View Full Version : These new laws that were used to arrest everyone for any Republic protests
Father Dougal
08-05-23, 10:21
Will they be used on football fans any time soon?
My guess is yes of course......
Pedro de la Rosa
08-05-23, 10:24
Will they be used on football fans any time soon?
My guess is yes of course......
Of course they will be. Labour have already said they won't repeal them, either
JamesWales
08-05-23, 10:42
Not sure. Football fans have been detained in advance before I am not sure under what guise, but on intelligence they would commit trouble I guess.
This is to largely stop people like Just Stop Oil, and rightly so. Everyone has a right to protest, buy not to close whatever roads they like and bring the country to a halt. I don't have a right to close the M4 because Cardiff Council didn't pick my bins up last Thursday or whatever. Just Stop Oil etc pushed the law, and well.. there are consequences. The law changes.
Father Dougal
08-05-23, 10:44
Everyone has a right to protest.
Agreed.
Not sure the met police or the government do based on their actions this weekend mind.....
(Totally agree roads shouldn't be blocked etc under any circumstances)
JamesWales
08-05-23, 11:26
Agreed.
Not sure the met police or the government do based on their actions this weekend mind.....
(Totally agree roads shouldn't be blocked etc under any circumstances)
So what do the police do if they suspect someone is about to lock themselves to fencing / run on the road etc?
I'd also add, there are people who would literally kill the main people involved in all this. Thst isn't the case for the leader of Republic I am certain of that, but the police cannot fk about. It was probably the most high profile event in the world this week, was front page news globally and the idea the police will sit back and watch is naive in the extreme.
Lots of people did peacefully protest, and good for them. That some were arrested suggests perhaps that they had other ambitions?
SLUDGE FACTORY
08-05-23, 11:30
I was looking forward to mass disorder on a level of the poll tax riots
Burning police vans
The kids of today have all gone soft
So what do the police do if they suspect someone is about to lock themselves to fencing / run on the road etc?
I'd also add, there are people who would literally kill the main people involved in all this. Thst isn't the case for the leader of Republic I am certain of that, but the police cannot fk about. It was probably the most high profile event in the world this week, was front page news globally and the idea the police will sit back and watch is naive in the extreme.
Lots of people did peacefully protest, and good for them. That some were arrested suggests perhaps that they had other ambitions?
You can’t arrest people based on ifs and buts. There had been meetings about this.
I was looking forward to mass disorder on a level of the poll tax riots
Burning police vans
The kids of today have all gone soft
If you set fire to a police van, then you're a real piece of shit.
If you condone setting fire to a police van, then you're a real piece of shit.
Wonder who you'd be calling if someone filled you in? Ghostbusters?
JamesWales
08-05-23, 12:30
You can’t arrest people based on ifs and buts. There had been meetings about this.
You clearly can if you suspect they weren't going to protest peacefully and were hellbent on disorder.
Maybe if we hadn't had a couple of years of people sitting in roads thinking they can do what the hell they like, then the legislation wouldn't have been needed.
Sensible people realise it was needed.
Peaceful protest is good, wilful disruption isn't.
Moodybluebird
08-05-23, 12:35
If you set fire to a police van, then you're a real piece of shit.
If you condone setting fire to a police van, then you're a real piece of shit.
Wonder who you'd be calling if someone filled you in? Ghostbusters?
Sludgebusters ?
SLUDGE FACTORY
08-05-23, 12:48
If you set fire to a police van, then you're a real piece of shit.
If you condone setting fire to a police van, then you're a real piece of shit.
Wonder who you'd be calling if someone filled you in? Ghostbusters?
Ladies And Gentlemen
The above post is a political post on behalf of the right wing of the Conservative party
The twats
Father Dougal
08-05-23, 12:51
Ladies And Gentlemen
The above post is a political post on behalf of the right wing of the Conservative party
The twats
Guess you haven't seen the Labour position for what they will do re this new law yet.......
If you set fire to a police van, then you're a real piece of shit.
If you condone setting fire to a police van, then you're a real piece of shit.
Wonder who you'd be calling if someone filled you in? Ghostbusters?
I think he was joking , but needs must :hehe: a la France at the moment
the other bob wilson
08-05-23, 13:01
Guess you haven't seen the Labour position for what they will do re this new law yet.......
Reading this,
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23506503.labour-wont-repeal-tory-anti-protest-law-win-general-election/
I’d say there’s a slight chance that the question posed out of the blue caught Lammy on the hop and he came out with a “holding”, pretty non commital reply. However, I’m probably being too generous there when you consider what Starmer said about student loans - apart from getting the Tories out, I can’t find too many reasons to support his version of the party.
