Palestine Action

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Indeed, but they are a proscribed group so she chose to wear that t-shirt knowing she would be arrested and the costs and officer time that entailed.

---

It’s called making a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

And here he comes, right on cue.

---

It's correct. And if it wasn't a cause you personally cared about then you wouldn't care less.

The groups proscribed. They knew they faced arrest. 🤷

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

It's correct. And if it wasn't a cause you personally cared about then you wouldn't care less.

The groups proscribed. They knew they faced arrest. ��

---

And yet all of those people did because they know, as do most of the country I reckon, that, in this case, the law is an ass. I find that impressive, you, on the other hand, could have let Delmbox’s post go and kept out of the conversation, but, instead you have to act the contrarian again and make yourself look a bit of a prat in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

And yet all of those people did because they know, as do most of the country I reckon, that, in this case, the law is an ass. I find that impressive, you, on the other hand, could have let Delmbox’s post go and kept out of the conversation, but, instead you have to act the contrarian again and make yourself look a bit of a prat in the process.

---

Quit clutching those pearls Bob. The people were arrested because it's a proscribed group. It's no great surprise is it? Like I said, you wouldn't care less if it wasn't a cause you cared about, but the police have to apply the law equally, and without favour no? Everyone's like oooh mmmy godd...they arrested people. Well, yes, they did. And that's cos they showed support for an illegal group. Not a big surprise is it?!

I doubt most of the public do support damaging British military equipment actually, not sure on your figures there.

I know it's a bigger crime on here to disagree with you than to support a proscribed group, but we are allowed to comment on posts! I could say that you didn't need to reply to mine!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Quit clutching those pearls Bob. The people were arrested because it's a proscribed group. It's no great surprise is it? Like I said, you wouldn't care less if it wasn't a cause you cared about, but the police have to apply the law equally, and without favour no? Everyone's like oooh mmmy godd...they arrested people. Well, yes, they did. And that's cos they showed support for an illegal group. Not a big surprise is it?!

I doubt most of the public do support damaging British military equipment actually, not sure on your figures there.

I know it's a bigger crime on here to disagree with you than to support a proscribed group, but we are allowed to comment on posts! I could say that you didn't need to reply to mine!

---

So you reckon that, like you, most of the country backs the arrest of a disabled blind man for wearing a T shirt with a “naughty” message on it? This country is a nastier, less empathetic place than at any time in my life, but it’s not reached that stage yet - for someone who likes to describe themselves as a voice of reason, your views are becoming ever more extreme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

So you reckon that, like you, most of the country backs the arrest of a disabled blind man for wearing a T shirt with a “naughty” message on it? This country is a nastier, less empathetic place than at any time in my life, but it’s not reached that stage yet - for someone who likes to describe themselves as a voice of reason, your views are becoming ever more extreme.

---

Yes but that's the reality on the ground of showing support for a group who have been proscribed. An old lady supporting Palestine Action, a disabled chap supporting National Action or young militant supporting Harakat-Ul-Jihad-Ul-Islami (whoever they are). That's the reality of it. The list of those groups is here. If you show support for them, you risk arrest. Doesn't (and shouldn't) matter your age. That's why they were arrested, it comes as a surprise to no one, least of all those arrested. They knew what they were doing.

None of them should face hefty fines or sentences in my opinion, which is pretty different situation to how many who have posted "naughty messages' have faced, but I do find it arrogant that people think the law should not apply to them.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ssible-version

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

So you reckon that, like you, most of the country backs the arrest of a disabled blind man for wearing a T shirt with a “naughty” message on it? This country is a nastier, less empathetic place than at any time in my life, but it’s not reached that stage yet - for someone who likes to describe themselves as a voice of reason, your views are becoming ever more extreme.

---

Sorry Bob but I think you misunderstand James. This particular case is all about respect for the rule of law first and foremost. So if hordes of non-threatening sympathisers get arrested because they view the law that proscribed Palestine Action was unjust then so be it. The underlying cause that both Palestine Action and those arrested got their just desserts is secondary.

Likewise when he thought the most important thing to focus on during the Southport riots was not the behaviour of people trying to firebomb, lawless as it was, but the underlying causes that brought drunken and triggered hordes onto the streets you have to respect his views.

Hope that helps getting on his wavelength.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Sorry Bob but I think you misunderstand James. This particular case is all about respect for the rule of law first and foremost. So if hordes of non-threatening sympathisers get arrested because they view the law that proscribed Palestine Action was unjust then so be it. The underlying cause that both Palestine Action and those arrested got their just desserts is secondary.

