|
|
Post by Foster on Nov 23, 2023 5:39:23 GMT
I think Rossi was serious mate. Oops have a missed something. I've not read the whole thread. I was half agreeing with him that Stan is a bit of a plum. I know mate. š |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 23, 2023 14:25:52 GMT
You wouldn't think it, reading the opinions of some on here, but religion-based terrorism continues to decline in the West. reliefweb.int/report/world/global-terrorism-index-2023#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20deaths%20from%20terrorism,2021%20to%203%2C955%20in%202022. From it: "Ideologically motivated terrorism continues to be the most common type of terrorism in the West, with religiously - motivated terrorism declining by 95 per cent since its peak in 2016. All 14 ideologically-motivated deaths can be attributed to far-right terrorism". Far more to worry about from those nutjobs than people arriving on boats, clearly. Although, the first attack carried out by such an individual (or relative, or someone remotely connected to him/her) will, of course, warrant far more attention, front page headlines and scaremongering than anything we'll ever see or read about the rightwing ideological nutters. |
|
|
|
Post by satoshi on Nov 23, 2023 14:53:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2023 15:01:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 23, 2023 18:48:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Foster on Nov 23, 2023 18:54:37 GMT
Not a terrorist. Like most people mentioned on here. It's laughable that people may even think that. People with extreme views, while ignoring people that actually carry out their views violently. |
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Nov 24, 2023 5:02:10 GMT
This shit really doesn't help either. But how do we know who's posted it? If you remember the last time Saka got abused the majority were from foreign IP addresses? Its still obviously wrong but it doesn't mean that is UK or right wingers? They're from USA I reckon. From the last two words, "on it". People in US refer to people being 'on' a team. Someone from UK would refer to someone being 'in' a team, so their last two words would be "in it" instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 26, 2023 18:14:46 GMT
In full....
|
|
|
|
Post by milton58 on Nov 26, 2023 18:41:27 GMT
freedom of speech not anymore |
|
|
|
Post by knype on Nov 26, 2023 19:02:48 GMT
freedom of speech not anymore Exactly, some of the hatred screamed from the left wingers I've seen is much worse than this. |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 26, 2023 21:24:09 GMT
Awww, that's nice, Stephen got exactly what he wanted for his birthday tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Nov 26, 2023 21:46:34 GMT
freedom of speech not anymore Exactly, some of the hatred screamed from the left wingers I've seen is much worse than this. This is the organisers of the march banning him from attending and the police arresting him. You'll have to exert your frustrations and blame at someone other than the left on this occasion. I personally think if he wasn't there to cause any trouble then he should have been allowed to attend. Is there a law which allows organisers of marches to ban certain individuals? Tommy was there as a supporter, not an opposer, he wasn't going to cause trouble in my opinion so he should have been allowed to join the march. Surely if you're going to arrest him it should be at events where he is a threat to the peace. Not at events such as todays march. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 26, 2023 22:02:07 GMT
freedom of speech not anymore Exactly, some of the hatred screamed from the left wingers I've seen is much worse than this. You two ok with a fascist piece of shit trying to disrupt a peaceful demo? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2023 23:04:15 GMT
Exactly, some of the hatred screamed from the left wingers I've seen is much worse than this. This is the organisers of the march banning him from attending and the police arresting him. You'll have to exert your frustrations and blame at someone other than the left on this occasion. I personally think if he wasn't there to cause any trouble then he should have been allowed to attend. Is there a law which allows organisers of marches to ban certain individuals? Tommy was there as a supporter, not an opposer, he wasn't going to cause trouble in my opinion so he should have been allowed to join the march. Surely if you're going to arrest him it should be at events where he is a threat to the peace. Not at events such as todays march. 1. The police didn't arrest him on the instructions of the organisers, they arrested him because they considered that he (and his goons) were (after the violence they caused 2 weeks ago) in their opinion, a credible threat to public order. 2. The organisers didn't believe he was there as a supporter but he was there to hijack the protest in order to push his own agenda that didn't align with there's. 3. Of course you are entitled to your opinion but it is fair to say that it is at odds with the police, the organisers and many other commentators. 4. He wasn't arrested without first being given the choice to leave the area after being given a dispersal notice (which is not uncommon) but he refused to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Nov 27, 2023 1:46:57 GMT
