@cazabon This is getting increasingly unhinged.

It's not "framing"; what she did to him absolutely, positively, 100% meets the legal definition of assault. Like I said, check with a lawyer/barrister if you don't believe this.

How does that make it not framing? What do you think framing is? Using definitions wrong or something?

This is not a courtroom and I'm not a lawyer, so why are you using legal jargon? Especially since "assault" is so general and broad that it encompasses anything from me saying "I'm going to smack you" (without ever touching you) to me breaking every bone in your body with a crowbar. Sure, throwing a milkshake at someone is in there somewhere (probably), but as far as I'm concerned, there is a substantial difference between getting milkshaked and, say, getting stabbed. (I know which one I'd prefer!)

Yet you insist on discussing the situation in terms that don't allow for a meaningful distinction between verbal threats, minor inconveniences (like having to wipe off some milkshake), and serious physical harm. That's the framing. And as far as I can tell, the only purpose is to make the listener transfer some of their emotional response to the "physical harm" end of the spectrum ("someone was assaulted? how awful!") to the sillier side of things ("a milkshake? eh, whatever") by grouping them both under the same umbrella and then only using the umbrella term.

And unless Farage retaliated by dumping something on her or punching her in the face, and was attacked because of things he has said, then he was, by definition, attacked for his views.

I can't tell what you're trying to say here. Let's take Inigo Montoya (from The Princess Bride) as an example. Are you saying that, because Count Rugen did not retaliate (after being killed??) and was not attacked because of his words, Inigo Montoya therefore attacked Count Rugen for his views?