|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 19, 2014 22:31:51 GMT
Glad you agree...what a condescending tosspot. So just to confirm if Freund says essentially some disabled people are not employable he's the devil incarnate, another guy essentially says if you give disabled employees a chance you will find they work harder and are loyal he is been condescending (don't say tossput Luke will get offended by name calling bless him), it's almost like you can find fault with anything any Tory MP says You still didn't really clarify why the riots were beyond your wildest dreams, on one had you said it was because it was the first sign of rebellion against this government on the other you say you agree with the LSE report which says it was nothing of the sort - seriously if you can clear up how it can be both of these things, this thicko right winger will never mention it again. Seriously I've made my points very clear. Move on.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 19, 2014 22:34:14 GMT
Introduced in 2011 by the Condems in an attempt to silence PEACEFUL protest which you've said is OK The protesters know the law Al that's why they used tarpaulins to sit on wet ground, not tents. However the authorities backed by their boot boys the police have decided that tarpaulins are classed as..wait for it..."structures" Stop trying to wriggle out of this one with your usual labour did this and that blah blah blah...admit it you're wrong on this one matey. Oh and ignorance of the law may not be defence Rumpole...but defiance and civil disobedience of a crap law is the right thing to do. Found Wikipedia have we 10 minutes ago you didn't know it existed Poor Al, reduced to abuse yet again. Plot lost game over eh?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 19, 2014 22:36:05 GMT
Glad you agree...what a condescending tosspot. So just to confirm if Freund says essentially some disabled people are not employable he's the devil incarnate, another guy essentially says if you give disabled employees a chance you will find they work harder and are loyal he is been condescending (don't say tossput Luke will get offended by name calling bless him), it's almost like you can find fault with anything any Tory MP says You still didn't really clarify why the riots were beyond your wildest dreams, on one had you said it was because it was the first sign of rebellion against this government on the other you say you agree with the LSE report which says it was nothing of the sort - seriously if you can clear up how it can be both of these things, this thicko right winger will never mention it again. “A wide ranging LSE study called Reading the Riots concluded that the major contributory factors were opportunism, perceived social injustice, deprivation, and frustration at the way communities were policed.” Your quote...PERCEIVED SOCIAL INJUSTICE DEPRIVATION AND FRUSTRATION AT THE WAY COMMUNITIES WERE POLICED Government policy is it not?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 19, 2014 22:39:05 GMT
Introduced in 2011 by the Condems in an attempt to silence PEACEFUL protest which you've said is OK The protesters know the law Al that's why they used tarpaulins to sit on wet ground, not tents. However the authorities backed by their boot boys the police have decided that tarpaulins are classed as..wait for it..."structures" Stop trying to wriggle out of this one with your usual labour did this and that blah blah blah...admit it you're wrong on this one matey. Oh and ignorance of the law may not be defence Rumpole...but defiance and civil disobedience of a crap law is the right thing to do. Liberty seem to be of a slightly different opinion The 2011 Act also repeals provisions in SOCPA which banned unauthorised protests within 1km of Parliament Square. Among other things, the controversial SOCPA provisions included: Making it a crime to demonstrate around Parliament without permission from the police – you could be arrested for breaking this law; and Limitations, imposed by police, on the size, timing, place and noise level of any demonstration. While Liberty welcomed the repeal of these SOCPA provisions, replacing them with new expansive and ill-defined restrictions means the threat to protest in this area remains. We will continue to lobby against restrictions on peaceful protest in a place where it is so effectively heard. Seems the police state operated in 2005 until the Condems came in and repealed some of the draconian laws imposed by Labour, where were you then Huddy ? Nothing particular draconian people are free to protest, they are just not allowed to erect camps, the laws are quite simple the following are prohibited Operating amplified noise equipment such as a loudspeaker or loudhailer, unless you have authorisation to do so from the Greater London Authority or Westminster Council; Erecting a tent or other sleeping structure, or sleeping in one; Placing or keeping a sleeping bag, mattress or similar equipment in the area in order to sleep there; orUsing any sleeping equipment to sleep overnight in the area. Police made one arrest after hundreds of officers converged on Parliament Square in London on Sunday night in an attempt to remove Occupy Democracy protesters. A Metropolitan police spokesman said that officers were enforcing a notice to desist. The demonstrators, who were in the third day of occupying the square, were given 30 minutes to leave or face arrest. Possessing items that could be used for sleeping in Parliament Square was made illegal under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. One protester used a smartphone to send a live video stream of the eviction to the Bambuser website as others condemned the police action on social media. Officers could be seen dragging away some of the protesters after they refused to leave. An Occupy spokeswoman described the police action as “absolutely crazy”. She said offficers told them that they could not sit on tarpaulins, which were deemed to be “structures”. Officers did not remove all of the protesters and between 50 and 100 remained in the square late on Sunday night. The person who was arrested was being held in custody at Charing Cross police station. Occupy London said on its Twitter feed: “David Cameron supported HK pro-democracy protests but is intent on crushing them in UK w[ith] violence.” The group planned to remain in Parliament Square for another week. According to its website, the goal of the Occupy Democracy campaign is to “direct the energy from current single-issue struggles into a critical mass that can radically challenge the corrupt and unrepresentative system”. Not a tent or a sleeping bag in sight you see.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 20, 2014 6:21:06 GMT