Likewise when he thought the most important thing to focus on during the Southport riots was not the behaviour of people trying to firebomb, lawless as it was, but the underlying causes that brought drunken and triggered hordes onto the streets you have to respect his views.

Hope that helps getting on his wavelength.

---

Zzzz. And you are normally so forensic!

There are always underlying causes.

Showing support for a proscribed group will get you arrested.

Not too much more complicated than that, is it?

Or do you think the law shouldn't apply to causes that you personally support?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Zzzz. And you are normally so forensic!

There are always underlying causes.

Showing support for a proscribed group will get you arrested.

Not too much more complicated than that, is it?

Or do you think the law shouldn't apply to causes that you personally support?

---

Think you had a fair sight of goal there James, looks like a scuffed finish!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Think you had a fair sight of goal there James, looks like a scuffed finish!

---

Still crept over the line though due to some shocking goalkeeping!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Sorry Bob but I think you misunderstand James. This particular case is all about respect for the rule of law first and foremost. So if hordes of non-threatening sympathisers get arrested because they view the law that proscribed Palestine Action was unjust then so be it. The underlying cause that both Palestine Action and those arrested got their just desserts is secondary.

Likewise when he thought the most important thing to focus on during the Southport riots was not the behaviour of people trying to firebomb, lawless as it was, but the underlying causes that brought drunken and triggered hordes onto the streets you have to respect his views.

Hope that helps getting on his wavelength.

---

You’ve twice said I wouldn’t contribute to a thread on a subject I didn’t care about. Well, I’d have thought I’m like 90 odd per cent of people on here in that respect, but what you’re also admitting there is that you care enough about this subject to contribute to this thread today and what is the contribution you feel you have to make? It’s that disabled, blind people and octogenarians should be arrested, fined and/or jailed for taking part in a peaceful demonstration (the Met stated none of their officers were injured yesterday) - what does that say about you?

No doubt, you’ll come back with your usual “the law is the law” justification, but, if this Government runs true to form, they’ll u turn on this latest stupid and needless decision in a few months time - I suppose the same people you want to see locked up today will be free to demonstrate if that was to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

You’ve twice said I wouldn’t contribute to a thread on a subject I didn’t care about. Well, I’d have thought I’m like 90 odd per cent of people on here in that respect, but what you’re also admitting there is that you care enough about this subject to contribute to this thread today and what is the contribution you feel you have to make? It’s that disabled, blind people and octogenarians should be arrested, fined and/or jailed for taking part in a peaceful demonstration (the Met stated none of their officers were injured yesterday) - what does that say about you?

No doubt, you’ll come back with your usual “the law is the law” justification, but, if this Government runs true to form, they’ll u turn on this latest stupid and needless decision in a few months time - I suppose the same people you want to see locked up today will be free to demonstrate if that was to happen.

---

Might have wasted a shot there Bob! That's the last time I try to help:hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

You’ve twice said I wouldn’t contribute to a thread on a subject I didn’t care about. Well, I’d have thought I’m like 90 odd per cent of people on here in that respect, but what you’re also admitting there is that you care enough about this subject to contribute to this thread today and what is the contribution you feel you have to make? It’s that disabled, blind people and octogenarians should be arrested, fined and/or jailed for taking part in a peaceful demonstration (the Met stated none of their officers were injured yesterday) - what does that say about you?

No doubt, you’ll come back with your usual “the law is the law” justification, but, if this Government runs true to form, they’ll u turn on this latest stupid and needless decision in a few months time - I suppose the same people you want to see locked up today will be free to demonstrate if that was to happen.

---

Yeah Cyril.

It's good to see the police acting so swiftly in nicking Doris from Tunbridge Wells for the heinous crime of violently carrying a placard about.

These fuuckers deserve life sentences.

Hands up whose with me for throwing bricks at the Castle Hotel in Merthyr because it's rammed with immigrants?

Let's show 'Two Tier Kier' whose the fuuckkng boss!

"Oh Tommy, Tommy, Tommy, Tommy, Tommy Robin..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Quit clutching those pearls Bob. The people were arrested because it's a proscribed group. It's no great surprise is it? Like I said, you wouldn't care less if it wasn't a cause you cared about, but the police have to apply the law equally, and without favour no? Everyone's like oooh mmmy godd...they arrested people. Well, yes, they did. And that's cos they showed support for an illegal group. Not a big surprise is it?!

I doubt most of the public do support damaging British military equipment actually, not sure on your figures there.

I know it's a bigger crime on here to disagree with you than to support a proscribed group, but we are allowed to comment on posts! I could say that you didn't need to reply to mine!

