Well now I think that's naive about this protest and its intentions. It was deliberately arranged outside his home, it was held in the morning when they probably knew they would catch him leaving along with his kids who need to go to school, you see them smiling and holding the banner as Mogg is there with his children, the group is boasting on Twitter about how pleased they are with their actions but you're suggesting its only one guy who was there to target his family? And that the other protesters will have been appalled by his actions and wanted no part in it? Hmmm

Thanks Jaxie, I found it and watched it, it does show the entire encounter from when Rees-Mogg arrives up to when they enter the house.

It is just one man (the older man in the flat cap) who addresses the children, as I assumed, but it's good to have concrete video evidence confirming that.

So not a mob but one person, confirmed.

I haven't made any claims about the intent of the protest :think:

Purely speculative, stop dressing up assumptions as facts.

I'm stating that only one guy did target the children specifically, as there is a video, that shows that only one guy targetted the children specifically

I haven't made that claim either. Again, you need to draw a line between the facts, and things that are sprouting in your own imagination.

It doesn't seem that they were appalled, or that the larger FB group is appalled either. From a brief look, the entire group is pretty toxic.

But that's not the point. I don't support the group or their actions or similar ham-fisted actions. That's not the point either.

The point is that the press is misrepresentative of the facts and evidence and - for me - that is a huge problem. People just cherrypicking their own facts to fit their own preconceived internal narrative. LT's observation that "it happens all the time and has always happened" doesn't make it any less of a problem, either.

I know it's speculation hence using 'probably', I'm entitled to make logical assumptions though

Anyway my point is that the very nature of the protest was an attenpt to invade Moggs personal life which is what this group do. Hence the other protesters are culpable in the targeting of his children

In any case I think you are getting too hung up on semantics. Whether someone chooses to use a plural or a singular is not a 'huge' issue in my eyes nor is a journalistic use of the word 'mob' for effect

It's not a huge issue to state that some children were hounded by a large group / a mob when they were actually hounded by one irritating old man? I wouldn't call it semantics, I'd call it a fairly important distinction in the reporting of what actually happened.

Not really when the video is there for all to see and as long the story does go on to detail what actually happened then I can forgive a bit of journalistic flair in the headline.

A mob can be defined as more than 1 person, and the mob doesnt all have to be actively vocal to still constitute being a mob. It is a group sharing the same intent

Yeah I was going to add this.

Just because one person does most of the talking doesn't mean the rest of the group, some dressed up to mock Reese Mogg, aren't intimidating for the children. It was a group of people at his home, and not one person. In my view that is enough t say they were targeting his family.

Some reports say the group were cat calling that their dad was a bad person and people hate him. One clip I saw had a guy in a white shirt approaching two of the children behind the scenes, while the older man was having a rant, not clear what he was up to.

Even a group of people standing in total silence on your doorstep could be pretty intimidating.

The bottom line for me is none of them should have been outside his home. It's inappropriate. If you want to rage at him go do it outside Parliament.

Maybe TS would be happy to face that with his kids, I wouldn't. :shrug:

It is reminiscent of the Looney left gang of imbeciles who intimidated Nigel Farage and his family whilst they were out for a Sunday family lunch - jumping on his car and jeering and ranting.

****ing jealous moronic bullies who want to tear down whatever they perceive as personally unachievable.

.

Yes Even the Labour Party hate that bad group

That is the nub of it for me, go to Westminster and harrass him at his place of work

Sure. But as only one person directed anything at the kids, neither you, I, nor anyone else have any idea if the shared group intent was specifically to harass the kids. It's speculation. It'll continue to be speculation no matter how many people insist blue in the face that it isn't.

You might even think it's very LIKELY that they all shared the intent to target the kids; that would be a fair enough assessment too. But it still isn't a fact, and the statement that Rees-Mogg's kids were "targetted by a mob of protesters" is still patently false.

Making distinctions with this sort of bull**** is important. Being factually accurate, is important. When people don't bother, or add "flair", all it does is open up the whole thing to interpretation and bickering. The intent is to bolster a point; but all it ever does is weaken it.

Whether or not they should have been at his home is a completely separate issue. I actually agree that politician's families should be left out of these things and it's unfair to drag them into it.

If someone was to tell me that a protest mob formed outside his home, I would agree that that's morally wrong.

If they were to add, "An obnoxious old man who was part of a protest targetted the kids"; I would say that that's even worse and WAY over the line, and that he should be ashamed of himself.


...

.... .... .....

It's still not true that there's any evidence of multiple people specifically targetting the kids, so this is still false and misleading reporting that does no one any good. What happened is bad. Let it be bad for what it is. There's been an attempt to fluff it up and make it seem even worse than it was, and that's just left behind a confusing and misleading mess that actually dilutes the seriousness of it? You hear "They were ATTACKED BY A MOB OF PROTESTERS!!" and think "Oh Jesus, how awful". The mental image is quite horrifying... then you click the link and it's Del Boy's 80 year old cousin bleating "Your daddy's not a very nice person, some people don't like your daddy very much."