This is the organisers of the march banning him from attending and the police arresting him. You'll have to exert your frustrations and blame at someone other than the left on this occasion. I personally think if he wasn't there to cause any trouble then he should have been allowed to attend. Is there a law which allows organisers of marches to ban certain individuals? Tommy was there as a supporter, not an opposer, he wasn't going to cause trouble in my opinion so he should have been allowed to join the march. Surely if you're going to arrest him it should be at events where he is a threat to the peace. Not at events such as todays march. 1. The police didn't arrest him on the instructions of the organisers, they arrested him because they considered that he (and his goons) were (after the violence they caused 2 weeks ago) in their opinion, a credible threat to public order. 2. The organisers didn't believe he was there as a supporter but he was there to hijack the protest in order to push his own agenda that didn't align with there's. 3. Of course you are entitled to your opinion but it is fair to say that it is at odds with the police, the organisers and many other commentators. 4. He wasn't arrested without first being given the choice to leave the area after being given a dispersal notice (which is not uncommon) but he refused to do so. 1. Then why didn't they arrest him on Armistice Day when he did attend as a counter protestor. He supported today's march and there were no counter protests of scale either. He wasn't a huge threat imo. And he should have the freedom to protest in scenarios where he isn't a great threat. 2. I get this but are they able to do/impose that? Given the numbers attending I'm sure there's many other bad apples in attendance too. And the most bizarre thing is neither Tommy, Paul golding, laurence fox, gb news or any of that lot are mentioning this fact. Instead it's pushing the new narrative of "two tier policing" (slightly ironic given the demographics they oppose suffer most from this). 3. Personally I just think it's the next spark to stoke the new culture war topic of the day. "2 tier policing". I think the police got it wrong here. I also don't think there's anything 2 tier about it in the sense that it was the same "tier" whom Tommy supports that seemingly put the pressure on the met to ensure he didn't attend. If it was to do with threat level then there's many other protests where he's been a bigger threat and not arrested. Today it was a low threat level on the Tommy scale imo. 4. I don't think he should have had to leave in the first place unless he was causing trouble, and enough to warrant such a request. I actually agree with Laurence Fox here in this tweet: The only difference is we interpet the 2 tier policing differently. For me it seems that potential trouble makers on both sides are allowed to attend Palestine protests/counter protests and potentially cause trouble with the police being reactive to situations. Yet in this antisemitism/pro Israel (given the number of flags) march the organisers can pick and choose who they don't want to attend and the police will remove them whether they're a threat or not. And as a result the wallys new three word catchphrase for the next fortnight is "two tier policing". |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2023 6:10:29 GMT
1. The police didn't arrest him on the instructions of the organisers, they arrested him because they considered that he (and his goons) were (after the violence they caused 2 weeks ago) in their opinion, a credible threat to public order. 2. The organisers didn't believe he was there as a supporter but he was there to hijack the protest in order to push his own agenda that didn't align with there's. 3. Of course you are entitled to your opinion but it is fair to say that it is at odds with the police, the organisers and many other commentators. 4. He wasn't arrested without first being given the choice to leave the area after being given a dispersal notice (which is not uncommon) but he refused to do so. 1. Then why didn't they arrest him on Armistice Day when he did attend as a counter protestor. He supported today's march and there were no counter protests of scale either. He wasn't a huge threat imo. And he should have the freedom to protest in scenarios where he isn't a great threat. 2. I get this but are they able to do/impose that? Given the numbers attending I'm sure there's many other bad apples in attendance too. And the most bizarre thing is neither Tommy, Paul golding, laurence fox, gb news or any of that lot are mentioning this fact. Instead it's pushing the new narrative of "two tier policing" (slightly ironic given the demographics they oppose suffer most from this). 3. Personally I just think it's the next spark to stoke the new culture war topic of the day. "2 tier policing". I think the police got it wrong here. I also don't think there's anything 2 tier about it in the sense that it was the same "tier" whom Tommy supports that seemingly put the pressure on the met to ensure he didn't attend. If it was to do with threat level then there's many other protests where he's been a bigger threat and not arrested. Today it was a low threat level on the Tommy scale imo. 4. I don't think he should have had to leave in the first place unless he was causing trouble, and enough to warrant such a request. I actually agree with Laurence Fox here in this tweet: The only difference is we interpet the 2 tier policing differently. For me it seems that potential trouble makers on both sides are allowed to attend Palestine protests/counter protests and potentially cause trouble with the police being reactive to situations. Yet in this antisemitism/pro Israel (given the number of flags) march the organisers can pick and choose who they don't want to attend and the police will remove them whether they're a threat or not. And as a result the wallys new three word catchphrase for the next fortnight is "two tier policing". Yaxley - Lennon fucked off in a taxi when it started getting violent if you recall. |