---

I think you’re missing the point. Nobody here is at all surprised all these people got arrested. And those people who did get arrested knew what they were doing and what the consequences would be. Like I said in my previous point, they’re making a point at the absurdity of it all. I’m tempted to join them myself. I mean. How people do they shave to arrest before the law makers realise they’ve completely misjudged this.

Execute all the protestors

James Wales

Age 14 and a bit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Execute all the protestors

James Wales

Age 14 and a bit

---

I take a pretty liberal approach to sentencing and things like prison reform Sludgey. You are probably far more "String em up" than I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo

I think you’re missing the point. Nobody here is at all surprised all these people got arrested. And those people who did get arrested knew what they were doing and what the consequences would be. Like I said in my previous point, they’re making a point at the absurdity of it all. I’m tempted to join them myself. I mean. How people do they shave to arrest before the law makers realise they’ve completely misjudged this.

---

Yeah I get it. Some people dont think they should have been proscribed. I understand that. I've said I can see how it's borderline, and I'm sure thats the case for a great many of the groups on that list, most of whom I would wager do not have an active policy of targeting UK military equipment in order to achieve their goal. So whilst I get the controversy, I can also see why they were proscribed tbh. And as Ive said before, if this was a group who some of you didn't believe in doing the same actions (damaging RNLI lifeboats lets say?) you would be calling for severe penalties.

Irrespective, the law applies. You can't support a proscribed group in this country. If you do, you risk arrest and the law doesn't (and absolutely shouldn't) make judgments on when to apply it. I agree that how it's handled matters, and I agree that sentencing matters (in this case violent arrests would be uncalled for and so would long sentences) but the law still applies and I do find it arrogant that some people seem to think it doesn't apply to them. It does. Doesn't matter if you are some middle class greenham common veteran granny from Leamington Spa, a Muslim kid from a council estate or Kevin from Splott. It applies.

Can you imagine how loud the "two tier" calls would have been if nothing had been done? And what that would mean for people showing active support for groups (many of course far more dangerous than Palestine Action).

The reality is they know they may be arrested. They know it would cost police time and money. They know they can (and do) protest whats happening in Palestine in a wide variety of ways, but once the group is proscribed, they cannot show support for it. And that's the long and end of it. Maybe the law is an ass, but be careful what you wish for if you don't think it should be applied in your case, cos there will be others with views you don't like who will be thinking the exact same.

I don’t think anyone involved here was expecting a two-tier approach from the law. Like I said, they knew what they were doing. It’s the only way to expose the absurdity of the ruling and I’m tempted to get involved myself. How many arrests will it take before they get the message?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Yeah I get it. Some people dont think they should have been proscribed. I understand that. I've said I can see how it's borderline, and I'm sure thats the case for a great many of the groups on that list, most of whom I would wager do not have an active policy of targeting UK military equipment in order to achieve their goal. So whilst I get the controversy, I can also see why they were proscribed tbh. And as Ive said before, if this was a group who some of you didn't believe in doing the same actions (damaging RNLI lifeboats lets say?) you would be calling for severe penalties.

Irrespective, the law applies. You can't support a proscribed group in this country. If you do, you risk arrest and the law doesn't (and absolutely shouldn't) make judgments on when to apply it. I agree that how it's handled matters, and I agree that sentencing matters (in this case violent arrests would be uncalled for and so would long sentences) but the law still applies and I do find it arrogant that some people seem to think it doesn't apply to them. It does. Doesn't matter if you are some middle class greenham common veteran granny from Leamington Spa, a Muslim kid from a council estate or Kevin from Splott. It applies.

Can you imagine how loud the "two tier" calls would have been if nothing had been done? And what that would mean for people showing active support for groups (many of course far more dangerous than Palestine Action).

The reality is they know they may be arrested. They know it would cost police time and money. They know they can (and do) protest whats happening in Palestine in a wide variety of ways, but once the group is proscribed, they cannot show support for it. And that's the long and end of it. Maybe the law is an ass, but be careful what you wish for if you don't think it should be applied in your case, cos there will be others with views you don't like who will be thinking the exact same.

---

Reading that, you can only be grateful that those who got stupid and unfair laws changed down the centuries, sometimes paying with their lives for their beliefs, defied the powers that be of their day, rather than adapt your rather moveable acceptance of obeying the law of the land, All you've done for nearly a day now is talk to us as if we're too dense to understand the only point you keep on making to justify your opinion - everyone understands what you're saying, it's not as if it will all suddenly click into place and we'll say "James Wales was right you know".

