Ukip event to go ahead as union officer targeted

Following the postponing of a political discussion featuring speakers from Ukip, an online attack has been launched on the student union’s Postgraduate Education Officer, Liam McCafferty.

imageAfter a decision was taken on Thursday 27th November to postpone the debate, which was organised by the PSI Society, “due to the review processes for external speakers not being properly followed”, McCafferty took to Twitter to break the news and share the official union statement.

The announcement was met with criticism by Douglas Carswell, the first elected Ukip MP, who tweeted: “UEA student lefties have banned UKIP from speaking on campus. Sld boost turnout when I speak there in the New Year #FreeThinking”. After McCafferty replied to confirm why the event had been postponed, his Twitter account was bombarded by messages from Ukip supporters.

Carswell, who in a recent article in the Eastern Daily Press claimed that he “owes it all to the UEA”, said that a ban from campus would be helpful as it fits the narrative and boosts appeal.

While a debate over free speech and no platform policies continued on Twitter, the argument took a personal turn as one user said that it “sounds like somebody has been reading too much lab/con media led rubbish and not able to think for themselves” and another calling McCafferty a “soppy pratt”.


The information that many users were using to criticise McCafferty was taken from his Twitter bio, and in some cases found by looking up his past. @iukip made a link between McCafferty’s support of Celtic Football Club and a “tendency to threatening” with @chazers75 suggesting that others “have a look at liams pics, likes to protest alot”.

The debacle came to a head on Friday 28th November as the story was picked up by the national media, including the BBC and the Express, following the release of a blog post which details McCafferty’s involvement in a UAF demonstration against an EDL march in Bolton in March 2010. McCafferty was convicted of a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act at the demonstration and, after a failed appeal, was told to pay a £1,000 fines.

At the time, it was judged that: “Mr McCafferty saw the police officer in front of him and he decided in the heat of the moment to strike out a few sly blows”. However, a witness, Andrew Butler, testified that McCafferty had had his arms up to protect himself as he was bewildered by the pushing and shoving.

It was this incident which formed the basis of a blog post featured on Nope, not Hope which claims to be “shining a light on the hypocrisy of Hope not Hate”. Hope not Hate is an advocacy group which “campaigns to counter racism and fascism”. The post, which was initially shared by Jonathan Childs, Ukip’s Councillor for East Flegg, asks whether students can feel safe around a man with a conviction for political violence and accuses McCafferty of being a violent criminal.

Commenting on the online backlash, McCafferty said: “Whereas some have argued that the union’s approach to the Ukip issue is mollycoddling, some of the vile personal abuse that I’ve received underlines why other students were concerned about Ukip’s presence on campus. The abuse included personal insults and suggestions like I should be ‘beaten to a pulp’. I am shocked and saddened that it is deemed acceptable for senior Ukip figures to engage in personal attacks against a representative of students, whatever your opinions on the matter.

“Regardless, the union followed the correct procedure and did the right thing in pausing for a day which has allowed us to listen to all our members, on both sides of the row, and our solution will now ensure that the event can go ahead in a way that ensures robust challenge and democratic debate”.

The Union of UEA Students has since resolved to permit the event providing it “includes clear debate and challenge to the views of the external speaker via an opposing speaker chosen on the basis of robust and fair challenge”. The union’s Management Committee said: “Following the postponement of the event on Thursday we are pleased to have been able to reach a solution that we think appropriately balances the right to freedom of speech on campus with robust debate and challenge. It is regrettable that some have sought to misrepresent this process as an outright ‘ban’ for political ends”.

A revised date for the event is expected to be announced soon.

Correction: Previously this article stated that Liam McCafferty had been convicted of assaulting a police officer. We now understand that it was a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act and the article has been updated appropriately.


About Author

geriscott With a blood to caffeine ratio of around 50/50, you can usually find Geri in the media hub nursing a cup of tea. After writing for the newspaper for every issue in her second year, Geri will now be balancing her final year of her Politics degree with running Concrete and working in the Union House reception. She is also the President of the Concrete committee.

