London Student protests - Wed 8th Dec+ Thurs 9th

[detective-boy]

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"

(a) that is simply impracticable

(b) that suggests that the police have no role in preventing serious crime, which is absolutely at odds with the basis of the UK police (prevention being their primary purpose).

 

[ViolentPanda]

There's a list longer than coppers convicted of deaths in custody of false claims like this.

Not difficult, that.

Snooker balls. FFS.

I know.


Pool balls are cheaper.

 

[Streathamite]

Wasn't the whole "firefighters attacked by rioters at Poll Tax demo" thing disproved back in the '90s?

totally. 100%. I had a pretty good view, it never happened, if anything people were trying to be considerate towards firefighters

 

[rekil]

I know.


Pool balls are cheaper.

They don't grow on trees.

 

[detective-boy]

Because agents provocateurs have never been used by either the police or the intelligence services, and that long list of former police officers and intelligence operatives who've said otherwise, they're just bad apples and plain fibbers, aren't they?

There is no "long list" as you know ...

 

[ViolentPanda]

as mythical as the hail of bottles raining down on the medics scraping tomlinson of the tarmac

Hey, one (plastic) bottle can seem like a hail (of glass bottles) if you see it coming from a multitude of viewpoints!

 

[detective-boy]

So in effect somebody will decide, probably on the basis of intelligence (with all the implications that has, in terms of the honesty and accuracy of intelligence in the hands of politically-motivated people and organisations) whether or not a protest can go ahead?

Avoiding the difficult question again, I see ....

So just answer this yes or no. If there are substantial grounds for believing that a protest will result in serious violence and disorder should the police be able to apply for it to be banned?

Yes or no.

Just one of those words.

No need for some rambling evasion. Just yes or no. Come on, show us what you actually think instead of just slagging off people who try and maintain the peace, eh?

 

[detective-boy]

Yes, and if you'd read on a few posts, you'd have seen that I acknowledged my error, but you're too busy trying to score points, aren't you?

No you didn't. You made no mention of failing to recognise the difference between criminal and civil law ... and you did not need to look at the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (that's criminal law, by the way - I know there's a clue in the title but you can never be sure you've grasped it ...) recently to know the difference anyway.

 

[detective-boy]

Says it all, but thanks for confirming it.

It's fucking basic, you moron. Just because something has a defensive purpose doesn't mean it can't be used for an offensive purpose.

Would you claim that a police officer using his (defensive) round shield to strike a protestor across the head with it's edge would be using it in a "defensive" - of course you fucking wouldn't.

 

[ymu]

Why? I would have thought that you would have liked the idea of convicted violent criminals being prohibited by a post-conviction ASBO from attending any more "peaceful" protests and thus giving trhe thug police an excuse to beat up all the nice lickle students ...

That's because you are a moron.

 

[detective-boy]

He didn't say they've been used in protests. He said they've long been reported to have been used in protests, in order to throw the full force of the law at those arrested or spotted as troublemakers.

Come on then, link to some examples.

And explain why alleging the use of snooker balls makes things worse when there is patent evidence of bricks, bottles, sticks, metal poles and Christ knows what else being thrown ...

 

[revlon]

It is a Common Law concept and the police (and everyone else for that matter) have well-established powers to stop one which is happening and to prevent one which is anticipated. It is inextricably linked to the concept of the maintenance of the Queen's Peace, which is at the heart of public order policing - the "Peace" is the same in each case.

and of course the police, by their actions, can also create a breach of the peace.

 

[detective-boy]

i can guarantee nobody has been or will ever be charged with the offence of assaulting a copper in the execution of his duty for breaking out of a kettle.

They already have been you dickhead.

And more will be being convicted as a result of what happened the other day.

You are a dangerous fucking fool. Someone on the side of the protestors should tell you to wind your fucking neck in before you seriously misinform too many people.

 

[butchersapron]

Come on then, link to some examples.

And explain why alleging the use of snooker balls makes things worse when there is patent evidence of bricks, bottles, sticks, metal poles and Christ knows what else being thrown ...

Irrelevant to the claim that you made.

 

[detective-boy]

this simply doesn't run true to history. I remind you of the vast gulf in between what menezes killers claimed went on and the accounts of everyone else.

Yes it does.

There was no "vast gulf". And even if there was it was for the CPS/Courts to decide which account they believed and then made their judgment on.

 

[rekil]

 

[Mr.Bishie]

They already have been you dickhead.

And more will be being convicted as a result of what happened the other day.

You are a dangerous fucking fool. Someone on the side of the protestors should tell you to wind your fucking neck in before you seriously misinform too many people.