|
|
|
Post by knype on Nov 27, 2023 7:10:21 GMT
1. Then why didn't they arrest him on Armistice Day when he did attend as a counter protestor. He supported today's march and there were no counter protests of scale either. He wasn't a huge threat imo. And he should have the freedom to protest in scenarios where he isn't a great threat. 2. I get this but are they able to do/impose that? Given the numbers attending I'm sure there's many other bad apples in attendance too. And the most bizarre thing is neither Tommy, Paul golding, laurence fox, gb news or any of that lot are mentioning this fact. Instead it's pushing the new narrative of "two tier policing" (slightly ironic given the demographics they oppose suffer most from this). 3. Personally I just think it's the next spark to stoke the new culture war topic of the day. "2 tier policing". I think the police got it wrong here. I also don't think there's anything 2 tier about it in the sense that it was the same "tier" whom Tommy supports that seemingly put the pressure on the met to ensure he didn't attend. If it was to do with threat level then there's many other protests where he's been a bigger threat and not arrested. Today it was a low threat level on the Tommy scale imo. 4. I don't think he should have had to leave in the first place unless he was causing trouble, and enough to warrant such a request. I actually agree with Laurence Fox here in this tweet: The only difference is we interpet the 2 tier policing differently. For me it seems that potential trouble makers on both sides are allowed to attend Palestine protests/counter protests and potentially cause trouble with the police being reactive to situations. Yet in this antisemitism/pro Israel (given the number of flags) march the organisers can pick and choose who they don't want to attend and the police will remove them whether they're a threat or not. And as a result the wallys new three word catchphrase for the next fortnight is "two tier policing". Yaxley - Lennon fucked off in a taxi when it started getting violent if you recall. Obsessed |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2023 7:26:34 GMT
Yaxley - Lennon fucked off in a taxi when it started getting violent if you recall. Obsessed You haven't answered my previous question mate. |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Nov 27, 2023 7:39:04 GMT
1. The police didn't arrest him on the instructions of the organisers, they arrested him because they considered that he (and his goons) were (after the violence they caused 2 weeks ago) in their opinion, a credible threat to public order. 2. The organisers didn't believe he was there as a supporter but he was there to hijack the protest in order to push his own agenda that didn't align with there's. 3. Of course you are entitled to your opinion but it is fair to say that it is at odds with the police, the organisers and many other commentators. 4. He wasn't arrested without first being given the choice to leave the area after being given a dispersal notice (which is not uncommon) but he refused to do so. 1. Then why didn't they arrest him on Armistice Day when he did attend as a counter protestor. He supported today's march and there were no counter protests of scale either. He wasn't a huge threat imo. And he should have the freedom to protest in scenarios where he isn't a great threat. 2. I get this but are they able to do/impose that? Given the numbers attending I'm sure there's many other bad apples in attendance too. And the most bizarre thing is neither Tommy, Paul golding, laurence fox, gb news or any of that lot are mentioning this fact. Instead it's pushing the new narrative of "two tier policing" (slightly ironic given the demographics they oppose suffer most from this). 3. Personally I just think it's the next spark to stoke the new culture war topic of the day. "2 tier policing". I think the police got it wrong here. I also don't think there's anything 2 tier about it in the sense that it was the same "tier" whom Tommy supports that seemingly put the pressure on the met to ensure he didn't attend. If it was to do with threat level then there's many other protests where he's been a bigger threat and not arrested. Today it was a low threat level on the Tommy scale imo. 4. I don't think he should have had to leave in the first place unless he was causing trouble, and enough to warrant such a request. I actually agree with Laurence Fox here in this tweet: The only difference is we interpet the 2 tier policing differently. For me it seems that potential trouble makers on both sides are allowed to attend Palestine protests/counter protests and potentially cause trouble with the police being reactive to situations. Yet in this antisemitism/pro Israel (given the number of flags) march the organisers can pick and choose who they don't want to attend and the police will remove them whether they're a threat or not. And as a result the wallys new three word catchphrase for the next fortnight is "two tier policing". 