|
Post by metalhead on May 13, 2023 14:04:24 GMT
You don't have to be heavy handed to act proportionally. The police are in a position of power and are afforded privileges that you and I don't have. The Colston statue went in the river because they were completely ineffective on the day. They could have easily prevented it without battering anyone. I'm no fan of Edward Colston but I also don't believe in walking around, making up the rules as you go. Heck, if you could, then I'd rip that jewel entrusted crown from that daft tossers head and sell it on eBay to help pay for the thousands of people who are going through a cost of living crisis. When it came to a bunch of women protesting police failings, they had no problem getting stuck in did they? Like an 80s football riot, they had no problem self-fulfilling the prophecy and battering the shit out a bunch of women for daring to speak out against the police attitude towards women. I don't believe resource comes into it. They have enough resource to arrest and prosecute 18 years old for saying the wrong thing on Twitter or Facebook. If you want my best guess, it's because the police enjoy picking and choosing the 'crimes/situations' (loose definition) that they deal with. Corruption plays a big part. Systemic corruption poisons the mindset of the entire operation. It only takes one toxic individual to bring down a team, so imagine an entire structure that is littered with toxicity. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need to start again. I'm not against policing, but I am against this implementation of the police. They will never have my respect until they fix themselves instead of constantly deflecting from the obvious. Are you referring to the Sarah Everard protest when you say “bartering the shit out of a load of women?” In relation to resources I agree with some of what you say is and they don’t help themselves when they’re governed at a higher level in relation to the way officers deal with something that’s politicised however in the case of “social media” I’d imagine that dealing with them isn’t fast time and is done slow time. Ultimately there’s a big difference to response policing and reactive policing. One is unplanned and there’s barely any time to think the other can be planned and dealt with at a far slower pace with everything put in place (often by CID). Oh come on... The police watchdog exonerates the police all the time. They're an embarrassment. That vigil was peaceful, right up until the police turned up. Once they felt it was an anti-police protest, nobody was safe. Fragile small men with egos that were under threat.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 13, 2023 15:11:12 GMT
I said it put the police in an impossible position and that was the fault of the government. If there is intelligence that a protest may not be peaceful the police have always had the right to intervene. That isn't the issue. Protests are disruptive - that's the point of a protest. The new law has extended what the police can prevent from just harm and damage to property to pretty much anything that used to be described as peaceful protest. And they can do it at their discretion. As in the recent arrests they can just claim they have intelligence, arrest someone, prevent the protest and then apologise. You might and others may want to see peaceful protest banned but many if us see it as a fundamental right in a free society and being inconvenienced is the price for that right. I guess it depends on what your level re what’s classed as an acceptable level of disruption or how much it personally affects you. Eg your holidays cancelled or you have your window smashed at home by a stray stone being thrown. Your holiday being cancelled would normally be the result of industrial action - that's a completely separate issue covered by union legislation. A strike on certain industries will cause a disruption to your holidays. That is the point of strike action - it disrupts normal business. The alternative is to ban strike action - that's nothing to do with laws regarding peaceful protest. If someone is throwing stones it's not a peaceful protest - it endangers people and property and is already covered in law. The new law effectively bans people from protesting on the grounds they might throw stones. That's the problem. You can't strike or protest without inconveniencing people. That is completely different to causing physical harm or destruction of property.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on May 13, 2023 15:39:23 GMT
I guess it depends on what your level re what’s classed as an acceptable level of disruption or how much it personally affects you. Eg your holidays cancelled or you have your window smashed at home by a stray stone being thrown. Your holiday being cancelled would normally be the result of industrial action - that's a completely separate issue covered by union legislation. A strike on certain industries will cause a disruption to your holidays. That is the point of strike action - it disrupts normal business. The alternative is to ban strike action - that's nothing to do with laws regarding peaceful protest. If someone is throwing stones it's not a peaceful protest - it endangers people and property and is already covered in law. The new law effectively bans people from protesting on the grounds they might throw stones. That's the problem. You can't strike or protest without inconveniencing people. That is completely different to causing physical harm or destruction of property. Does it work though? In some (not all cases) cant it do more damage than good and lose support for those protesting / striking. I heard someone saying on the radio what was an interesting comparison. The Coronation was like being invited to a birthday party by someone you don’t like. Would you just say I’m not going because I don’t like the person or would you try and wreck their party. Nothing wrong with not agreeing with something or protesting on any other day. I guess as you say they want maximum impact and the best way to do that would be to wreck the event regardless of what many other people may want. Do people have the right to try and wreck any celebration they don’t agree with? It’s interesting that at the World Cup no one actually protested (other than wearing a LGBT armband) despite there being plenty spitting feathers around how bad the human rights record was.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 13, 2023 16:02:24 GMT