Of course they will be. Labour have already said they won't repeal them, either
Of course they won’t, they are all cut from the same cloth
WJ99mobile
08-05-23, 13:05
I was actually pro these laws originally. I was sick of seeing activists interfering with the lives of normal people.
But these use of the powers are disgusting if the protests are fair and not intrusive.
It’s not a good sign of things to come
Reading this,
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23506503.labour-wont-repeal-tory-anti-protest-law-win-general-election/
I’d say there’s a slight chance that the question posed out of the blue caught Lammy on the hop and he came out with a “holding”, pretty non commital reply. However, I’m probably being too generous there when you consider what Starmer said about student loans - apart from getting the Tories out, I can’t find too many reasons to support his version of the party.
Yes - too generous.
Canton Kev
08-05-23, 13:11
Peaceful protest is good, wilful disruption isn't.
Tell that to the suffragettes.
John Buchanan
08-05-23, 13:14
So what do the police do if they suspect someone is about to lock themselves to fencing / run on the road etc?
I'd also add, there are people who would literally kill the main people involved in all this. Thst isn't the case for the leader of Republic I am certain of that, but the police cannot fk about. It was probably the most high profile event in the world this week, was front page news globally and the idea the police will sit back and watch is naive in the extreme.
Lots of people did peacefully protest, and good for them. That some were arrested suggests perhaps that they had other ambitions?
Suspicion is not guilt. It is not even evidence of likely guilt. Anyone can say they "suspect" someone of something. It is no reason to arrest someone and take away their right to express their views.
Locking yourself to a fence while holding a "not my king" sign. Where is the harm in this? Is this what you class as "disorder"? Do you honestly believe that "suspecting" someone of intending to do this is a reason to infringe their human right to express their views? It is a very slippery slope.
The same right wing press who support your silly and dangerous views condemn Putin's Russia for arresting people who express THEIR view that it IS actually a war. Bizarre.
Suspicion is not guilt. It is not even evidence of likely guilt. Anyone can say they "suspect" someone of something. It is no reason to arrest someone and take away their right to express their views.
Locking yourself to a fence while holding a "not my king" sign. Where is the harm in this? Is this what you class as "disorder"? Do you honestly believe that "suspecting" someone of intending to do this is a reason to infringe their human right to express their views? It is a very slippery slope.
The same right wing press who support your silly and dangerous views condemn Putin's Russia for arresting people who express THEIR view that it IS actually a war. Bizarre.
Football coaches in this country have been turned back from matches purely on suspicion of the likelihood of causing a breech of the peace.
JamesWales
08-05-23, 13:18
Tell that to the suffragettes.
They were fighting for a right to a voice. We all have a voice. It's profoundly different.
JamesWales
08-05-23, 13:19
Suspicion is not guilt. It is not even evidence of likely guilt. Anyone can say they "suspect" someone of something. It is no reason to arrest someone and take away their right to express their views.
Locking yourself to a fence while holding a "not my king" sign. Where is the harm in this? Is this what you class as "disorder"? Do you honestly believe that "suspecting" someone of intending to do this is a reason to infringe their human right to express their views? It is a very slippery slope.
The same right wing press who support your silly and dangerous views condemn Putin's Russia for arresting people who express THEIR view that it IS actually a war. Bizarre.
You would have to speak to the police about it. Are you saying the police should never intervene if they suspect disorder is imminent?
The comparison is Russia is laughable. The guy has been on TV talking about it. We would never have seen him again in Russia.
Father Dougal
08-05-23, 13:21
You clearly can if you suspect they weren't going to protest peacefully and were hellbent on disorder.
Maybe if we hadn't had a couple of years of people sitting in roads thinking they can do what the hell they like, then the legislation wouldn't have been needed.
Sensible people realise it was needed.
Peaceful protest is good, wilful disruption isn't.
1984 was a work of fiction but we've now gone past that!
You can literally be arrested on suspicion of being about to protest. And people like you are arguing in favour of it!
You are making a point about something else re road blockages. Once someone does that the large majority of the country would support the police doing whatever they need to do to move that person on and that person to then have a significant consequence preventing them doing it again.
Come on you may agree with what the met did and that's fine but don't argue its something else. The met were speaking to the protestors in advance about their plans etc, all was agreed only for the met to turn up at the agreed location and arrest them as they arrived.
Re my OP the police will use this against football fans also. Arrange a rendezvous point in advance etc then hold/arrest people as they arrive. Watch it happen.
SLUDGE FACTORY
08-05-23, 13:22
Guess you haven't seen the Labour position for what they will do re this new law yet.......