1. Then why didn't they arrest him on Armistice Day when he did attend as a counter protestor. He supported today's march and there were no counter protests of scale either. He wasn't a huge threat imo. And he should have the freedom to protest in scenarios where he isn't a great threat. From looking at the video of his arrest he was given a dispersal order notice to leave the area. Not sure if there was one on Armistice day for where he and his group were protesting but yesterday he was given every opportunity to leave but chose not too so in some ways he sealed his own fate. Heās clearly gone there to stir up trouble and theyāve used the order which basically says āIndividuals who do not reside within the designated area can be directed to leave the locality and may be excluded for up to 24 hours. A person does not commit an offence because an officer has chosen to use the power to disperse, but failure to follow the officer's directions is an offence.ā to get him away from the immediate area as by remaining heād either get hurt himself or one of his mates would be wound up into doing something stupid and potentially all hell breaking loose. Itās no different to the coronation in relation to the police preempting trouble and potentially preventing something worse happening by taking action early. 2. I get this but are they able to do/impose that? Given the numbers attending I'm sure there's many other bad apples in attendance too. And the most bizarre thing is neither Tommy, Paul golding, laurence fox, gb news or any of that lot are mentioning this fact. Instead it's pushing the new narrative of "two tier policing" (slightly ironic given the demographics they oppose suffer most from this). Unfortunately for him heās a figure head for the far right and if the police fear by him being there heās going to stoke up trouble (and letās be honest heās got previous for it) then they have every right to ask him to leave. 3. Personally I just think it's the next spark to stoke the new culture war topic of the day. "2 tier policing". I think the police got it wrong here. I also don't think there's anything 2 tier about it in the sense that it was the same "tier" whom Tommy supports that seemingly put the pressure on the met to ensure he didn't attend. If it was to do with threat level then there's many other protests where he's been a bigger threat and not arrested. Today it was a low threat level on the Tommy scale imo. To be fair I donāt think itās 2 tier policing as theyāve taken action at occasions like the coronation and other protests where theyāve upset those on the far left by taking action early and making arrests to prevent far bigger issues occurring further down the line. There are always going to be cases of 2 tier policing but Iād say itās more common sense and being tactically sensible. The Notting Hill carnival being a classic case. If they arrested everyone that was committing a minor offence theyād 1- Have no officers left to deal with more serious offences. 2- Theyād be splashed all over social media and branded as āracistā or āheavy handedā. 3- Theyād wind up what is potentially a volatile situation anyway into a full scale riot which due to numbers they couldnāt cope with due to numbers. Consistency is good but then if youāre too consistent things can accelerate and go wrong very quickly and you end up with a riot on your hands and the sort of large scale disorder that would make front page news for weeks. 4. I don't think he should have had to leave in the first place unless he was causing trouble, and enough to warrant such a request. In relation to the incident the police may have received intelligence around what his intentions were for the day which either you nor I know nothing about. By getting in early and utilising the dispersal order (lawfully) theyāve prevented something far worse happening involving far more people and potentially large scale disorder by removing one person with Iād imagine minimum inconvenience to him once heās released. Letās not forget either that he was given a choice to leave too but chose not too. Iām sure at the end of the day like many activists before him heāll be very happy with his days work because with all the attention heās gained heās made himself into some sort of martyr. Whether itās Tommy Robinson, Piers Corbyn, Sasha Johnson or Patsy Stevenson theyāre all very different in their causes but all 4 have used police in the past to promote themselves and up their profile whether itās by being arrested or by media exposure. There will always be an element of 2 tier policing but not in the way these characters would have you think but because they need to manage a situation with the minimum damage to both there reputation (which in the case of the met doesnāt need to get any worse) and the public. If you want true one tier policing and everyoneās treated exactly the same then 1) Youād have riots every day 2) Youād have people from all sides moaning and stirring things up on social media even more than they are now (from both sides). I liken their role to that of a referee in respect to never pleasing everyone and to both sides being one sided or biased. Theyāre in a no win situation. Letās also forget if they hadnāt been cut in numbers by Ms May they may more officers to do a more effective job rather than just papering over the cracks. |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 27, 2023 7:52:03 GMT
This two tier policing accusation isn't inaccurate, it's just not done in the way or for the reasons those moaning about it like to think.
