Brave Lady

[lardy]

Re: Brave Lady

2012 election

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20120888

https://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/wp-co...eview/2012.pdf

That is not Ukraine's current government.

[NYCBlue]

Re: Brave Lady

2012 election

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20120888

https://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/wp-co...eview/2012.pdf

You think that bloke is Ukraine's president? Where do you get your news?

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/04/15/five-key-things-to-know-about-ukraines-presidential-election/

[TWGL1]

Re: Brave Lady

You think that bloke is Ukraine's president? Where do you get your news?

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order...tial-election/

In 2014 there was a democratically elected leader who was pro Russian who was then ousted in an uprising which was driven by the west via social media and backed by neo - nazi Ukrainian groups. It’s a long and complicated history between the two nations , who were the same country 33 years ago.

Have a look a Oliver Stones documentary which was produced in 2016

What do you think we were doing in Afghanistan, Iraq ,and Syria for balance ?

There is a wealth if information out there if you’re prepared to look.

[delmbox]

Re: Brave Lady

This is utter rubbish. Our Government is democratically elected and elections held every four/five years. To even compare this to what goes on in Russia is an insult to the thousands of people that have died at the hands of Putin and other similar despot rulers.

He's not directly comparing our Government with the worst of what Russia does and he's not insulting anyone who's suffered at their hands. I think his point is that it's a bit rich to judge people for not protesting when they could get imprisoned for 10 years or worse, when we allow our Government to screw us over consistently without a peep, and we don't have those fears over us (although they're actually trying to clamp down on our rights to protest via the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill)

[blue matt]

Re: Brave Lady

2012 election

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20120888

https://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/wp-co...eview/2012.pdf

The Maidan revolution ( 2013 - 14 ) took place between 2012 and now, 2014 they had a election ( after the maidan revolution ) then then again in 5 years ( 2019 )

things have changed massively since 2012

[blue matt]

Re: Brave Lady

In 2014 there was a democratically elected leader who was pro Russian who was then ousted in an uprising which was driven by the west via social media and backed by neo - nazi Ukrainian groups. It’s a long and complicated history between the two nations , who were the same country 33 years ago.

Have a look a Oliver Stones documentary which was produced in 2016

What do you think we were doing in Afghanistan, Iraq ,and Syria for balance ?

There is a wealth if information out there if you’re prepared to look.

pretty sure a few lay-about students were the first to protest at Maidan square in November 2013, the rest ( inc Neo - nazi groups ) got involved when the Berkut decided to storm the protest and smash some heads in

[TWGL1]

Re: Brave Lady

pretty sure a few lay-about students were the first to protest at Maidan square in November 2013, the rest ( inc Neo - nazi groups ) got involved when the Berkut decided to storm the protest and smash some heads in

What about the treatment of ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine?

I’m sure there is good and bad on both sides and what’s been happening since 2014 is appalling.

[JamesWales]

Re: Brave Lady

He's not directly comparing our Government with the worst of what Russia does and he's not insulting anyone who's suffered at their hands. I think his point is that it's a bit rich to judge people for not protesting when they could get imprisoned for 10 years or worse, when we allow our Government to screw us over consistently without a peep, and we don't have those fears over us (although they're actually trying to clamp down on our rights to protest via the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill)

No they aren't. There are no restrictions on the right to protest within it.

There are consequences if you endlessly harass with noise, or block roads etc.

You are right that it is unfair to be overly critical of people's lack of protests in a country with severe penalties for it though.

[JamesWales]

Re: Brave Lady

In 2014 there was a democratically elected leader who was pro Russian who was then ousted in an uprising which was driven by the west via social media and backed by neo - nazi Ukrainian groups. It’s a long and complicated history between the two nations , who were the same country 33 years ago.

Have a look a Oliver Stones documentary which was produced in 2016

What do you think we were doing in Afghanistan, Iraq ,and Syria for balance ?

There is a wealth if information out there if you’re prepared to look.

This stuff is important. I am concerned about quite how rabidly pro-Ukrainian people are being, in a nation state sense. The support and sympathy absolutely belongs to the people, and I am 100% on Ukraines side, but there is a degree of naivity about it all.

Whilst Russia unequivocally is in the wrong, not everyone fighting the Russian invasion shares our values. And that is a lesson from history that we shouldn't forget.

[Raymond Holt]

Re: Brave Lady

No they aren't. There are no restrictions on the right to protest within it.

There are consequences if you endlessly harass with noise, or block roads etc.

You are right that it is unfair to be overly critical of people's lack of protests in a country with severe penalties for it though.

Yes they are. It states in the government's own factsheet:

Provisions in the Bill will:

• Widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on static protests to match existing police powers to impose conditions on marches.

• Broaden the range of circumstances in which police may impose conditions on a protest.

It goes on to say:

"the police will only be able to impose conditions on unjustifiably noisy protests that cause harm to others or prevent an organisation from operating.

The threshold for being able to impose conditions on noisy protests will be appropriately high. Police will only use it in cases where it is deemed necessary and proportionate.

For an upcoming protest, the Chief Constable of the relevant force will be responsible for making the decision of whether the threshold is likely to be met. For a protest already taking place, the most senior officer at the scene will decide if the threshold is likely to be met. Depending on the circumstances, the senior officer would typically be an Inspector, Chief Inspector, or Superintendent."

