Reply With QuoteIs your SUSPICION based upon any intelligence you may have received about potential illegal activities by James? Yes or no?Originally Posted by John Buchanan
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
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?
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/stat...LhmySD2aRt-GNg
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.the...st-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.
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.
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.
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?
They stopped our bus up at Stoke with that nonsense , a copper came on board reading from a book
It was laughable
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.
No, I'd be on my way to play baseball in a park with mates.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.
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?
Should’ve done that fighting peacefully
Thatcher brought that shitty law in - Flying Picketts - and they applied it to football fans
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?
Are you a traffic warden or something
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......
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.
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.
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?
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.
Apart from those protesting yesterday who were chanting, had placards which you conveniently ignore like a good little class warrior.
Posting Permissions