It's policing according to assessed risk, intelligence and past experience.
So no great surprise that the idea of a bunch of coked up EDL type dickheads warrant more police attention than hundreds of thousands of men women and children.
Re Stephen Yaxley-Lennon if he'd turned up quietly, joined in with the march, gone home quietly no-one would have batted an eyelid. But that's not what Stephen wants or needs. Let's not be naive about his attendance at these things. Which is probably why the organisers told him to fuck off in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by knype on Nov 27, 2023 8:15:17 GMT
You haven't answered my previous question mate. Which one? |
|
|
|
Post by milton58 on Nov 27, 2023 9:10:46 GMT
Exactly, some of the hatred screamed from the left wingers I've seen is much worse than this. You two ok with a fascist piece of shit trying to disrupt a peaceful demo? you ok with old people collecting money selling poppies being intimidated...we can all go on the net looking and searching for things to belittle others.but majority of the posters on here don't |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2023 9:12:14 GMT
1. Then why didn't they arrest him on Armistice Day when he did attend as a counter protestor. He supported today's march and there were no counter protests of scale either. He wasn't a huge threat imo. And he should have the freedom to protest in scenarios where he isn't a great threat. 2. I get this but are they able to do/impose that? Given the numbers attending I'm sure there's many other bad apples in attendance too. And the most bizarre thing is neither Tommy, Paul golding, laurence fox, gb news or any of that lot are mentioning this fact. Instead it's pushing the new narrative of "two tier policing" (slightly ironic given the demographics they oppose suffer most from this). 3. Personally I just think it's the next spark to stoke the new culture war topic of the day. "2 tier policing". I think the police got it wrong here. I also don't think there's anything 2 tier about it in the sense that it was the same "tier" whom Tommy supports that seemingly put the pressure on the met to ensure he didn't attend. If it was to do with threat level then there's many other protests where he's been a bigger threat and not arrested. Today it was a low threat level on the Tommy scale imo. 4. I don't think he should have had to leave in the first place unless he was causing trouble, and enough to warrant such a request. I actually agree with Laurence Fox here in this tweet: The only difference is we interpet the 2 tier policing differently. For me it seems that potential trouble makers on both sides are allowed to attend Palestine protests/counter protests and potentially cause trouble with the police being reactive to situations. Yet in this antisemitism/pro Israel (given the number of flags) march the organisers can pick and choose who they don't want to attend and the police will remove them whether they're a threat or not. And as a result the wallys new three word catchphrase for the next fortnight is "two tier policing". 1. Then why didn't they arrest him on Armistice Day when he did attend as a counter protestor. He supported today's march and there were no counter protests of scale either. He wasn't a huge threat imo. And he should have the freedom to protest in scenarios where he isn't a great threat. From looking at the video of his arrest he was given a dispersal order notice to leave the area. Not sure if there was one on Armistice day for where he and his group were protesting but yesterday he was given every opportunity to leave but chose not too so in some ways he sealed his own fate. Heās clearly gone there to stir up trouble and theyāve used the order which basically says āIndividuals who do not reside within the designated area can be directed to leave the locality and may be excluded for up to 24 hours. A person does not commit an offence because an officer has chosen to use the power to disperse, but failure to follow the officer's directions is an offence.ā to get him away from the immediate area as by remaining heād either get hurt himself or one of his mates would be wound up into doing something stupid and potentially all hell breaking loose. Itās no different to the coronation in relation to the police preempting trouble and potentially preventing something worse happening by taking action early. 2. I get this but are they able to do/impose that? Given the numbers attending I'm sure there's many other bad apples in attendance too. And the most bizarre thing is neither Tommy, Paul golding, laurence fox, gb news or any of that lot are mentioning this fact. Instead it's pushing the new narrative of "two tier policing" (slightly ironic given the demographics they oppose suffer most from this). Unfortunately for him heās a figure head for the far right and if the police fear by him being there heās going to stoke up trouble (and letās be honest heās got previous for it) then they have every right to ask him to leave. 