frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
it works on horses supposedly, so why not people too?
London Student protests - Wed 8th Dec+ Thurs 9th
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
it works on horses supposedly, so why not people too?
It's not "utterly irrelevant crap" as it demonstrates to any observer where he is coming from ... whereas they may be under the impression he was some random disabled bloke who just happened to be there / wouldn't be involved in any front line activity, etc.
They don't.
So let's get this straight ... you DON'T want the police to be able to use any force at all defending themselves, or the occupants of any bulding deemed a target by the protestors from attack ... but you DO want the police to use force to defend protestors from attack by other protestors ...
You really do need to sort your head out. You are becoming a laughing stock wanting everything for yourself and those you sympathise with and fuck all for anyone else ...
You need to remember that where there is large scale disorder it is frequently impossible for police to intervene in any particular incident that they witness, even though in the normal course of events they would be expected to do so. (It happens at football disorder and events like Notting Hill Carnival quite often).
That said, the comments by the police officer are inappropriate, even if they did have no practicable way of preventing the attack ... and they certainly should have intervened if they were able to.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
No it is random irrelevant crap. Demonstrating is a democratic right as is the right to hold whatever political views you choose. Being a revolutionary is not a reason for being beaten up by the cops and neither is demonstrating a justification for being dragged out of your wheelchair and dragged across the road by a power crazy thug in uniform.
It could have been the fucking Pope ...
Clarification that the police collective use of force was (a) entirely justified and (b), if this quote is to be believed, fairly successful in preventing an entirely unlawful, determined attempt to invade Parliament with relatively few injuries ...
The aim of the legislation is to allow protests to be banned if they cannot be facilitated without serious disorder.
It is an acknowledgement of the fact that (a) the organisers of these demonstrations, whilst entirely peaceful and cooperative in themselves, have absolutely no control over the demonstrators and that (b) other groups, including non-protestors, have now taken to using the protests as cover for serious violence and crime.
If people are saying that they will not restrict themselves to broadly lawful protest (witness the quote a couple of posts above this) what do you expect the police and the Courts to do?
If the evidence was that those using excessive violence were not involved with the main protest I would agree. But it doesn't and I don't.
What IS plain is that if the genuine protestors want to have the right to protest they should (a) make sure that their own activities are broadly lawful and (b) that they make it plain to those amongst them who are not genuine protestors that they should fuck off and point them out to the police if they don't (as has been demonstrated on some occasions by portestors (mainly teenage girls) seeking to protect property from attack).
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Provided there was some justification for moving the crowd back (or, rather, to one side of the road), that was a perfectly reasonable use of horses - the advance was controlled and there was ample room for people to move away into.
Personally I think that could have been achieved by the police line moving people back ... but that may have been tried and failed and it may have been impossible along such a length of road without the use of horses.
(ETA: As appears may well have been the case
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Whose police? Our police!
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
Too right.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
And so are you. Breaking out of a containment would amount to assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duty (provided that the Court found the containment lawful), no matter how little force was used.
Congratulations on providing inaccurate legal advice to people which may result in their getting a criminal conviction ...
Rarely have I seen so much ignorance demonstrated in so few words. If (as you erroneously claim) it is a "civil offence" how would it be used to "criminalise" them.
You do understand the difference between the criminal law and the civil law, don't you?
More ignorance. ANYTHING (including shields and helmets) intended for use in unlawful violence (such as pushing through a lawful police cordon) would have an offensive, as well as their original defensive, purpose.
The police are not the fucking cavalry...
Yes it is.
Only to the extent of allowing a police line to take advantage of that chaos and move forward or re-locate (as plainly visible here).
Are you saying that there are NOT organised attempts to defeat police tactics? You're fucking deluded if you are ...if it's said on the internet it must be true
The news was filled with live reports from protestors condemning the violence of some of the protestors. Rather than seek to ban the protests, which is illiberal and unpractical the police have a duty to investigate the trouble makers and charge them with offenses.
I agree with what Hari says in the Indy today, that the "police should arrest anyone who commits an act of violence instead of mass imprisonment on everyone present"
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...right-to-protest-is-under-threat-2162493.html
And posters who have a clue about the police perspective argue with someone who clearly has no idea why the police do what they do and has absolutely no intention whatsoever of accepting any reason for the police to stop protestors doing exactly what they like with no restrictions as all ...
You have absolutely no idea whether snooker balls were thrown or not as (despite your plain delusion that you are fucking God Almighty) you are not omnipresent. And yet you feel able to dismiss out of hand the accounts of people who were. (including a friend of mine who was hit on the helmet by one ... strangely enough he didn't then spend twenty minutes looking for it and securing it as "evidence" to convince pricks like you (who, to be honest, wouldn't believe it even it you were struck hard around the head by one in a sock).
How fucking arrogant can you get?
It's got fuck all to do with what you and gunneradt post, and everything to do with whinging and martyr complexes, as butchersapron observed, stupid.
Similar threads