I was talking about tory boy's whimpering post , not the labour party position
You would have to speak to the police about it. Are you saying the police should never intervene if they suspect disorder is imminent?
The comparison is Russia is laughable. The guy has been on TV talking about it. We would never have seen him again in Russia.
"Hmm, that guy is looking a bit shifty with a backpack. No, I cant be suspicious, I'd have to wait for him to explode a bomb".
Plenty of protestors protested with zero problems.
Leaders on one group were nicked. Maybe, just maybe the police had inside intelligence as to what was being planned?
John Buchanan
08-05-23, 13:35
You would have to speak to the police about it. Are you saying the police should never intervene if they suspect disorder is imminent?
The comparison is Russia is laughable. The guy has been on TV talking about it. We would never have seen him again in Russia.
You avoid the point about Russia by changing it to wider point of the TV coverage. The main principle of arresting without proof for speaking your mind is exactly the same principle.
Having read your dangerous views on here, I SUSPECT that you are a danger to society. Therefore, following your line of thinking, you can have no argument when you are arrested and locked up.
You avoid the point about Russia by changing it to wider point of the TV coverage. The main principle of arresting without proof for speaking your mind is exactly the same principle.
Having read your dangerous views on here, I SUSPECT that you are a danger to society. Therefore, following your line of thinking, you can have no argument when you are arrested and locked up.
Is your SUSPICION based upon any intelligence you may have received about potential illegal activities by James? Yes or no?
Is your SUSPICION based upon any intelligence you may have received about potential illegal activities by James? Yes or no?
I think law enforcement use terror as an excuse at times and plenty of false flags are laid by enforcement agencies to tighten laws.
Have a look into who funds Just Stop Oil and who it funds in return
https://twitter.com/willisellit/status/1653009507847471106?s=61&t=opXYWu2ILhmySD2aRt-GNg
Father Dougal
08-05-23, 13:42
"Hmm, that guy is looking a bit shifty with a backpack. No, I cant be suspicious, I'd have to wait for him to explode a bomb".
Plenty of protestors protested with zero problems.
Leaders on one group were nicked. Maybe, just maybe the police had inside intelligence as to what was being planned?
No because there have been laws in place to prevent terrorism that have been used for years. Many people have been convicted and are in prison now and will be for a very long time yet for planning terrorism acts.
Eg cardiff related is lloyd Gunton. Did he harm anyone? Nope. Did he get a life sentence? Yep. Is that controversial? Not really.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/02/teenager-lloyd-gunton-jailed-cardiff-pop-concert-terrorist-attack-plot
We are talking about new laws here that have been used to arrest people who may have been about to stand still with a placard. Don't bring terrorism into it to make a point about something else.
Powis blue
08-05-23, 13:42
Football coaches in this country have been turned back from matches purely on suspicion of the likelihood of causing a breech of the peace.
On top of this the section 60 order was used freely against city fans. I remember our coach being held for five hours by the met on the way to a spurs midweek game back in the day. Lots of innocent city fans suffered outrageous behaviour by police forces around the country due to a small amount of morons causing trouble in the clubs name.
I think law enforcement use terror as an excuse at times and plenty of false flags are laid by enforcement agencies to tighten laws.
Have a look into who funds Just Stop Oil.
https://twitter.com/willisellit/status/1653009507847471106?s=61&t=opXYWu2ILhmySD2aRt-GNg
False flags, lol.
"Just stop oil" have always been loons, hypocritical loons. Vince of course backs them because getting rid of that pesky oil should help his business.
No because there have been laws in place to prevent terrorism that have been used for years. Many people have been convicted and are in prison now and will be for a very long time yet for planning terrorism acts.
Eg cardiff related is lloyd Gunton. Did he harm anyone? Nope. Did he get a life sentence? Yep. Is that controversial? Not really.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/02/teenager-lloyd-gunton-jailed-cardiff-pop-concert-terrorist-attack-plot
We are talking about new laws here that have been used to arrest people who may have been about to stand still with a placard. Don't bring terrorism into it to make a point about something else.
The bomb example was less to do with terrorism and more to address the point of waiting for something to happen before arresting.
Another example which isn't terrorism then. If it become known that I might have said I was on my way to your place with a baseball bat to smash your head in I very much doubt you'd be using your same argument if I was to be arrested whilst on the way to do said deed.
Plenty of people standing still with placards weren't arrested. Care to explain why not?