Police kettles will soon be a dirty trick of the past when your ilk get a battering - & they will. We've had enough of your kettles & we're preparing to breach them.

 

[audiotech]

If you actually bothered reading my detailed critique of the containment tactic you would know that I have criticised how it has been used in a number of ways since before G20, with many of my concerns being reflected in the HMIC report "Adapting to Protest" too.

The vast majority of the public would have no particular problem with the tactic of containment and would see, if the media were responsible enough to explain how and when it's use may be appropriate, to realise that it has a time and place when it's use is entirely justifable.

Still not bothered.

On reflection, was this the right time (late in the day and many hours in freezing cold weather) and place (Westminster Bridge) do you think?

Next you'll being trying to blame the media for not explaining clearly enough to the public how and when it may be appropriate to haul a disabled man out of his wheelchair and drag him across the road? You're not doing this are you, because if you are, I doubt very much the "vast majority" seeing this has having a "time and place" ever?

What is really happening (you chose not to see it) is that this, along with the "containment" issue, is being condemned outright by significant numbers of the general public, who are appalled by what they see.

 

[detective-boy]

What do you think would have happened if the police hadn't been there?

Parliament would have been ransacked. As would the Treasury and other State buildings. Maybe even burned down. Hundreds of thousands, maybe many millions of pounds worth of danage would have been caused.

People would have been seriously injured, maybe died.

More shops, especially those belonging to identifiable "enemies of the people" would have been looted.

Whay do you think would have happened? The students would have politely delivered a petition to the doorkeeper at the House of Commons.

 

[butchersapron]

Look at all them snooker balls.

 

[detective-boy]

Pushing through police lines is not unlawful violence.

Yes, it is. (So long as the police line is in place for a lawful purpose).

To claim otherwise is irresponsible bollocks.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Look at all them snooker balls.

And they were thrown!!!

 

[ViolentPanda]

There is no "long list" as you know ...

Depends what you take to constitute "long". There's certainly a long enough list of credible people to give pause.
When you get people from the entire spectrum of police and intelligence grades admitting that it happens (and that it's happened for most if not all of the 20th century, as well as all of the 21st, so far), then I tend towards a provisional acceptance of their claims, because writing off the claims of former Directors and Commissioners, field and desk officers, constables and higher ranks as pie in the sky, conspiracy or the acts of people who are wonko (except Shayler, obviously) would be mesing with Occam's Razor.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Yes, it is. (So long as the police line is in place for a lawful purpose).

To claim otherwise is irresponsible bollocks.

Bollocks to the so-called lawful purposes. It means nothing anymore. Nothing.

 

[DotCommunist]

Yes it does.

There was no "vast gulf". And even if there was it was for the CPS/Courts to decide which account they believed and then made their judgment on.

and true to form, everyone else was wrong.

 

[detective-boy]

Not that your friend would have been talking bollocks, either, because nobody does that.

He was there. He was hit on the head by a snooker ball. He has no reason to lie, not least because in the big scheme of things it was of no particular concern to him.

But you feel able to say he is lying on the basis of watching a bit of fucking video.

Prick.

All that name-calling, and I'm still not going to report you on the same basis that you report other posters, because you're sheer comedy gold.

I've never reported anyone for "name-calling" you lying tosser.

 

[revlon]

They already have been you dickhead.

And more will be being convicted as a result of what happened the other day.

You are a dangerous fucking fool. Someone on the side of the protestors should tell you to wind your fucking neck in before you seriously misinform too many people.

you're going to have to give me a list off all the people charged with criminal offences for the last 4 student demos.

 

[detective-boy]

Another one of those pesky cases of almost everyone except you being deluded, eh?

Go on them - link to all these historic reports going back centuries ...

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Parliament would have been ransacked. As would the Treasury and other State buildings. Maybe even burned down. Hundreds of thousands, maybe many millions of pounds worth of danage would have been caused.

People would have been seriously injured, maybe died.

More shops, especially those belonging to identifiable "enemies of the people" would have been looted.

Whay do you think would have happened? The students would have politely delivered a petition to the doorkeeper at the House of Commons.

Lots of people are ready for that. That's the fuckin' reality!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Avoiding the difficult question again, I see ....

You didn't ask a question.

So just answer this yes or no. If there are substantial grounds for believing that a protest will result in serious violence and disorder should the police be able to apply for it to be banned?

Yes or no.

Just one of those words.

No need for some rambling evasion. Just yes or no. Come on, show us what you actually think instead of just slagging off people who try and maintain the peace, eh?

If there are SUBSTANTIVE (as opposed to "substantial") grounds, then yes.

In other words, good evidence, not rumour wot some guy down the boozer dun told yer.