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/wp_35pmrq/ on line 11

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/wp_35pmrq/ on line 26

7 COMMENTS ON THIS POST To “Ukip event to go ahead as union officer targeted”

  1. This is ridiculous. The guy’s been found guilty by a court.

    You can’t then go questioning the judgement by saying “However, a witness, Andrew Butler, testified that McCafferty had had his arms up to protect himself as he was bewildered by the pushing and shoving.”

    Frankly, I’m ashamed of Concrete. It has become a Union mouthpiece and lost any semblance of its editorial independence. The editorial should be embarrassed at how lazy it has been at getting real hard-hitting stories. It pains me to say that the Tab is far superior to Concrete.

    • James, the sentence “However, a witness, Andrew Butler, testified that McCafferty had had his arms up to protect himself as he was bewildered by the pushing and shoving.” is not questioning the judgement. It’s just stating what a witness said.

    • “You can’t then go questioning the judgement”.

      Oh yes, because in a democracy it’s a terrible thing for a newspaper to question the judgement of an unelected old white man, isn’t it? #sarcasm

      Seriously, how on earth can you have so much faith in the judicial system that you think judges and cops are utterly infallible? I mean FFS, the Ferguson verdict is only a few days old!

      The police lie. Judges can be biased. The judicial system produces injustices on occasion after occasion after occasion. Deal with it.

      “The editorial should be embarrassed at how lazy it has been at getting real hard-hitting stories”

      I’m not even going to bother responding to this, because it’s so obviously not true and anyone who reads both publications can tell that instantly.

      (Views my own, not Concrete’s)

      • The very few good stories that have been published this year have been written by you, Elliot. The rest is recycled- press release-based jargon

  2. It was a ban, in all but name. The Union would never have cancelled the UKIP event (which had been planned with the Union’s co-operation for months) if it weren’t for the petition, and they’d never have reinstated it so soon if it wasn’t for the avalanche of negative press which poured down on them when the real world pointed out to them that this was not, in fact, a very productive idea.

    Suspicious also that the CEO of the Union, who’d agreed to co-chair the event, apparently didn’t realise anything about it being in breach of Union ‘procedure’ until the day it was to happen. (Quite aside from said Union procedure also being the most mealy-mouthed bullshit of ‘we can appeal to withdraw from any event that we find a bit too controversial ever’, of course.)

    Frankly, the Union should own up to the fact that they cancelled it for a bullshit reason because they thought that nobody would notice, and then cried and reversed the decision when it turned out people did. They could have at least said that they were temporarily postponing it to be sure that “additional security arrangements for planned protests could be put into place” or some bullshit like that.

  3. Ludicrously biased article. ‘Accuses’ McCafferty of being a violent criminal? Um, legally, he is one! A jury ruled that the “evidence” this defence witness you’ve cited presented was so unconvincing he should be convicted of violent assault (which he was). End fucking of.

    It’s all very well bleating and crying about your past when you’ve been called out on it, but it’s quite another when we all know that if one of the potential UKIP speakers had been convicted of assaulting a police officer at a rally this article would be labelling them a violent criminal with no qualms at all, never mind a statement from a discredited trial ‘witness’.

    That McCafferty has had the gall to support the cancellation of a UKIP event on the grounds of ‘student safety’ (itself confusing enough, seeing as the Union claimed it was just a ‘procedural’ hiccup that led the event to be conveniently cancelled on the day) is thoroughly hypocritical considering his own past.

    As for whining about being called a ‘soppy pratt’ and a Celtic supporter (boo hoo!) – oh, do grow up. You stick your head above the parapet, you can’t complain when you get blowback. I’m sure that multiple Labour supporting students have sent far worse to David Cameron of a weekend.

    • We’ve since updated this article in light of new information: Liam McCafferty was convicted of a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act, not assaulting a police officer. This should clarify things for the objections you raised in your first paragraph.

December 2021
Latest Comments
About Us

The University of East Anglia’s official student newspaper. Concrete is in print and online.

If you would like to get in touch, email the Editor on Follow us at @ConcreteUEA.