SLUDGE FACTORY
08-05-23, 13:47
On top of this the section 60 order was used freely against city fans. I remember our coach being held for five hours by the met on the way to a spurs midweek game back in the day. Lots of innocent city fans suffered outrageous behaviour by police forces around the country due to a small amount of morons causing trouble in the clubs name.
They stopped our bus up at Stoke with that nonsense , a copper came on board reading from a book
It was laughable
Father Dougal
08-05-23, 13:50
The bomb example was less to do with terrorism and more to address the point of waiting for something to happen before arresting.
Another example which isn't terrorism then. If it become known that I might have said I was on my way to your place with a baseball bat to smash your head in I very much doubt you'd be using your same argument if I was to be arrested whilst on the way to do said deed.
Plenty of people standing still with placards weren't arrested. Care to explain why not?
If you had a baseball bat then you could be arrested for that under current laws. Once again you are using laws that already exist and aren't really controversial to justify new laws. :thumbup:
If you had a baseball bat then you could be arrested for that under current laws. Once again you are using laws that already exist and aren't really controversial to justify new laws. :thumbup:
No, I'd be on my way to play baseball in a park with mates.
Since you want to attempt sophistry then, I'm unarmed apart from fists and feet of steel, honed by watching Cobra Kai and thus would be spin kicking your head off.
Would you still be using the same argument given I'd committed no offence?
Canton Kev
08-05-23, 13:55
They were fighting for a right to a voice. We all have a voice. It's profoundly different.
Should’ve done that fighting peacefully
They stopped our bus up at Stoke with that nonsense , a copper came on board reading from a book
It was laughable
Thatcher brought that shitty law in - Flying Picketts - and they applied it to football fans
Father Dougal
08-05-23, 13:57
No, I'd be on my way to play baseball in a park with mates.
Since you want to attempt sophistry then, I'm unarmed apart from fists and feet of steel, honed by watching Cobra Kai and thus would be spin kicking your head off.
Would you still be using the same argument given I'd committed no offence?
In this scenario I would be happy with calling the police to give them a heads up then in the unlikely scenario you did actually turn up you could then be arrested if you did anything. I'd lock the door and call the police when you turned up knocking or shouting (public order offence would then have been committed) and restraining orders etc could then be in place. Video evidence would also be used. The phone calls in advance to the police would be used as evidence against you in court to ensure you got a long sentence- as well as any texts or calls received in advance of threats.
In this scenario I would be happy with calling the police to give them a heads up then in the unlikely scenario you did actually turn up you could then be arrested if you did anything. I'd lock the door and call the police when you turned up knocking or shouting (public order offence would then have been committed) and restraining orders etc could then be in place. Video evidence would also be used. The phone calls in advance to the police would be used as evidence against you in court to ensure you got a long sentence- as well as any texts or calls received in advance of threats.
So you'd be calling the police to report a crime that hadn't happened, which you had no knowledge of happening? Wouldn't that be wasting police time, hmm?
Knocking a door is a public order offence is it? You sure about that?
You know full well that with credible suspicion from your phone call, police would be entitled to pull me over.
Now, going back to the question that seems to be unanswered by people like you, how do you explain the very many protestors who were NOT arrested during the coronation then?
So you'd be calling the police to report a crime that hadn't happened, which you had no knowledge of happening? Wouldn't that be wasting police time, hmm?
Knocking a door is a public order offence is it? You sure about that?
You know full well that with credible suspicion from your phone call, police would be entitled to pull me over.
Now, going back to the question that seems to be unanswered by people like you, how do you explain the very many protestors who were NOT arrested during the coronation then?
Are you a traffic warden or something :hehe:
Father Dougal
08-05-23, 14:13
So you'd be calling the police to report a crime that hadn't happened, which you had no knowledge of happening? Wouldn't that be wasting police time, hmm?
Knocking a door is a public order offence is it? You sure about that?
You know full well that with credible suspicion from your phone call, police would be entitled to pull me over.
Now, going back to the question that seems to be unanswered by people like you, how do you explain the very many protestors who were NOT arrested during the coronation then?
You don't work in law enforcement do you?
Re your first point yes you absolutely can log calls with the police before things have happened and these are often used as evidence in court if something does then happen.
And yes maybe the police could speak to you and give you words of advice. If you ignored them that would also be used as evidence. They wouldn't need to arrest you.
Just because some people didn't get arrested for holding a placard (accepted) doesn't make it ok that others were. Is that the only argument? Ah but not everyone was arrested......
Just because some people didn't get arrested for holding a placard (accepted) doesn't make it ok that others were. Is that the only argument? Ah but not everyone was arrested......
Since you finally answered the question...
The argument made was that the powers in place were being used to stop protests.