And it's like "Oh. Right."

No better than a Daily Star front page headline that doesn't match up to the content of the article (or the facts) at all. Sure it happens all the time but that doesn't mean it should be accepted or encouraged, just because you happen to agree with the specific brand of "Outrage!!" that's being peddled.

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status...25276509855747

Longer video here. Starts a bit earlier than the OP one

Still shows one (very annoying) guy doing all the shouting/talking. The others were there, but appear to be standing away from it all.

However, I do think those on what would be termed 'the hard left' are getting worse in their behaviour. The attempted silencing of anyone disagreeing, protests (that often seem to turn violent), and so on are almost rivalling those on the far right! Neither position is very good, IMO. Both are ridiculous extremes.

True Vicky, sadly it seems like extremism from all angles is increasing, or rather, becoming emboldened. I don't necessarily think attitudes and beliefs are changing, but people are becoming more and more inclined to shout about it from the rooftops.

Its the case in all sort of small / everyday / subtle ways, too, it's not just politics. In some ways, the Kirsty Allsop "I'm proud that I smashed my kids stuff" thing is another example of it.

It even happens on this forum quite a lot... Which is really where my issue with this thread has stemmed from. Its a sort of "Well here's what I personally think is true, and that's that! How dare you question it!" that's becoming pervasive all across society. Actually separating out fact from assumption and explaining logic / reasoning behind an opinion has gone completely out the window and, in fact, people get quite heated if you ask them to explain their logic. "Wot I fink" is supposed to just be accepted, no questions asked.

I personally blame Facebook / Twitter :idc:.

Thats not whats happened at all, people have countered yours and others defence if taking the protest to his home and involving his family, whether they were vical or silent makes no difference it is an invasion of their privacy

Was just going to say, I would blame social media for that

Except that that hasn't happened. This is what I'm talking about; people need to stick to the facts instead of just imagining what they "feel" is going on. Literally no one defended them being at their home, least of all me, all I've done is repeatedly stated the quite clear fact with video evidence that there was only one man directly addressing the children.

Maybe people for some reason wish the whole crowd HAD been verbally attacking the kids? Because it would make a better / more dramatic story that we can all get angrier about? I don't know... that's also guesswork I suppose. What I do know is that people seem pretty adamant on insisting that something happened that the video clearly showed did NOT happen, first claiming that there was more that wasn't shown in the short clip, and then when that was revealed to also be false when viewing the longer clip, the script shifted to "OH WELL they shouldn't have been there at all why are you OK with that, clearly you would think it was OK if someone did this to you!".

It's all a load of nonsense / nothing / fantasy. I just want people to discuss the actual facts. Like I said; we can all agree that them being there was unnecessary and the fellow directly addressing the kids was abhorrent... there's no NEED to sensationalise it as something more, and actually doing so just makes the whole thing a pointless, facebook-style tooth-gnashing exercise. We're better than that, is all :(.

thankfully the old dole-ite has been roundly criticised by all parties for his disgusting behavoir

I think it's getting worse, too! My local village has a facebook group, I've been on it for years but never post, and it's become an absolute scream to observe lately :joker:. It used to just be people posting old pics of the village, sharing childhood stories, the occasional announcement about fireworks night etc... but for the past few months it's been constant "classic facebook style" bickering. About anything and everything! 500 word rants about parking on the mainstreet, people not picking up dog poop, people annoyed about local school kids writing their names in some drying cement... all generating dozens of replies and arguments / mocking / bickering / "crying laughing face" snidiness.

I absolutely love it. It's a pretty affluent village so these are mainly people in their 50's+ living in £500,000+ homes... arguing like teenagers. It's a great read some nights.

Yes we have one of those for road conditions and one for community news - its great for exposing vandals, people who let their dogs sh1te around the valley and some low lever bickering about bins and such like

It must be a really confusing time for a lot of DM readers though. Because on the one hand, the old fellow is a Farage-esque "enough of this PC nonsense" salt-of-the-earth flatcap wearing weirdo, but on the other, he's attacking Mogg, who is championing Beloved Brexit. What to do what to do...

The one about vandalism prompted a load of the old members to go out for a walk and find their own childhood vandalism to see if it was still there and post pictures. Someone found "John B, 1958" still etched on the bottom of a bridge and was very excited. Sort of a low-tech Pokemon Go.

Our Nigel was actually attacked by a proper baying mob (and his kids) a few years back if you recall and was talking about it last night on his show on LBC

Ungrateful little bastards.