3. Personally I just think it's the next spark to stoke the new culture war topic of the day. "2 tier policing". I think the police got it wrong here. I also don't think there's anything 2 tier about it in the sense that it was the same "tier" whom Tommy supports that seemingly put the pressure on the met to ensure he didn't attend. If it was to do with threat level then there's many other protests where he's been a bigger threat and not arrested. Today it was a low threat level on the Tommy scale imo. To be fair I donāt think itās 2 tier policing as theyāve taken action at occasions like the coronation and other protests where theyāve upset those on the far left by taking action early and making arrests to prevent far bigger issues occurring further down the line. There are always going to be cases of 2 tier policing but Iād say itās more common sense and being tactically sensible. The Notting Hill carnival being a classic case. If they arrested everyone that was committing a minor offence theyād 1- Have no officers left to deal with more serious offences. 2- Theyād be splashed all over social media and branded as āracistā or āheavy handedā. 3- Theyād wind up what is potentially a volatile situation anyway into a full scale riot which due to numbers they couldnāt cope with due to numbers. Consistency is good but then if youāre too consistent things can accelerate and go wrong very quickly and you end up with a riot on your hands and the sort of large scale disorder that would make front page news for weeks. 4. I don't think he should have had to leave in the first place unless he was causing trouble, and enough to warrant such a request. In relation to the incident the police may have received intelligence around what his intentions were for the day which either you nor I know nothing about. By getting in early and utilising the dispersal order (lawfully) theyāve prevented something far worse happening involving far more people and potentially large scale disorder by removing one person with Iād imagine minimum inconvenience to him once heās released. Letās not forget either that he was given a choice to leave too but chose not too. Iām sure at the end of the day like many activists before him heāll be very happy with his days work because with all the attention heās gained heās made himself into some sort of martyr. Whether itās Tommy Robinson, Piers Corbyn, Sasha Johnson or Patsy Stevenson. Theyāre all very different in their causes but all 4 have used police in the past to promote their cause whether itās by being arrested or pushing their cause. There will always be an element of 2 tier policing but not in the way these characters would have you think but because they need to manage a situation with the minimum damage to both there reputation (which in the case of the met doesnāt need to get any worse) and the public. If you want true one tier policing and everyoneās treated exactly the same then 1) Youād have riots every day 2) Youād have people from all sides moaning and stirring things up on social media even more than they are now (from both sides). I liken their role to that of a referee in respect to never pleasing everyone and to both sides being one sided or biased. Theyāre in a no win situation. Letās also forget if they hadnāt been cut in numbers by Ms May they may more officers to do a more effective job rather than just papering over the cracks. Have to disagree mate, far right fascist nutjobs like him do not have the right to "freedom of speech", dead straight forward for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2023 9:13:35 GMT
You two ok with a fascist piece of shit trying to disrupt a peaceful demo? you ok with old people collecting money selling poppies being intimidated...we can all go on the net looking and searching for things to belittle others.but majority of the posters on here don't That was proven to be false mate. Yaxley - Lennon is an out and out fascist, the organisers told him they didn't want him there. You cannot equate the two. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2023 9:14:34 GMT
You haven't answered my previous question mate. Which one? You know full well "which one" |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2023 9:15:20 GMT
Not a terrorist. Like most people mentioned on here. It's laughable that people may even think that. People with extreme views, while ignoring people that actually carry out their views violently. He's certainly behaving like one. |
|
|
|
Post by milton58 on Nov 27, 2023 9:25:43 GMT
you ok with old people collecting money selling poppies being intimidated...we can all go on the net looking and searching for things to belittle others.but majority of the posters on here don't That was proven to be false mate. Yaxley - Lennon is an out and out fascist, the organisers told him they didn't want him there. You cannot equate the two. tbh I don't give a fuck about tr...hes a wobble imo.my original post was about freedom of speech...you hear more hatred things being spouted out at speakers corner |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Nov 27, 2023 9:36:04 GMT