You've accepted protests were allowed.
A small minority of protestors were arrested.
Do you now accept that maybe, just maybe, those arrests were nothing to do with the new powers and maybe due to having credible intelligence that the planned protests by that small group may not have been as peaceful as claimed?
Father Dougal
08-05-23, 14:39
Since you finally answered the question...
The argument made was that the powers in place were being used to stop protests.
You've accepted protests were allowed.
A small minority of protestors were arrested.
Do you now accept that maybe, just maybe, those arrests were nothing to do with the new powers and maybe due to having credible intelligence that the planned protests by that small group may not have been as peaceful as claimed?
The point though is the the arrests yesterday even if no credible threat or intelligence were still lawful. The new laws have made sure of that (hence the controversy) and just because not every single person was arrested doesn't mean many can't be- or weren't.
If there was a credible threat etc then as I said above many laws (which aren't controversial) are already in place to deal with.
Its clever PR from the tories. Use a law that already exists (note everyone defending the law is using laws that already existed to justify it) to justify bringing in a completely new law which gives a whole load of new powers of arrest.
The point though is the the arrests yesterday even if no credible threat or intelligence were still lawful. The new laws have made sure of that (hence the controversy) and just because not every single person was arrested doesn't mean many can't be- or weren't.
If there was a credible threat etc then as I said above many laws (which aren't controversial) are already in place to deal with.
Its clever PR from the tories. Use a law that already exists (note everyone defending the law is using laws that already existed to justify it) to justify bringing in a completely new law which gives a whole load of new powers of arrest.
So in that case, why were only a small minority of protestors arrested?
Why complain about the new powers when you're claiming the arrests were awful under the old ones - that indicates the new powers weren't being abused?
As usual it's got a be a Tory conspiracy.
Father Dougal
08-05-23, 14:49
So in that case, why were only a small minority of protestors arrested?
Why complain about the new powers when you're claiming the arrests were awful under the old ones - that indicates the new powers weren't being abused?
No. You are now claiming the arrests must have been due to some intelligence or conspiracy.for terrorism or something. I was saying if that was the case the new laws werent needed.
You have completely made this up yourself.and are proving the point. The people arrested were told what they were arrested for and it was the new laws that were used. The met have said what they were arrested for also.
So is your point the new laws were not actually used yesterday? Or is it they were used and they were used for purposes other than so far stated by the met?
No. You are now claiming the arrests must have been due to some intelligence or conspiracy.for terrorism or something. I was saying if that was the case the new laws werent needed.
You have completely made this up yourself.and are proving the point. The people arrested were told what they were arrested for and it was the new laws that were used. The met have said what they were arrested for also.
So is your point the new laws were not actually used yesterday? Or is it they were used and they were used for purposes other than so far stated by the met?
I'm saying that there's a good chance credible intelligence was used due to the fact a small minority of protestors were arrested.
The left have continually state the powers are used to suppress protests and that was the intent.
The powers used, as you claim, are nothing more than extensions of current law to cover the changes in protesting tactics and have clearly not been used to suppress lawful protest.
if police across the UK were using these powers, how come so few across the whole of the UK were arrested?
Elwood Blues
08-05-23, 14:55
You can’t arrest people based on ifs and buts. There had been meetings about this.
Well,yes you can actually
When someone is arrested on suspicion of an offence it is often a case of ifs and buts.
"Credible intelligence"🤣🤣🤣
Remember, only protest if you and your group sit quietly in a corner, are quiet and don't inconvenience anybody. Be the good little plebs that you are and lick thy boot.
Remember, only protest if you and your group sit quietly in a corner, are quiet and don't inconvenience anybody. Be the good little plebs that you are and lick thy boot.
Apart from those protesting yesterday who were chanting, had placards which you conveniently ignore like a good little class warrior.
Father Dougal
08-05-23, 14:59
I'm saying that there's a good chance credible intelligence was used due to the fact a small minority of protestors were arrested.
The left have continually state the powers are used to suppress protests and that was the intent.
The powers used, as you claim, are nothing more than extensions of current law to cover the changes in protesting tactics and have clearly not been used to suppress lawful protest.
if police across the UK were using these powers, how come so few across the whole of the UK were arrested?
Or perhaps more likely maybe the mistake they made was discussing and agreeing locations and plans with the police.
The police perhaps then used this info to be waiting for them to arrest them and seize the vans with the placards in when they arrived at the agreed location.
the other bob wilson
08-05-23, 15:01
We really could do with that forelock tugger Emoji - lots of them on here today.
https://twitter.com/richfelgate/status/1655199737471959041?s=20
Or perhaps more likely maybe the mistake they made was discussing and agreeing locations and plans with the police.
