Best Of

Farage says a Reform government would ban Muslim public prayers in the UK

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/19/nigel-farage-condemned-over-call-to-ban-public-prayer-for-muslims-in-the-uk

Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.

If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.

Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today.
You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.

Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.

And the unborn child is irrelevant I suppose? Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life, it is not just conservative Christian evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church anti

The balance of rights between mother and unborn child is absolutely fine to debate in a sober and rational way. Bringing unreachable deities whose views we claim to know into the debate is unhelpful.

This allows me to trot out one of my vasectomy stories. As my wife drove me away from the clinic, in loose fitting trousers, feeling distinctly sorry for myself, a large bunch of angry middle aged Christians started shouting abuse at her (it was a beautiful Spring day and the windows were down. I was momentarily puzzled, then furious. Clearly they were under the impression we'd been for an abortion. Despite my incapacity, I was quite clean to get out the car and kick off. First, to correct them, second and more importantly - how fucking dare some Christian talk to my wife like that - I may have been sore but I am quite a large bloke and have never felt it more urgent to dish out violent retribution to these ponces or at the very least tell them how little I cared for the views of their imaginary sky fairy. Thirdly - check what's going on in there before protesting so rudely you fucking idiots. And fourthly (this overlapped with secondly, on reflection) - if we had just had an abortion, it was a decision we would have come to soberly and sadly and for some good reason and it was no business of their imaginary friend.

Happily for all concerned, it took me a while to get past puzzle and shock, and my wife is less keen to seek trouble than I am, and by the time all this aligned in my head we were at least a mile away.

If Republic can send hecklers to scream at members of the royal family attending church or meeting crowds, anti abortion activists can send activists to pray and shout at those having an abortion.

Or you ban both as harassment. You have the same laws for right and left

The Whataboutery of the Week Award goes to HYUFD!

HYUFD, I know this award must mean a lot to you. What are you going to do with the trophy? Display it at home?

Farage says a Reform government would ban Muslim public prayers in the UK

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/19/nigel-farage-condemned-over-call-to-ban-public-prayer-for-muslims-in-the-uk

Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.

As pointed out, previously, we have bans on performative prayer by Christians (of a sort) outside abortion clinics.

So we have an operational precedent for the Process State types to create a process for (morality not included)

I find no difficulty in imagining that Chief Konstable Sir Ronald "Els" Savage of the Met (OBE, DIpSHIt) would pause only to request that the cleaner polish his awards for Muslim Community Relations before sending out the modern version of the TSG to hit @TheScreamingEagles for wearing a loud shoes in built up area.

So, what is the legal wording here? HYUFD seems to be implying, in his "As pointed out" sentence that the Abortion Clinic prayer limitations are specific to Christian prayer? The specific use of Christian in that sentence suggests that Muslim or Jewish prayer (for the unborn) outside an abortion clinic would be fine and dandy.

I suspect that is not the case, but am just checking.

I haven't look deeply at this but the relevant law is, I think, section 9 of the Public Order Act 2023. Which does not mention prayer. what, I think, is happening, is verbal equivocation, in which what one group describes as 'prayer' or 'silent prayer' is regarded by another group - who mostly have the current law on their side - as a particular form of act with a particular sort of effect in a place where it is illegal to do so. Rational resolution of the difference is of course impossible, which is why law has to make decisions, including ones I think are crazy, and why hard cases make bad law.

As Frege interestingly pointed out, the Morning Star and the Evening Star are different terms meaning different things in our observation and experience. But as it happens they are in fact the same object, which is a shock when you first realise it.

(In just the same way what one group says is criminal damage to defence installations, another group says is helpful and lawful compliance with international and domestic law outlawing particular forms of military action.)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/15/section/9

Farage says a Reform government would ban Muslim public prayers in the UK

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/19/nigel-farage-condemned-over-call-to-ban-public-prayer-for-muslims-in-the-uk

Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.

As pointed out, previously, we have bans on performative prayer by Christians (of a sort) outside abortion clinics.

So we have an operational precedent for the Process State types to create a process for (morality not included)

I find no difficulty in imagining that Chief Konstable Sir Ronald "Els" Savage of the Met (OBE, DIpSHIt) would pause only to request that the cleaner polish his awards for Muslim Community Relations before sending out the modern version of the TSG to hit @TheScreamingEagles for wearing a loud shoes in built up area.

So, what is the legal wording here? HYUFD seems to be implying, in his "As pointed out" sentence that the Abortion Clinic prayer limitations are specific to Christian prayer? The specific use of Christian in that sentence suggests that Muslim or Jewish prayer (for the unborn) outside an abortion clinic would be fine and dandy.

I suspect that is not the case, but am just checking.

It's not even specific to prayer, which is why I asked william how he proposed it might be used as a precedent by the sectarians in Reform and on the Tory right.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/15/section/9
Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services
(1)It is an offence for a person who is within a safe access zone to do an act with the intent of, or reckless as to whether it has the effect of—

(a)influencing any person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic,

(b)obstructing or impeding any person accessing, providing, or facilitating the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic, or

(c)causing harassment, alarm or distress to any person in connection with a decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic,

where the person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is within the safe access zone for the abortion clinic.

‘C’ there is designed to be deliberately woolly, open and vague. A bit like ‘obstruction’

It gives Plod the ability to nick anyone that fails the attitude test.

Farage says a Reform government would ban Muslim public prayers in the UK

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/19/nigel-farage-condemned-over-call-to-ban-public-prayer-for-muslims-in-the-uk

Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.

If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.

Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today.
You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.

Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.

And the unborn child is irrelevant I suppose? Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life, it is not just conservative Christian evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church anti

The balance of rights between mother and unborn child is absolutely fine to debate in a sober and rational way. Bringing unreachable deities whose views we claim to know into the debate is unhelpful.

