classed as a state sponsored corporal punishment"


it's had its day

Bright Carver21 May 19 10:52

... is it acceptable to chuck a milkshake / break an egg over someone in public...


It's all fun (or at least sorted by a quick dry clean) until someone loses an eye or becomes another Jo Cox.


can you seriously not differentiate between chucking a milkshake on a fascist, (who historically are basically the only people it is acceptable to repeatedly nuke)

and murdering someone because you think apartheid is a good idea?

1. Farage isn't a Fascist, you half-educated nonce

2. It's a slippery slope from milkshakes to eggs to stones to acid

Yes, Sumo, I can.

Can you please seriously not weaken the term 'fascist' by applying it to people who are not fascists.

It is unacceptable in a civilised society to attack someone even if you disagree with their views.  

I don't think it's too far off the mark to call Farage a fascist tbh.  A fascist-enabler, perhaps.  

Arse I'd better press charges then the next time someone in a crowded pub gets beer on my shoes.  

It's not ok pouring a milkshake over someone but if that's all they do to me I'm not going to faff around with the police and will find the nearest toilet to wipe the worst of it off before going home and getting changed.

What I should turn round and glass them before wiping it off?

From milkshakes to glassing - you need to have a word with yourself.

Is Awdit Alan P's sock puppet posting stupid to get a tun? 

No I don't have a sock puppet.  And this is my debut tun.