The police perhaps then used this info to be waiting for them to arrest them and seize the vans with the placards in when they arrived at the agreed location.
Right, so having done that, they police then decided to just ignore those protestors chanting with placards then, why bother arresting those eh?
Must just have been a London thing go, given protestors around the UK not being arrested.
Father Dougal
08-05-23, 15:05
Right, so having done that, they police then decided to just ignore those protestors chanting with placards then, why bother arresting those eh?
Must just have been a London thing go, given protestors around the UK not being arrested.
Ah I see you are moving the debate entirely away from anyone who was arrested or the new laws and the only point you have left is to point out not every single person was arrested yesterday across the UK.
We really could do with that forelock tugger Emoji - lots of them on here today.
https://twitter.com/richfelgate/status/1655199737471959041?s=20
Yes, a tweet with no context prior to the arrests is of course clear evidence of police evilness.
Still, a "journalist" embedded with Just Stop Oil, making a documentary on them couldn't possibly have reason to allege wrongdoing, eh?
Ah I see you are moving the debate entirely away from anyone who was arrested or the new laws and the only point you have left is to point out not every single person was arrested yesterday across the UK.
No, the point being made was that people were whining whilst contradicting themselves.
"These laws stop peaceful protest!"
Peaceful protests abounded across the Uk, including Westminster.
You conveniently skirting round that because you'd rather pursue a "Tory, police evil!" dogma rather than accepting that maybe the small number of arrests were for good reason.
the other bob wilson
08-05-23, 15:18
Yes, a tweet with no context prior to the arrests is of course clear evidence of police evilness.
Still, a "journalist" embedded with Just Stop Oil, making a documentary on them couldn't possibly have reason to allege wrongdoing, eh?
Sorry, I’ve decided not to bother with smug multis.
Father Dougal
08-05-23, 15:45
No, the point being made was that people were whining whilst contradicting themselves.
"These laws stop peaceful protest!"
Peaceful protests abounded across the Uk, including Westminster.
You conveniently skirting round that because you'd rather pursue a "Tory, police evil!" dogma rather than accepting that maybe the small number of arrests were for good reason.
This is the United Nations commenting on Sunak’s Public Order Act - the one that allowed the police to arrest peaceful protesters (even before they began protesting!).
“Deeply concerning”
“Incompatible… with human rights”
No they ain’t talking about Sudan, Iran, or Russia!
So you claim the United nations motivation for saying this is what? Are they pursuing an anti tory agenda also?
Coronation: Met Police express 'regret' over arresting six anti-monarchy protesters
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65527007
No, the point being made was that people were whining whilst contradicting themselves.
"These laws stop peaceful protest!"
Peaceful protests abounded across the Uk, including Westminster.
You conveniently skirting round that because you'd rather pursue a "Tory, police evil!" dogma rather than accepting that maybe the small number of arrests were for good reason.
No way were they right.
Father Dougal
08-05-23, 22:44
Coronation: Met Police express 'regret' over arresting six anti-monarchy protesters
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65527007
Wonder what logic and jameswales will say about what the met now say themselves?!
All very predictable. There will be a review. Will say Lessons learned. Apologies will come. Then they will do it all again.
Mr Soul '68
09-05-23, 18:09
Peaceful protest is good, wilful disruption isn't.
Peaceful protest does F*ck All!! The only time Thatcher's govt took notice of a protest was the Poll Tax Uprising. We need to be more like the French when protesting.
Peaceful protest does F*ck All!! The only time Thatcher's govt took notice of a protest was the Poll Tax Uprising. We need to be more like the French when protesting.
Every farmer will sht themselves each time they get in their tractors, for fear of arrest.
Peaceful protest does F*ck All!! The only time Thatcher's govt took notice of a protest was the Poll Tax Uprising. We need to be more like the French when protesting.
That’s why the French demonstrations are getting little or no coverage here.
Wales-Bales
09-05-23, 18:28
Peaceful protest does F*ck All!! The only time Thatcher's govt took notice of a protest was the Poll Tax Uprising. We need to be more like the French when protesting.Lemmings jump off cliffs, they don't don't do uprisings!
splott parker
09-05-23, 18:49
We’re absolutely useless in this country.... Government...’You all have to work x amount of years more now before you can claim state pension, even though you men were always told it would be aged 65 when you were eligible’.... Us....’Ah well, there you go, never mind’
Government...’You women who worked as well as bringing up families all your life, you know you we told you that your state pension would kick in at 60, well, hard luck, it’s 67 now’..... WASPI women..’We’re not having that, we’re fighting for legitimate back pay’.....Government....’Oh, go away, you silly women’.