1. Then why didn't they arrest him on Armistice Day when he did attend as a counter protestor. He supported today's march and there were no counter protests of scale either. He wasn't a huge threat imo. And he should have the freedom to protest in scenarios where he isn't a great threat. From looking at the video of his arrest he was given a dispersal order notice to leave the area. Not sure if there was one on Armistice day for where he and his group were protesting but yesterday he was given every opportunity to leave but chose not too so in some ways he sealed his own fate. Heās clearly gone there to stir up trouble and theyāve used the order which basically says āIndividuals who do not reside within the designated area can be directed to leave the locality and may be excluded for up to 24 hours. A person does not commit an offence because an officer has chosen to use the power to disperse, but failure to follow the officer's directions is an offence.ā to get him away from the immediate area as by remaining heād either get hurt himself or one of his mates would be wound up into doing something stupid and potentially all hell breaking loose. Itās no different to the coronation in relation to the police preempting trouble and potentially preventing something worse happening by taking action early. 2. I get this but are they able to do/impose that? Given the numbers attending I'm sure there's many other bad apples in attendance too. And the most bizarre thing is neither Tommy, Paul golding, laurence fox, gb news or any of that lot are mentioning this fact. Instead it's pushing the new narrative of "two tier policing" (slightly ironic given the demographics they oppose suffer most from this). Unfortunately for him heās a figure head for the far right and if the police fear by him being there heās going to stoke up trouble (and letās be honest heās got previous for it) then they have every right to ask him to leave. 3. Personally I just think it's the next spark to stoke the new culture war topic of the day. "2 tier policing". I think the police got it wrong here. I also don't think there's anything 2 tier about it in the sense that it was the same "tier" whom Tommy supports that seemingly put the pressure on the met to ensure he didn't attend. If it was to do with threat level then there's many other protests where he's been a bigger threat and not arrested. Today it was a low threat level on the Tommy scale imo. To be fair I donāt think itās 2 tier policing as theyāve taken action at occasions like the coronation and other protests where theyāve upset those on the far left by taking action early and making arrests to prevent far bigger issues occurring further down the line. There are always going to be cases of 2 tier policing but Iād say itās more common sense and being tactically sensible. The Notting Hill carnival being a classic case. If they arrested everyone that was committing a minor offence theyād 1- Have no officers left to deal with more serious offences. 2- Theyād be splashed all over social media and branded as āracistā or āheavy handedā. 3- Theyād wind up what is potentially a volatile situation anyway into a full scale riot which due to numbers they couldnāt cope with due to numbers. Consistency is good but then if youāre too consistent things can accelerate and go wrong very quickly and you end up with a riot on your hands and the sort of large scale disorder that would make front page news for weeks. 4. I don't think he should have had to leave in the first place unless he was causing trouble, and enough to warrant such a request. In relation to the incident the police may have received intelligence around what his intentions were for the day which either you nor I know nothing about. By getting in early and utilising the dispersal order (lawfully) theyāve prevented something far worse happening involving far more people and potentially large scale disorder by removing one person with Iād imagine minimum inconvenience to him once heās released. Letās not forget either that he was given a choice to leave too but chose not too. Iām sure at the end of the day like many activists before him heāll be very happy with his days work because with all the attention heās gained heās made himself into some sort of martyr. Whether itās Tommy Robinson, Piers Corbyn, Sasha Johnson or Patsy Stevenson. Theyāre all very different in their causes but all 4 have used police in the past to promote their cause whether itās by being arrested or pushing their cause. There will always be an element of 2 tier policing but not in the way these characters would have you think but because they need to manage a situation with the minimum damage to both there reputation (which in the case of the met doesnāt need to get any worse) and the public. If you want true one tier policing and everyoneās treated exactly the same then 1) Youād have riots