Also, what was this "targetting" of UK Military equipment you talk about? They spray painted it, does spray painting stop modern and sophisticated weaponry working? Does it destroy it? How does spray painting anything warrant an accusation of terrorism and proscribing of the organisation responsible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Reading that, you can only be grateful that those who got stupid and unfair laws changed down the centuries, sometimes paying with their lives for their beliefs, defied the powers that be of their day, rather than adapt your rather moveable acceptance of obeying the law of the land, All you've done for nearly a day now is talk to us as if we're too dense to understand the only point you keep on making to justify your opinion - everyone understands what you're saying, it's not as if it will all suddenly click into place and we'll say "James Wales was right you know".

Also, what was this "targetting" of UK Military equipment you talk about? They spray painted it, does spray painting stop modern and sophisticated weaponry working? Does it destroy it? How does spray painting anything warrant an accusation of terrorism and proscribing of the organisation responsible?

---

You say it's a stupid and unfair law, but thats cos you believe in it. And as I said, I do sense you wouldn't care less from a moral position if you didn't personally believe it. Groups aren't proscribed for nothing.

Essentially unless someone entirely agrees with you on this then you aren't interested in heating their position. And you posted something very condescending to me so don't be surprised if I respond in detail.

You keep characterising the most recent incident as graffiti. It wasn't. The engines were put out of use and replaced as the substance was sprayed into them to disable them. That's the point. Their policy is to target UK military equipment to force policy change. It's not hard to see how that crosses a threshold.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv048p8g9lo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

You say it's a stupid and unfair law, but thats cos you believe in it. And as I said, I do sense you wouldn't care less from a moral position if you didn't personally believe it. Groups aren't proscribed for nothing.

Essentially unless someone entirely agrees with you on this then you aren't interested in heating their position. And you posted something very condescending to me so don't be surprised if I respond in detail.

You keep characterising the most recent incident as graffiti. It wasn't. The engines were put out of use and replaced as the substance was sprayed into them to disable them. That's the point. Their policy is to target UK military equipment to force policy change. It's not hard to see how that crosses a threshold.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv048p8g9lo

---

You have a slavish devotion to a pedantic and idiotic position. Sometimes the law is an ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

You have a slavish devotion to a pedantic and idiotic position. Sometimes the law is an ass.

---

Sometimes it is. But the definition of whether it is or isn't is not based upon what your personal beliefs are.

As stated, if a group has a policy or specifically targeting UK military equipment to make their political point then it's not hard to see why it would be proscribed. And once done it's not hard to see why people showing support for it would be arrested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Sometimes it is. But the definition of whether it is or isn't is not based upon what your personal beliefs are.

As stated, if a group has a policy or specifically targeting UK military equipment to make their political point then it's not hard to see why it would be proscribed. And once done it's not hard to see why people showing support for it would be arrested.

---

That is your "personal belief".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

That is your "personal belief".

---

Is it? I'm pretty sure it's a result of the government process. You can personally think it's wrong. You can also personally think that any number of criminal trials or convictions were or weren't wrong if you like. But don't be surprised if targeting UK military sites gets you proscribed and don't be surprised when supporting the said group gets you arrested, irrespective of whether you think you are above the law or consider it an ass or not. I'm sure the proscription took in far more evidence than what has been offered on here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/t...-be-proscribed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

You say it's a stupid and unfair law, but thats cos you believe in it. And as I said, I do sense you wouldn't care less from a moral position if you didn't personally believe it. Groups aren't proscribed for nothing.

Essentially unless someone entirely agrees with you on this then you aren't interested in heating their position. And you posted something very condescending to me so don't be surprised if I respond in detail.

You keep characterising the most recent incident as graffiti. It wasn't. The engines were put out of use and replaced as the substance was sprayed into them to disable them. That's the point. Their policy is to target UK military equipment to force policy change. It's not hard to see how that crosses a threshold.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv048p8g9lo

---

£2 million? Easy to pluck figures that can’t be disproved out of the air and the Government have to say things like that to try to not look as bad as various “banana republics” with very dubious human rights records.

I see Andrew Neil, whose politics I disagree with profoundly does not agree with you.

https://youtu.be/KGpHyzlINsM?si=hUn5NVcmyIW_p06c

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

£2 million? Easy to pluck figures that can’t be disproved out of the air and the Government have to say things like that to try to not look as bad as various “banana republics” with very dubious human rights records.

I see Andrew Neil, whose politics I disagree with profoundly does not agree with you.

https://youtu.be/KGpHyzlINsM?si=hUn5NVcmyIW_p06c

---

It doesn't say £2m it says £7m and you are drifting into conspiracy territory now claiming the govt and police are making things up. Needless to say the cost to the public purse continues to go up too.