A prospective government will eventually give it to them no doubt when they’ve dwindled to a couple of hundred 90 odd year olds.
Our population is weak as f*ck, I envy the bollocks of the French masses.
We’re absolutely useless in this country.... Government...’You all have to work x amount of years more now before you can claim state pension, even though you men were always told it would be aged 65 when you were eligible’.... Us....’Ah well, there you go, never mind’
Government...’You women who worked as well as bringing up families all your life, you know you we told you that your state pension would kick in at 60, well, hard luck, it’s 67 now’..... WASPI women..’We’re not having that, we’re fighting for legitimate back pay’.....Government....’Oh, go away, you silly women’.
A prospective government will eventually give it to them no doubt when they’ve dwindled to a couple of hundred 90 odd year olds.
Our population is weak as f*ck, I envy the bollocks of the French masses.
Absolutely and they dont take puerile shit like monarchies. Frogs deserve piles of respect.
Absolutely and they dont take puerile shit like monarchies. Frogs deserve piles of respect.
Frogs ? Hmmmm
Anyway, the coronation was the first test of the oppressive Public Order Act and the Met Police have messed up that test spectacularly.
These new laws allow those with power to silence those without. Not good
Wales-Bales
10-05-23, 08:26
Frogs ? Hmmmm
Anyway, the coronation was the first test of the oppressive Public Order Act and the Met Police have messed up that test spectacularly.
These new laws allow those with power to silence those without. Not goodMany laws have been passed that were later recycled. We wouldn't have been locked down if it wasn't for a piece of 2008 legislation passed under Brown.
I would be very interested to see if there was any pressure from on high for the police to disrupt the entirely legitimate Republic protest.
Even if they had been "tipped off" that they were going to do something overly disruptive the police would have seen almost immediately that they were only there with pretty innocuous placards - no superglue or handcuffs etc and should have released them on the spot.
Many laws have been passed that were later recycled. We wouldn't have been locked down if it wasn't for a piece of 2008 legislation passed under Brown.
I think as it was “global” we would have , and because it was global ………I think this chap has a point
https://twitter.com/jude99_/status/1655974634452295680?s=61&t=opXYWu2ILhmySD2aRt-GNg
"Hmm, that guy is looking a bit shifty with a backpack. No, I cant be suspicious, I'd have to wait for him to explode a bomb".
Plenty of protestors protested with zero problems.
Leaders on one group were nicked. Maybe, just maybe the police had inside intelligence as to what was being planned?
Riddle me this, Mr No, how come the Met released them all with no further action if they had this "intelligence"?
Wales-Bales
10-05-23, 10:19
I think as it was “global” we would have , and because it was global ………I think this chap has a point
https://twitter.com/jude99_/status/1655974634452295680?s=61&t=opXYWu2ILhmySD2aRt-GNgAll countries pass laws that can be repurposed. Let's see what happens with the WHO pandemic treaty.
ninian opinian
11-05-23, 14:09
If you think it won’t be you next, then read this. This arrest at the Coronation is an absolute cracker.
https://twitter.com/steverobson04/status/1656644951978004483?s=61&t=ESQzxNMxZQyp-iO2wYo4Kg
If you think it won’t be you next, then read this. This arrest at the Coronation is an absolute cracker.
https://twitter.com/steverobson04/status/1656644951978004483?s=61&t=ESQzxNMxZQyp-iO2wYo4Kg
arrested on no evidence and forced to miss a once I a lifetime event that she'd probably spent a fair bit on attending.
would she have grounds for some kind of compensation?
arrested on no evidence and forced to miss a once I a lifetime event that she'd probably spent a fair bit on attending.
would she have grounds for some kind of compensation?
She should really join the protestors next time.
ninian opinian
11-05-23, 15:30
arrested on no evidence and forced to miss a once I a lifetime event that she'd probably spent a fair bit on attending.
would she have grounds for some kind of compensation?
Absolutely she willl.
the other bob wilson
11-05-23, 15:38
If you think it won’t be you next, then read this. This arrest at the Coronation is an absolute cracker.
https://twitter.com/steverobson04/status/1656644951978004483?s=61&t=ESQzxNMxZQyp-iO2wYo4Kg
Disgraceful, this is the closest the UK has been to being a fascist state in my lifetime.
JamesWales
11-05-23, 15:40
Disgraceful, this is the closest the UK has been to being a fascist state in my lifetime.
That is absolutely ridiculous.