Your holiday being cancelled would normally be the result of industrial action - that's a completely separate issue covered by union legislation. A strike on certain industries will cause a disruption to your holidays. That is the point of strike action - it disrupts normal business. The alternative is to ban strike action - that's nothing to do with laws regarding peaceful protest. If someone is throwing stones it's not a peaceful protest - it endangers people and property and is already covered in law. The new law effectively bans people from protesting on the grounds they might throw stones. That's the problem. You can't strike or protest without inconveniencing people. That is completely different to causing physical harm or destruction of property. Does it work though? In some (not all cases) cant it do more damage than good and lose support for those protesting / striking. I heard someone saying on the radio what was an interesting comparison. The Coronation was like being invited to a birthday party by someone you don’t like. Would you just say I’m not going because I don’t like the person or would you try and wreck their party. Nothing wrong with not agreeing with something or protesting on any other day. I guess as you say they want maximum impact and the best way to do that would be to wreck the event regardless of what many other people may want. Do people have the right to try and wreck any celebration they don’t agree with? It’s interesting that at the World Cup no one actually protested (other than wearing a LGBT armband) despite there being plenty spitting feathers around how bad the human rights record was. The only reason the nurses and railway drivers got a better deal was because they took strike action. If they hadn't gone on strike they wouldn't have got the rise. Strike action is effective. Peaceful protest does not "wreck" an event. People might be upset by seeing people who take objection to the event they are celebrating but that only "wrecks" the event for people who expect people to believe what that do or aren't prepared to accept that some people might have a different view. The protesters at the coronation weren't out to prevent people from celebrating the coranation - they didn't think it should have happened and they were making a point that they didn't support the monarchy but they had no intention of physically preventing it from happening or stopping people from being there. You are just making an argument for conformity and allowing the majority view to go unchallenged.
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on May 13, 2023 16:08:54 GMT
Your holiday being cancelled would normally be the result of industrial action - that's a completely separate issue covered by union legislation. A strike on certain industries will cause a disruption to your holidays. That is the point of strike action - it disrupts normal business. The alternative is to ban strike action - that's nothing to do with laws regarding peaceful protest. If someone is throwing stones it's not a peaceful protest - it endangers people and property and is already covered in law. The new law effectively bans people from protesting on the grounds they might throw stones. That's the problem. You can't strike or protest without inconveniencing people. That is completely different to causing physical harm or destruction of property. Does it work though? In some (not all cases) cant it do more damage than good and lose support for those protesting / striking. I heard someone saying on the radio what was an interesting comparison. The Coronation was like being invited to a birthday party by someone you don’t like. Would you just say I’m not going because I don’t like the person or would you try and wreck their party. Nothing wrong with not agreeing with something or protesting on any other day. I guess as you say they want maximum impact and the best way to do that would be to wreck the event regardless of what many other people may want. Do people have the right to try and wreck any celebration they don’t agree with? It’s interesting that at the World Cup no one actually protested (other than wearing a LGBT armband) despite there being plenty spitting feathers around how bad the human rights record was. Hmmm....some might not be sure about your analogy, Mr Cobham. First, they might say it's more like being forced to pay for a birthday party by your inbred, benefit-scrounging neighbours. And knowing that you will be forced to pay for similar parties in perpetuity. Second, they might not be sure there was any suggestion of wrecking the party. More like standing outside your neighbours' house - which you are also forced to pay the mortgage on - holding signs saying that you disagree with the situation. I mean, I wouldn't say that. Obviously. But some might!