Don't confuse him, he's already posting bullshit as he's totally ignorant of the laws of the land Am I...really? So a tarpaulin represents a "structure" does it? I think the bullshit's coming from your end matey. And yet again you purport to support peaceful protest then say it's illegal. I think anyone reading this thread can clearly see where the bullshit is emanating from. Read the law again placing or keeping a sleeping bag, mattress or anything else for the purpose of sleeping there. It's pretty clear the tarpaulin was there for them to sleep on, they've not been stopped from protesting only from staying there overnight.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 20, 2014 6:23:50 GMT
So just to confirm if Freund says essentially some disabled people are not employable he's the devil incarnate, another guy essentially says if you give disabled employees a chance you will find they work harder and are loyal he is been condescending (don't say tossput Luke will get offended by name calling bless him), it's almost like you can find fault with anything any Tory MP says You still didn't really clarify why the riots were beyond your wildest dreams, on one had you said it was because it was the first sign of rebellion against this government on the other you say you agree with the LSE report which says it was nothing of the sort - seriously if you can clear up how it can be both of these things, this thicko right winger will never mention it again. “A wide ranging LSE study called Reading the Riots concluded that the major contributory factors were opportunism, perceived social injustice, deprivation, and frustration at the way communities were policed.” Your quote...PERCEIVED SOCIAL INJUSTICE DEPRIVATION AND FRUSTRATION AT THE WAY COMMUNITIES WERE POLICED Government policy is it not? That's a bit desperate really, they are referring to the shooting of Mark Duggan obviously if you want to believe that is government policy....
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 20, 2014 6:30:37 GMT
Liberty seem to be of a slightly different opinion The 2011 Act also repeals provisions in SOCPA which banned unauthorised protests within 1km of Parliament Square. Among other things, the controversial SOCPA provisions included: Making it a crime to demonstrate around Parliament without permission from the police – you could be arrested for breaking this law; and Limitations, imposed by police, on the size, timing, place and noise level of any demonstration. While Liberty welcomed the repeal of these SOCPA provisions, replacing them with new expansive and ill-defined restrictions means the threat to protest in this area remains. We will continue to lobby against restrictions on peaceful protest in a place where it is so effectively heard. Seems the police state operated in 2005 until the Condems came in and repealed some of the draconian laws imposed by Labour, where were you then Huddy ? Nothing particular draconian people are free to protest, they are just not allowed to erect camps, the laws are quite simple the following are prohibited Operating amplified noise equipment such as a loudspeaker or loudhailer, unless you have authorisation to do so from the Greater London Authority or Westminster Council; Erecting a tent or other sleeping structure, or sleeping in one; Placing or keeping a sleeping bag, mattress or similar equipment in the area in order to sleep there; orUsing any sleeping equipment to sleep overnight in the area. Police made one arrest after hundreds of officers converged on Parliament Square in London on Sunday night in an attempt to remove Occupy Democracy protesters. A Metropolitan police spokesman said that officers were enforcing a notice to desist. The demonstrators, who were in the third day of occupying the square, were given 30 minutes to leave or face arrest. Possessing items that could be used for sleeping in Parliament Square was made illegal under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. One protester used a smartphone to send a live video stream of the eviction to the Bambuser website as others condemned the police action on social media. Officers could be seen dragging away some of the protesters after they refused to leave. An Occupy spokeswoman described the police action as “absolutely crazy”. She said offficers told them that they could not sit on tarpaulins, which were deemed to be “structures”. Officers did not remove all of the protesters and between 50 and 100 remained in the square late on Sunday night. The person who was arrested was being held in custody at Charing Cross police station. Occupy London said on its Twitter feed: “David Cameron supported HK pro-democracy protests but is intent on crushing them in UK w[ith] violence.” The group planned to remain in Parliament Square for another week. According to its website, the goal of the Occupy Democracy campaign is to “direct the energy from current single-issue struggles into a critical mass that can radically challenge the corrupt and unrepresentative system”. Not a tent or a sleeping bag in sight you see. Already answered middle class protesters with smart phones protesting to save the world but can't endure the discomfort of a wet arse beyond parody, the HK protesters are risking their lives. You've even contradicted your previous claims as the police left protesters there, comedy gold from you.
|
|