Because someone stood next to people who very very very likely were there to disrupt the event was held by mistake for a period of time and then released? In fascist states, such people don't get their stories shared on twitter!
For months and months Just Stop Oil have been completely disrupting people's livelihoods and day to day lives with numerous consequences.
It's very unfortunate for this lady and she should explore grounds for recourse. But fascism?
There quite literally are people in this country who would have gladly thrown a bomb at this event. Just Stop Oil are not like that, but the police had an incredibly difficult job. It's amazing how many people don't recognise it, jump on any issue and label it fascism.
the other bob wilson
11-05-23, 15:46
That is absolutely ridiculous.
We’ve had this conversation before and I still think you’re wrong - what period of your life time better suits the description?
Surprised to see you in this thread again after your previous contributions to it.
Disgraceful, this is the closest the UK has been to being a fascist state in my lifetime.
Censorship, (and there has been plenty of that ) in whatever form it takes, is always the most obvious and surest indicator of evil at work, and of where that evil resides.
As far as I know nobody has ever censored a lie.
Censorship, (and there has been plenty of that ) in whatever form it takes, is always the most obvious and surest indicator of evil at work, and of where that evil resides.
As far as I know nobody has ever censored a lie.
of course people have censored lies in the past
of course people have censored lies in the past
Really, they are normally just ignored or ridiculed.
If you think it won’t be you next, then read this. This arrest at the Coronation is an absolute cracker.
https://twitter.com/steverobson04/status/1656644951978004483?s=61&t=ESQzxNMxZQyp-iO2wYo4Kg
Absolutely shocking! An utter disgrace!
Really, they are normally just ignored or ridiculed.
pretty much every social media sites have mechanisms for removing unsubstantiated or erroneous information presented as facts.
or to put it another way, censoring lies.
sometimes the lies can be extremely harmful i.e. "MMR vaccines causing autism "
pretty much every social media sites have mechanisms for removing unsubstantiated or erroneous information presented as facts.
or to put it another way, censoring lies.
sometimes the lies can be extremely harmful i.e. "MMR vaccines causing autism "
Yes I guess you correct on that in respect of social media , but I was referring to the main news platforms and news agencies. They, in the main, have mechanisms that remove content its main financial benefactors don’t want people to see. Free speech as we know it is being censored.
Absolutely shocking! An utter disgrace!
BBC News - Coronation: Royal fan held for 13 hours after being mistaken for protester
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65567316
JamesWales
12-05-23, 09:56
We’ve had this conversation before and I still think you’re wrong - what period of your life time better suits the description?
Surprised to see you in this thread again after your previous contributions to it.
Well, firstly I wouldn't use such language cos I think it's hyperbolic. You could argue that any other govt on earth is either moving towards fascism or Stalinism in that case. It's quite Trumpian way of looking at it. So no, even if I viewed this new law as being such, I wouldn't view any shift to the right as a step to fascism and I don't view the govt taking over Trans Pennine trains as evidence we are on the road to communism either.
That said, to answer the question, I would say that by a country mile the closest we have been was during Covid when the govt successfully kept us indoors, any dissent was not allowed, criticism derided as anti-science, cash was refused in many places and enormous rights were taken away.
So in my lifetime the closest we've been by far was then.
the other bob wilson
12-05-23, 11:46
Well, firstly I wouldn't use such language cos I think it's hyperbolic. You could argue that any other govt on earth is either moving towards fascism or Stalinism in that case. It's quite Trumpian way of looking at it. So no, even if I viewed this new law as being such, I wouldn't view any shift to the right as a step to fascism and I don't view the govt taking over Trans Pennine trains as evidence we are on the road to communism either.
That said, to answer the question, I would say that by a country mile the closest we have been was during Covid when the govt successfully kept us indoors, any dissent was not allowed, criticism derided as anti-science, cash was refused in many places and enormous rights were taken away.
So in my lifetime the closest we've been by far was then.
Right, so your answer is the same Government as I nominated, yet it’s “absolutely ridiculous” whenI say it :shrug:
JamesWales
12-05-23, 12:08
Right, so your answer is the same Government as I nominated, yet it’s “absolutely ridiculous” whenI say it :shrug:
No, I said this: ."So no, even if I viewed this new law as being such, I wouldn't view any shift to the right as a step to fascism and I don't view the govt taking over Trans Pennine trains as evidence we are on the road to communism either."
Also, the rules here were set by the Welsh Govt. So actually, in the hypothetical world where we are heading to fascism, my example is from the Welsh Labour govt and the UK Tory govt.
It is, in my opinion, ridiculous to mention fascism in relation to this story.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.