every day 2) Youād have people from all sides moaning and stirring things up on social media even more than they are now (from both sides). I liken their role to that of a referee in respect to never pleasing everyone and to both sides being one sided or biased. Theyāre in a no win situation. Letās also forget if they hadnāt been cut in numbers by Ms May they may more officers to do a more effective job rather than just papering over the cracks. Have to disagree mate, far right fascist nutjobs like him do not have the right to "freedom of speech", dead straight forward for me. Iām not a fan of Robinson as heās way to far to the right for me in the same way that Corbyn is far too left. That said heās entitled to his opinion and providing he doesnāt overstep the mark by his comments turning from thoughts / words to abuse or by him deliberately stoking up violence heās entitled to them. In the same way that others are entitled to have a counter argument. My issue isnāt with people having opposing views itās the way they express those views and how they look to exploit others into violence or terrorising normal people just wanting a quiet day out. In the case of the incident Milton describes that really didnāt sit well with me as I found it totally disrespectful. That said with the powers available I can see why action wasnāt taken by police as despite the group being very wrong in there conduct there may not have been any dispersal orders available and there were more than likely just to many protesting to deal with with for what they were doing especially when there were potentially bigger fish to fry on that day. Itās just not as straightforwards as people think and there are so many factors to consider for the police to consider. - Resources / officers available - Intelligence on those involved - seriousness of the offence - is it worth taking officers off the street for a relatively minor offence - Room in custody - Media backlash |
|
|
|
Post by atillathehoneybee on Nov 27, 2023 9:43:38 GMT
Absolute disgrace, when that cunt with the hook from Finsbury Mosque spouted his vile shite no one batted an eyelid |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 27, 2023 9:45:54 GMT
You two ok with a fascist piece of shit trying to disrupt a peaceful demo? you ok with old people collecting money selling poppies being intimidated...we can all go on the net looking and searching for things to belittle others.but majority of the posters on here don't I don't think anybody is ok with that. That said, if you're referring to the front page splash about the 78yo poppy seller in Manchester that the Daily Mail and other Tory papers ran ahead of the big peace demo on Armistice weekend, I think that was a load of deliberately inflammatory bollocks. I've seen absolutely no evidence of said bloke being punched, kicked or jostled (and I have looked for it) and, as far as I'm aware, the BTP have not taken the matter any further. I'm happy to be corrected on that last point. People should be very wary of newspapers and other media outlets like GBNews and TalkTV accepting and promoting such stories as gospel. It was obvious that the then Home Secretary, the awful Suella Braverman, was seeking to stir up trouble ahead of that Armistice weekend demo. And the Tory newspapers and media outlets like those mentioned above were only too keen to help out in that respect. Braverman got her wish in that it prompted the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and his goon army to descend on the capital where previously they probably wouldn't have bothered. Sadly for her there wasn't the violent response from the peace demo that she was desperate to provoke to show how "dangerous these people really are". In that respect, it backfired quite spectacularly as the EDL goons kicked off almost all the trouble. Of course, the right-wing media outlets couldn't have that so they tried to make out it was both sides that were to blame. And while that no doubt appeased their readers and viewers, anyone with a brain could see that, when compared, the "vast majority" of arrests for trouble which came from the few hundreds of EDL type goons against a handful of arrests from the hundreds of thousands of peace demo marchers doesn't provide equivalence. Which disappointing outcome is no doubt why Braverman then upped the anti and went after the police, accusing them of left-wing bias and refusing to amend a letter she'd sent to Downing St. She was trying to get herself sacked to appear as a martyr to the hard-right of the party. By way of complete contrast, did anyone even know about the peace demo that took place this weekend? Amazing how little interest there was from the current home secretary and the right-wing papers this time around! I guess it was a case of their having burnt their fingers once already and not being quite so willing to do so again. Or maybe, without the war, cenotaph and poppy sellers to wind their readers up about, there wasn't anything else they could think of? |
|