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on May 13, 2023 16:12:30 GMT
Does it work though? In some (not all cases) cant it do more damage than good and lose support for those protesting / striking. I heard someone saying on the radio what was an interesting comparison. The Coronation was like being invited to a birthday party by someone you don’t like. Would you just say I’m not going because I don’t like the person or would you try and wreck their party. Nothing wrong with not agreeing with something or protesting on any other day. I guess as you say they want maximum impact and the best way to do that would be to wreck the event regardless of what many other people may want. Do people have the right to try and wreck any celebration they don’t agree with? It’s interesting that at the World Cup no one actually protested (other than wearing a LGBT armband) despite there being plenty spitting feathers around how bad the human rights record was. The only reason the nurses and railway drivers got a better deal was because they took strike action. If they hadn't gone on strike they wouldn't have got the rise. Strike action is effective. Peaceful protest does not "wreck" an event. People might be upset by seeing people who take objection to the event they are celebrating but that only "wrecks" the event for people who expect people to believe what that do or aren't prepared to accept that some people might have a different view. The protesters at the coronation weren't out to prevent people from celebrating the coranation - they didn't think it should have happened and they were making a point that they didn't support the monarchy but they had no intention of physically preventing it from happening or stopping people from being there. You are just making an argument for conformity and allowing the majority view to go unchallenged. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. I guess that’s why I’ve never protested or felt strongly enough about anything to protest about. What I would say is that though mistakes have occcasionaly been made by the police it’s very rare (not never happened) that someone who is genuinly peacefully protesting has been arrested. I guess it’s where the lines drawn re what “peaceful” means (that will differ individually) and in the case of the coronation police taking action through fear that something may happen (based on intelligence). In relation to protesting what would your thoughts be around someone from the far right like Tommy Robinson protesting? Would you say that’s acceptable in the same way that a republican protesting would be?
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on May 13, 2023 16:16:56 GMT
Does it work though? In some (not all cases) cant it do more damage than good and lose support for those protesting / striking. I heard someone saying on the radio what was an interesting comparison. The Coronation was like being invited to a birthday party by someone you don’t like. Would you just say I’m not going because I don’t like the person or would you try and wreck their party. Nothing wrong with not agreeing with something or protesting on any other day. I guess as you say they want maximum impact and the best way to do that would be to wreck the event regardless of what many other people may want. Do people have the right to try and wreck any celebration they don’t agree with? It’s interesting that at the World Cup no one actually protested (other than wearing a LGBT armband) despite there being plenty spitting feathers around how bad the human rights record was. Hmmm....some might not be sure about your analogy, Mr Cobham. First, they might say it's more like being forced to pay for a birthday party by your inbred, benefit-scrounging neighbours. And knowing that you will be forced to pay for similar parties in perpetuity. Second, they might not be sure there was any suggestion of wrecking the party. More like standing outside your neighbours' house - which you are also forced to pay the mortgage on - holding signs saying that you disagree with the situation. I mean, I wouldn't say that. Obviously. But some might! Someone might say you’ve lost them there I’m afraid. Firstly it wasn’t my comment it was one I heard and thought it interesting. I think it was Simon Jordan or Martin Keown if I remember right when i was on my way to work so I can’t take credit for it I’m afraid if that was was what you were trying to say. I’m sure in the post somewhere there’s some sort of smart arsed sarcastic point being made but I’m sure we’re just on a different wavelength.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 14, 2023 10:07:26 GMT
The only reason the nurses and railway drivers got a better deal was because they took strike action. If they hadn't gone on strike they wouldn't have got the rise. Strike action is effective. Peaceful protest does not "wreck" an event. People might be upset by seeing people who take objection to the event they are celebrating but that only "wrecks" the event for people who expect people to believe what that do or aren't prepared to accept that some people might have a different view. The protesters at the coronation weren't out to prevent people from celebrating the coranation - they didn't think it should have happened and they were making a point that they didn't support the monarchy but they had no intention of physically preventing it from happening or stopping people from being there. You are just making an argument for conformity and allowing the majority view to go unchallenged. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. I guess that’s why I’ve never protested or felt strongly enough about anything to protest about. What I would say is that though mistakes have occcasionaly been made by the police it’s very rare (not never happened) that someone who is genuinly peacefully protesting has been arrested. I guess it’s where the lines drawn re what “peaceful” means (that will differ individually) and in the case of the coronation police taking action through fear that something may happen (based on intelligence). In relation to protesting what would your thoughts be around someone from the far right like Tommy Robinson protesting? Would you say that’s acceptable in the same way that a republican protesting would be? I have been involved in peaceful protests and have helped organise strikes as a union rep. The thing is I'm not advocating or supporting a law that prevents you from choosing not to protest or strike so it's not just a matter of agreeing to disagree. I disagree with you wanting to stop me doing something you don't happen to want to do yourself - we can't agree on that because I don't think you should have the right to do that. The police claimed that they had evidence that the people from Republic were going to engage in non-peaceful protest and those who were arrested said they couldn't possibly have any evidence because they never even discussed. The police are being taken to court so presumably they will have to bring their evidence as part of the case so we will find out sooner or later who is telling the truth. Your trust in the Metropolitan police is touching - presumably you don't actually live in London. Tommy Robinson or anyone with a different view to mine has the right to peaceful protest. If Tommy Robinson protests anyway near me I will be in the counter protest.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on May 14, 2023 13:02:54 GMT