So they are broadening the range of conditions that police can impose and broadening the range of circumstances in which they can impose them. Sounds a lot like 'restriction' to me :sherlock:

"impose conditions on" is their way of saying prevent the protest from taking place, start arresting people etc. and when the protest reaches that point will be decided by the police officer in charge on the day. That decision will be made based on a list of unquantifiable, vague criteria, allowing the police officer to make an arbitrary decision.

They are also making trespass a criminal offence, rather than a civil offence, which I imagine, will massively restrict people's ability to occupy buildings for example, without facing serious criminal charges. This also has serious implications for the traveller community.

[JamesWales]

Re: Brave Lady

Yes they are. It states in the government's own factsheet:

Provisions in the Bill will:

• Widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on static protests to match existing police powers to impose conditions on marches.

• Broaden the range of circumstances in which police may impose conditions on a protest.

It goes on to say:

"the police will only be able to impose conditions on unjustifiably noisy protests that cause harm to others or prevent an organisation from operating.

The threshold for being able to impose conditions on noisy protests will be appropriately high. Police will only use it in cases where it is deemed necessary and proportionate.

For an upcoming protest, the Chief Constable of the relevant force will be responsible for making the decision of whether the threshold is likely to be met. For a protest already taking place, the most senior officer at the scene will decide if the threshold is likely to be met. Depending on the circumstances, the senior officer would typically be an Inspector, Chief Inspector, or Superintendent."

So they are broadening the range of conditions that police can impose and broadening the range of circumstances in which they can impose them. Sounds a lot like 'restriction' to me :sherlock:

"impose conditions on" is their way of saying prevent the protest from taking place, start arresting people etc. and when the protest reaches that point will be decided by the police officer in charge on the day. That decision will be made based on a list of unquantifiable, vague criteria, allowing the police officer to make an arbitrary decision.

They are also making trespass a criminal offence, rather than a civil offence, which I imagine, will massively restrict people's ability to occupy buildings for example, without facing serious criminal charges. This also has serious implications for the traveller community.

I am willing to bet £100 with you now, that no right to protest will be made illegal. The terms of the protest may change, but that has always been the case.

When we protested the rebrand by marching, permission was first sought to close the roads etc etc etc.

Theres always restrictions on protest. Surely you don't think it right for people to blast a loud speaker outside Mark Drakefords house 24/7 or block the M4 because we don't like a certain law for example?

A right to protest is critical (I've been on loads myself) but there are limits that, for example, Extinction Rebellion pushed too far.

Anyway, all of this pales into insignificance compared to what is happening in Ukraine and Russia. We are lucky as hell.

[Raymond Holt]

Re: Brave Lady

I am willing to bet £100 with you now, that no right to protest will be made illegal. The terms of the protest may change, but that has always been the case.

When we protested the rebrand by marching, permission was first sought to close the roads etc etc etc.

Theres always restrictions on protest. Surely you don't think it right for people to blast a loud speaker outside Mark Drakefords house 24/7 or block the M4 because we don't like a certain law for example?

A right to protest is critical (I've been on loads myself) but there are limits that, for example, Extinction Rebellion pushed too far.

Anyway, all of this pales into insignificance compared to what is happening in Ukraine and Russia. We are lucky as hell.

So if you want to protest by trespassing, which under the new bill is a criminal offence, they are criminalising that method of protest. I'd prefer a bank transfer, will PM you my account details.

So you think you should have to seek permission to protest? Which means that the police can decide which causes are valid and which ones aren't. Right.

But at least it's not Russia, so we should just be grateful, shut up and get on with it. Hold on, isn't that how we got onto this in the first place? :shrug:

[Wash DC Blue]

Re: Brave Lady

So a thread dedicated to Marina Ovsyannikova descends into domestic political point scoring.

Yay!

[JamesWales]

Re: Brave Lady

So a thread dedicated to Marina Ovsyannikova descends into domestic political point scoring.

Yay!

Standard.

And a change in UK law to stop people blocking roads to prevent ambulances passing suddenly becomes comparable to Russia.

It's mad. All this stuff boils up on twitter but it's always a stew with very little meat in it.

[jon1959]

Re: Brave Lady

This stuff is important. I am concerned about quite how rabidly pro-Ukrainian people are being, in a nation state sense. The support and sympathy absolutely belongs to the people, and I am 100% on Ukraines side, but there is a degree of naivity about it all.

Whilst Russia unequivocally is in the wrong, not everyone fighting the Russian invasion shares our values. And that is a lesson from history that we shouldn't forget.

I agree with most of that, but not all of 'us' share what you call 'our values' either. There have been a few reports in the last few days of Ukranian neo-Nazi groups recruiting volunteer fighters in the UK, and a raft of European and American far right nationalists (some of them white supremacists) piling in to Ukraine. Russia is in the wrong and Russia is the aggressor this time, but this is not the simplistic goodies v baddies conflict that much of the media and political caste are presenting.

It also exposes new depths of hypocrisy by the authorities. Celtic are fined by FIFA for their fans displaying Palestinian flags. No one will be fined for showing Ukranian flags anywhere. We have bucket collections for Ukraine (quite rightly) but no public/press/political outcry about Yemen where the death toll is massively higher. And our Prime Minister flies into Saudi Arabia to smooch with the regime in the middle of a new state bloodbath of executions (including those convicted after torture, as children, for political or religious opposition and for 'deviant' beliefs). If 'our values' also includes Boris Johnson and his gang then include me out!

However, from what I have seen and read I would happily endorse and support the values of Marina Ovsyannikova. I hope she gets some protection from the scale of international media and social media coverage of her brave action.