Good for Andrew Neil. Proof free speech does exist eh! I don't think he's as supportive as you make out btw, if you listen to it all.

We are going around in circles now anyway. I'm really sorry I don't agree with you on this. I know it upsets you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Sometimes it is. But the definition of whether it is or isn't is not based upon what your personal beliefs are.

As stated, if a group has a policy or specifically targeting UK military equipment to make their political point then it's not hard to see why it would be proscribed. And once done it's not hard to see why people showing support for it would be arrested.

---

Your thoughts on people punished for breaking the speed limit.

We live in a democracy, we are allowed to disagree with laws and debate their usefulness. In this case I think it's stupid and if I think a law is stupid then I don't think breaking it should be punishable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Your thoughts on people punished for breaking the speed limit.

We live in a democracy, we are allowed to disagree with laws and debate their usefulness. In this case I think it's stupid and if I think a law is stupid then I don't think breaking it should be punishable.

---

Oops 😬

As Jimbo's likely favorite TV celeb would say, "gotcha".

Driving 24 mph is hardly the same as supporting a proscribed terrorist group is it? Or being flabbergasted when if someone got a fine for it!
🤣

That's like me finding any example of you believing in the rule of law and claiming thats a gotcha too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

It doesn't say £2m it says £7m and you are drifting into conspiracy territory now claiming the govt and police are making things up. Needless to say the cost to the public purse continues to go up too.

Good for Andrew Neil. Proof free speech does exist eh! I don't think he's as supportive as you make out btw, if you listen to it all.

We are going around in circles now anyway. I'm really sorry I don't agree with you on this. I know it upsets you.

---

7 million’s even more ridiculous. Ah, the very selective free speech argument makes an appearance.

I listened to it all and, as I would expect, i don’t agree with Andrew Neil on all he says, but “uneasy” is a good word to use to describe a decision that should have been fully though through before going ahead with it.

Not upset in the slightest about my opinion being different from yours - the word I’d use in light of some of the things you’ve said on here recently is reassured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Your thoughts on people punished for breaking the speed limit.

We live in a democracy, we are allowed to disagree with laws and debate their usefulness. In this case I think it's stupid and if I think a law is stupid then I don't think breaking it should be punishable.

---

Well, well, well - who’d have thought it? As I mentioned “a very moveable opinion on accepting the law of the land”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

7 million’s even more ridiculous. Ah, the very selective free speech argument makes an appearance.

I listened to it all and, as I would expect, i don’t agree with Andrew Neil on all he says, but “uneasy” is a good word to use to describe a decision that should have been fully though through before going ahead with it.

Not upset in the slightest about my opinion being different from yours - the word I’d use in light of some of the things you’ve said on here recently is reassured.

---

Why is it ridiculous? Are you a military equipment expert now too? The police, government are all lying and you are right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Well, well, well - who’d have thought it? As I mentioned “a very moveable opinion on accepting the law of the land”.

---

Not really. As I've consistently said. I understand why the group was proscribed. If you support proscribed groups then you can expect to get arrested. People test the law all the time but they should expect what they get

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Well, well, well - who’d have thought it? As I mentioned “a very moveable opinion on accepting the law of the land”.

---

One law for us and one law for that JW !

Two tier justice !

Vote reform !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Driving 24 mph is hardly the same as supporting a proscribed terrorist group is it? Or being flabbergasted when if someone got a fine for it!
🤣

That's like me finding any example of you believing in the rule of law and claiming thats a gotcha too!

---

Its exactly the same

The law on Palestinian action is stupid , many people think so but its the law

You think the 20 mph law was stupid . But it was the law. If you hit a kid whilst driving 24 mph in a 20 and kill them .......I am afraid even JW who think that law is stupid and its ok to break it .....ends up in prison

Gotcha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Its exactly the same

The law on Palestinian action is stupid , many people think so but its the law

You think the 20 mph law was stupid . But it was the law. If you hit a kid whilst driving 24 mph in a 20 and kill them .......I am afraid even JW who think that law is stupid and its ok to break it .....ends up in prison

Gotcha

---

I don't dispute it's the law at all, and I don't dispute that people who drove over the limit would face a fine. If I did the equivalent of organising a group of people to drive over the limit in front of a police station I would expect a fine.

You can think the proscription of P.A is stupid. You are welcome to think that, but it doesn't mean the law won't be enforced. It will. Just as it was against thousands of people driving over the new speed limits.

You're at the bottom of the Grand Canyon on this, Jimbo. Keep digging and you'll likely hit your homeland of Hades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Well, well, well - who’d have thought it? As I mentioned “a very moveable opinion on accepting the law of the land”.

---

It's called 'nuance' Bob.