This allows me to trot out one of my vasectomy stories. As my wife drove me away from the clinic, in loose fitting trousers, feeling distinctly sorry for myself, a large bunch of angry middle aged Christians started shouting abuse at her (it was a beautiful Spring day and the windows were down. I was momentarily puzzled, then furious. Clearly they were under the impression we'd been for an abortion. Despite my incapacity, I was quite clean to get out the car and kick off. First, to correct them, second and more importantly - how fucking dare some Christian talk to my wife like that - I may have been sore but I am quite a large bloke and have never felt it more urgent to dish out violent retribution to these ponces or at the very least tell them how little I cared for the views of their imaginary sky fairy. Thirdly - check what's going on in there before protesting so rudely you fucking idiots. And fourthly (this overlapped with secondly, on reflection) - if we had just had an abortion, it was a decision we would have come to soberly and sadly and for some good reason and it was no business of their imaginary friend.

Happily for all concerned, it took me a while to get past puzzle and shock, and my wife is less keen to seek trouble than I am, and by the time all this aligned in my head we were at least a mile away.

The 'unreachable deities' point slightly misses the heart of the matter. Whether ethics is subjective or objective is not a knowable item. There are insurmountable problems with both positions. But objectivists include lots of people who don't invoke the gods. Lots of atheists think that torturing children for fun is not only wrong, but still wrong even if everyone thought it was right. Kant invokes no gods in drawing that sort of objective conclusion.

Whether or not there is a god - another unknowable item - for lots of people the gods is where they ground the idea of objectivity. I am among them.

Hume, who believed none of this, is Trump's representative. 'I will feel it in my bones'. As Hume says, though he is wrong "Tis not unreasonable for me to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.”

Luckily for Reeves there's a war on.

The latest borrowing figures show how bad her stewadship has been. And thats before she craps all over us the latest set of tax screw ups.

Now she has a war to blame everything on so nothing is her fault.

You don’t want tax increases and it’s not possible to cut the ever growing welfare bill as that’s pensions

Exactly how was Reeves supposed to reduce Borrowing

She should have started by not caving in on the 2 child cap and the other welfare reforms. Too late now they've let the benefits bill grow exponentially so clearly no headroom for the rainy days now and to come.

The 2 child cap is peanuts relatively and creates a whole different set of issues.

I suspect there is a lot of evidence that shows the cap actually costs more money than it saves - the anecdotal evidence I’ve seen screams not saving money

The two child cap isn't peanuts but it does a lot of damage for the relatively small amount it saves and yes it has significant consequential costs.

Nice people think it's wrong to punish children simply for existing. The others think it's good politics.

First like SKS to be sacked after LE

I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.

As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.

A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.

I expect that challenge in May.

A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.

I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.

The last 2 weeks will have helped him remain in post, but I'm no longer bullish over Starmers long term survival chances.

How many more defeats will Labour be able to take after the inevitable skelping in May? They haven't led a UK opinion poll for almost a year, and are now finding it tough competing for second with the Tories and Greens. That's no good when they are fighting big elections in Wales and Scotland in 7 weeks.

I cant see Anas and Jackie Baillie etc putting up and shutting up - Slab have more than 30 MPs, they should be more competitive than this.

Once they start losing more councillors, and party activists are tempted by what the Greens offer, MPs will feel more nervous about their own jobs.

We could have a situation similar to what Corbyn faced in 2016, where the challenger is easily faced down, I think that is more likely than no challenge at all. If someone in the upper reaches of the party doesn't grasp the issue in May, we are then looking at conference season for a challenge, and so it drags on.

It is very hard to regain support once a PMs ratings go very negative. The saving grace for SKS is he is up against an outfit who haven't governed nationally, and Lab MPs tend to be spineless when it comes to leadership challenges.

Eventually the dam will break and we will see a challenge, its not a straight Tory/Lab fight any more, and I think activists will be aware they are firefighting various parties on many fronts

Labour are indeed going to receive an absolute "skelping" in May as you put it, and I think it is going to be even worse than anticipated. Remind yourself that many in Labour convinced themselves that they had hopes of retaining Gorton/Denton only to lose badly. Labour have been 3rd or 4th in every one of the last 5 opinion polls and generally do even worse at local elections than they do at general elections.

Virtually the entire PLP never mind just 20% are then going to be in shock and justly concerned for the future of their seats unless something changes. There is no need for Labour to be stuck with a leader for whom the vast majority of public have feelings ranging from disdain to contempt, and there will be no change without the leader changing.

And despite the mantra that Labour doesn't sack it's leaders, the relevant precedent is that from 2016, namely that MPs are willing to initiate a leadership contest when push comes to shove. Corbyn only survived then because of the membership, not the PLP. And Starmer won't win a members ballot, once a contest is triggered he'd be well advised to step down then with some dignity.

For me the only question now is whether a contest is initiated in May or a month or two later, but I think it's going to be May. Starmer is so dire that whoever wields the knife is I think going to receive credit for doing so, for many will be grateful for the chance of a reset. Rayner may still be tempted to hold off but she knows the other contenders will go for it so she will probably decide it's best to try to be first in the queue just like the rest.

Despite falling back, Reform remains 8 - 9% ahead of Labour, whose vote share is down 20% on Spring 2022. The Conservatives are down about 12%. It’s hard to see the results as anything but terrible for both parties.

True. But i'd point out Reform won a lot of very close races in 2025 on 30% NEV and in the ascendancy.
This time theyll be (i think) much closer to 25% NEV and on the decline. I expect them to be on the wrong side of a number of close races.
Whilst obviously having a good 'net' night.
How they do in the 78 seats they are defending will be instructive