Royal Mail refuse to carry Britain First election leaflet

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Royal Mail refuse to carry Britain First election leaflet for the Rochester and Strood by-election

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news ... rry-26202/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Royal Mail has refused to carry a Britain First election leaflet that it considers to be illegal.

The leaflet has been produced as part of the far-right group's campaign for the Rochester and Strood by-election.

On one side there is a picture of a veiled woman and a 'WARNING' stamp. The other side has a letter addressed to "Fellow English resident" and sets out Jayda Fransen's reason for standing in the by-election.

Ms Fransen, deputy leader of Britain First, is contesting the seat because of the new mosque that is to be built in Railway Street, Gillingham.

On the Britain First website the group said Royal Mail's decision is "illegal" and based on "political reasons".

The post reads: "Royal Mail left-wing goons who have tried this kind of nonsense on before have been threatened with arrest for the same thing."

The Royal Mail has a legal obligation under the Representation of the People Act 1983 to deliver Parliamentary election mail but can refuse to carry it if they consider the contents to be illegal.

A Royal Mail spokesman said: "Royal Mail may refuse to carry election mail if we consider its contents to be illegal, for example if it is threatening, abusive or insulting or is intended to cause distress or anxiety.

"We have procedures in place to evaluate whether election mail complies with the law.

"In this instance, we consider that the election mail in question does not comply with the law and have therefore refused to carry it.”

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I post this in the hope that this thread will not fall apart in to the usual slanging match between pro-immigration and anti-immigration members. Please keep the discussion as polite as possible, but if it descends into anarchy I will lock or delete it.

[aposter]

If a court rules it o be legal, we carry, if ruled illegal, we don't. simples

[wabbithunta]

What will be the consequences of this for the posties in the area concerned, are they likely to be threatened, verbally abused etc by the people concerned? Will Royal Mail actually do something about this if it does happen?
I've just been reading the news report about this, it would appear that this has already started to happen, according to the comments section below this news report.

[wabbithunta]

Since posting my previous post on this I found the relevant part that I assume Royal Mail are using to refuse to handle the election material concerned.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

19 Publishing or distributing written material.
(1)A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
(2)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred to prove that he was not aware of the content of the material and did not suspect, and had no reason to suspect, that it was threatening, abusive or insulting.
(3)References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.

[fishtank]

If a court rules it to be legal, we carry, if ruled illegal, we don't. simples

The responsibility lies with Royal Mail in determining its legality, it's called personal responsibility. If the sender disagrees they can take it through the courts. That's how the legal system works.

[NWpostie]

Since posting my previous post on this I found the relevant part that I assume Royal Mail are using to refuse to handle the election material concerned.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

19 Publishing or distributing written material.
(1)A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
(2)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred to prove that he was not aware of the content of the material and did not suspect, and had no reason to suspect, that it was threatening, abusive or insulting.
(3)References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.

As far as I can see, I haven't read it myself, but from what I understand, it not aimed at a specific race, therefore couldn't be considered a racist leaflet, its very lazy to slip into habit of accusing people of being racist with little foundation. the last time I checked Islam is a multi ethnic religion.

This leaves the threat to incite violence or similar. which is yet to be proved. some may support this party some may not, we the Royal mail must be politically impartial.

[fishtank]

some may support this party some may not, we the Royal mail must be politically impartial.

I think some people are missing the point.
We can't remain impartial.

(1)A person who publishes or distributes

Royal Mail have to make a judgement call otherwise they could be breaking the law.

[halfull]

i dont really like the things parties like these say but what happened to free speech?

[fishtank]

i dont really like the things parties like these say but what happened to free speech?

The right to free expression, the only statutory legislation covering free speech in the UK which is contained within Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 is qualified by such restrictions as are necessary "for the protection of the reputation and rights of others".

Don't worry though, the Tories and UKIP want to get rid of it, not the restrictions...the whole right to free speech.

[DB1100]

i dont really like the things parties like these say but what happened to free speech?

The right to free expression, the only statutory legislation covering free speech in the UK which is contained within Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 is qualified by such restrictions as are necessary "for the protection of the reputation and rights of others".

Don't worry though, the Tories and UKIP want to get rid of it, not the restrictions...the whole right to free speech.

But Labour are all right,they just fabricate false reports and invade Countries,causing the turmoil that now ravages the Middle east.

[halfull]

i dont really like the things parties like these say but what happened to free speech?

The right to free expression, the only statutory legislation covering free speech in the UK which is contained within Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 is qualified by such restrictions as are necessary "for the protection of the reputation and rights of others".

Don't worry though, the Tories and UKIP want to get rid of it, not the restrictions...the whole right to free speech.

But Labour are all right,they just fabricate false reports and invade Countries,causing the turmoil that now ravages the Middle east.

[halfull]

i dont really like the things parties like these say but what happened to free speech?

The right to free expression, the only statutory legislation covering free speech in the UK which is contained within Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 is qualified by such restrictions as are necessary "for the protection of the reputation and rights of others".

Don't worry though, the Tories and UKIP want to get rid of it, not the restrictions...the whole right to free speech.

, im sure labour will save us then lol

[bustedflush]

Here we go again. Election material has to be checked by the EC before being distributed, and if it was deemed 'racist' it would have been banned anyway. Once again RM is behaving like the BBC and is vetting what it considers suitable for the plebs to see, and like the anti-BBC acts as self-appointed censor. Islam is in my opinion the biggest threat to civilization and world peace since Communism. For all current conflicts in the world at the moment, simply fill in the blank: Muslims vs _______? The leaflet hardly tells a reader what they don't already know.

[fishtank]

Here we go again. Election material has to be checked by the EC before being distributed, and if it was deemed 'racist' it would have been banned anyway.

Don't make s**t up and post it as fact.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/_ ... fing-2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Would the Electoral Commission investigate if someone said something false about a rival candidate in campaign material?

No. The Electoral Commission’s remit does not include regulation of campaign material content.