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. I guess that’s why I’ve never protested or felt strongly enough about anything to protest about. What I would say is that though mistakes have occcasionaly been made by the police it’s very rare (not never happened) that someone who is genuinly peacefully protesting has been arrested. I guess it’s where the lines drawn re what “peaceful” means (that will differ individually) and in the case of the coronation police taking action through fear that something may happen (based on intelligence). In relation to protesting what would your thoughts be around someone from the far right like Tommy Robinson protesting? Would you say that’s acceptable in the same way that a republican protesting would be? I have been involved in peaceful protests and have helped organise strikes as a union rep. The thing is I'm not advocating or supporting a law that prevents you from choosing not to protest or strike so it's not just a matter of agreeing to disagree. I disagree with you wanting to stop me doing something you don't happen to want to do yourself - we can't agree on that because I don't think you should have the right to do that. The police claimed that they had evidence that the people from Republic were going to engage in non-peaceful protest and those who were arrested said they couldn't possibly have any evidence because they never even discussed. The police are being taken to court so presumably they will have to bring their evidence as part of the case so we will find out sooner or later who is telling the truth. Your trust in the Metropolitan police is touching - presumably you don't actually live in London. Tommy Robinson or anyone with a different view to mine has the right to peaceful protest. If Tommy Robinson protests anyway near me I will be in the counter protest. Is Tiny Tommy still a thing? I thought he'd scuttled off.
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on May 14, 2023 13:13:31 GMT
Hmmm....some might not be sure about your analogy, Mr Cobham. First, they might say it's more like being forced to pay for a birthday party by your inbred, benefit-scrounging neighbours. And knowing that you will be forced to pay for similar parties in perpetuity. Second, they might not be sure there was any suggestion of wrecking the party. More like standing outside your neighbours' house - which you are also forced to pay the mortgage on - holding signs saying that you disagree with the situation. I mean, I wouldn't say that. Obviously. But some might! Someone might say you’ve lost them there I’m afraid. Firstly it wasn’t my comment it was one I heard and thought it interesting. I think it was Simon Jordan or Martin Keown if I remember right when i was on my way to work so I can’t take credit for it I’m afraid if that was was what you were trying to say. I’m sure in the post somewhere there’s some sort of smart arsed sarcastic point being made but I’m sure we’re just on a different wavelength. Ha - smart-arsed sarcasm! Unlikely, as it is a scientific fact that leftie, Champagne-swilling, tofu-munching, mung bean-scoffing, snowflake wokies have zero sense of humour. But if you think anything Martin Keown might have said is likely to be interesting - then, yes, I think we can probably agree we're on different wavelengths.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on May 14, 2023 14:21:07 GMT
Does it work though? In some (not all cases) cant it do more damage than good and lose support for those protesting / striking. I heard someone saying on the radio what was an interesting comparison. The Coronation was like being invited to a birthday party by someone you don’t like. Would you just say I’m not going because I don’t like the person or would you try and wreck their party. Nothing wrong with not agreeing with something or protesting on any other day. I guess as you say they want maximum impact and the best way to do that would be to wreck the event regardless of what many other people may want. Do people have the right to try and wreck any celebration they don’t agree with? It’s interesting that at the World Cup no one actually protested (other than wearing a LGBT armband) despite there being plenty spitting feathers around how bad the human rights record was. Hmmm....some might not be sure about your analogy, Mr Cobham. First, they might say it's more like being forced to pay for a birthday party by your inbred, benefit-scrounging neighbours. And knowing that you will be forced to pay for similar parties in perpetuity. Second, they might not be sure there was any suggestion of wrecking the party. More like standing outside your neighbours' house - which you are also forced to pay the mortgage on - holding signs saying that you disagree with the situation. I mean, I wouldn't say that. Obviously. But some might! I will. They're a bunch of benefit scrounging inbreds... Just in case anyone wasn't sure.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on May 19, 2023 7:04:30 GMT
£162 million to stick Brenda in the ground £250 million to put a hat on Brian.... That's almost the half a billion that Hunt is planning to bribe JLR with to stay in the country. Priorities, eh, you gotta laugh
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on May 19, 2023 7:10:11 GMT
£162 million to stick Brenda in the ground £250 million to put a hat on Brian.... That's almost the half a billion that Hunt is planning to bribe JLR with to stay in the country. Priorities, eh, you gotta laugh The government obviously got ripped off, or used their mates, as usual. McGough's in Tunstall would have done a good job for much less.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on May 26, 2023 19:46:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 27, 2023 0:10:39 GMT
£162 million to stick Brenda in the ground £250 million to put a hat on Brian.... That's almost the half a billion that Hunt is planning to bribe JLR with to stay in the country. Priorities, eh, you gotta laugh Not gonna sound time researching this but.. "UK Hospitality, which represents bars, restaurants and hotels, believes the Coronation will deliver a £350m boost for the sector." And that excludes tv revenue for something that was broadcast worldwide. Imo the money spent on these was never going to go back to the taxpayers anyway. It's basically in a fund waiting to be spent on events like this. So 350m invested in businesses and normal people's pockets isn't so bad is it.
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 27, 2023 0:11:19 GMT
£162 million to stick Brenda in the ground £250 million to put a hat on Brian.... That's almost the half a billion that Hunt is planning to bribe JLR with to stay in the country. Priorities, eh, you gotta laugh Not gonna sound time researching this but.. "UK Hospitality, which represents bars, restaurants and hotels, believes the Coronation will deliver a £350m boost for the sector." www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-65476887And that excludes tv revenue for something that was broadcast worldwide. Imo the money spent on these was never going to go back to the taxpayers anyway. It's basically in a fund waiting to be spent on events like this. So 350m invested in businesses and normal people's pockets isn't so bad is it.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 5, 2023 13:36:06 GMT
They're still dragging the arse out of these processions I see.......................
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 5, 2023 13:52:44 GMT
They're still dragging the arse out of these processions I see....................... What a waste of money
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jul 5, 2023 14:05:18 GMT
Maybe they were saying Boo'urns
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Jul 5, 2023 14:33:02 GMT
They're still dragging the arse out of these processions I see....................... I wonder how loud it actually was. The problem with video nowadays is that if it is “the wrong type of controversial”, companies like BBC and Sky will not report it (or bury it) and if it’s an “independent” they can easily add voiceover or just amplify specific sections of sound to make it seem stronger. In this video there’s a feint murmur of a chant and just one very clear voice.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 6, 2023 2:13:00 GMT
Apparently he displayed his Crown Jewels while visiting Scotland which drew a titter from Queen Camilla
An actually Elected Scottish Minister of Scotlands Parliament Partick Harvie questioned the extravagance of the meaningless ritual
Some within the crowd were supportive while other chanted "Not my King"
In an effort to legitimise the nonsense, a new Giant Sword had been commissioned at great expense and was presented to Charles 111, it was unclear if this was in recognition of his Swordmanship
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 6, 2023 7:58:08 GMT
Apparently he displayed his Crown Jewels while visiting Scotland which drew a titter from Queen Camilla An actually Elected Scottish Minister of Scotlands Parliament Partick Harvie questioned the extravagance of the meaningless ritual Some within the crowd were supportive while other chanted "Not my King" In an effort to legitimise the nonsense, a new Giant Sword had been commissioned at great expense and was presented to Charles 111, it was unclear if this was in recognition of his Swordmanship Time for the independence of Scotland?
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Aug 28, 2023 7:14:29 GMT
Welcome back Andy lad.............
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Aug 28, 2023 8:25:13 GMT
Get rid of the lot of them.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 28, 2023 8:36:49 GMT
Welcome back Andy lad............. As expected. Nothing must be allowed to besmirch the image of those we're all encouraged to look up to.
|
|
|
Post by slippyblunger on Aug 28, 2023 8:38:30 GMT
Get them gone, replaced them with the Stewarts. Up the Jacobites.
🏴
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Aug 28, 2023 12:06:43 GMT
Welcome back Andy lad............. It's astounding that the monarchy continues to exist but we are where we are. The day will come.
|
|
|
Post by slippyblunger on Aug 28, 2023 12:14:13 GMT
Welcome back Andy lad............. It's astounding that the monarchy continues to exist but we are where we are. The day will come. If it does I don't think any of us will be round to see it. The general public love them too much. Nothing lasts forever and at some point that will include the monarchy.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Aug 28, 2023 13:12:49 GMT
It's astounding that the monarchy continues to exist but we are where we are. The day will come. If it does I don't think any of us will be round to see it. The general public love them too much. Nothing lasts forever and at some point that will include the monarchy. I hope I'm alive but I accept I probably won't be.
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Nov 23, 2023 18:25:49 GMT
|
|