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

[ViolentPanda]

wasn't there a poa which made gatherings of people illegal?

IIRC CJA '94 made gatherings over a certain size subject to action, although (also IIRC) it was mainly aimed at raves that had music with (rolleyes: "repetitive beats".

 

[TopCat]

What's the worst they can do? Kill me? They can only kill me once.

 

[TopCat]

There is no "reasonable examination of police tactics, police actions and police brutality" in the absence of me and a handful of others (most of whom have long since given up posting anything which challenges the ACAB monothought clique). To suggest otherwise is simply laughable.

There is simply a highly prejudiced, anti-police rant.

Back again eh?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Before DB flounced he again...

He hasn't "flounced again".

 

[detective-boy]

you need to amplify that though, in the cuurent climate - what 'substantial grounds', sez who, based on what evidence, in what likely scenario etc etc. "take our word for it, sonny' simply won't do anymore.

"Take our word for it" isn't sufficient and never has been sufficient. If a protest is to be banned then the police must supply the evidence on which they make the request. And the decision is subject to judicial review if the protest organisers wish to challenge a decision to restrict or ban it.

You are arguing against something that simply isn't the case.

 

[TopCat]

SO fucking predictable.

SO fucking pathetic.

* Gives up *

I thought he had. Oh well.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What's the worst they can do? Kill me? They can only kill me once.

Quite.
I always used to go on anti-fascists demos with the attitude of "what's the worst that can happen?", because once you accept that, you've no longer got anything to fear. Always best not to waste worry on what you can't control.

BTW, I see himself is ranting about "monothought cliques", no wonder moon23 slavishly agrees with a lot of what d-b says: They're birds (most likely cuckoos) of a feather.

 

[GoneCoastal]

There were random attacks on various places. There were interviews on the TV and in the papers with members of staff who were terrified for their personal safety. If an unruly mob attacks a premises it is not at all beyond the realms of possibility that one or more individuals will attack the staff, especially if they try and defend the premises instead of running away (which they would be well-advised to do).

That Tesco at Trafalgar square had nowhere for the staff to run to - it'd been open all day through the protest and when 50 or so people started running at it with the front runners trying to break the windows. I couldn't get good shots from right at the front due to the crush of bodies and the fact that TSG lined up across the front to defend it with shields and batons after that calmed down was when people decided to have a go at Waterstones just over the square

That was the November 30th protest I'm talking about. I didn't go to the most recent

 

[detective-boy]

If that's what you really want, then learn to deal with it when people disagree with you.

I'm quite happy to deal with people who disagree with me.

It's the people who make up what I have said, who misrepresent what I have said, who can't be bothered reading what I have said before wading in and the trolls who obsessively follow me from thread to thread posting nothing but abuse who I can't deal with.

 

[Blagsta]

some self awareness would be good too

 

[stethoscope]

I'm quite happy to deal with people who disagree with me.

It's the people who make up what I have said, who misrepresent what I have said, who can't be bothered reading what I have said before wading in...

Would that be like that time when you jumped on me on a thread about Notting Hill Carnival policing, and without even asking for clarification on what I had said (or not as it actually was), you went straight in shouting abuse and misrepresenting me?

 

[xes]

This is CLEAR evidence of your outright lying about what I have posted.

Apologise now.

You can't prove that containment has any potential to cause injury ...

Still waiting for your appology...LIAR.

 

[detective-boy]

you have to admit that you have some responsibility in the way this pans out though. Much of the time, you're not speaking from you. You speak from a handbook of what the police would want you to say.

I do not suffer fools gladly, no. I show my frustration easily, yes. But watch how things happen and I will guarantee you will not find me wading into someone with abuse without them having started things. I will guarantee that (with very few exceptions) I do not base my responses on any history with that poster (not least because I can never be bothered to remember who I have had a spat with for the most part - there are far more important things to worry about in life).

As for speaking from any "handbook" ... surprisingly after 150 years of doing it, the police and the law applicable to policing is pretty extensive. Most things are done in particular ways for particular reasons and whilst there is constant need for changes around the edges (e.g. modern communication methods like Twitter mean that once again it is probably the case that (well-organised) protestors can get more people to a particular point more quickly than the police ... something that was one of the reasons why things got out of hand in the 80s and which, with the introduction of the very mobile and constantly available Police Support Unit, has not been the case since) the fundamental principles are extremely well-established and simply will not be subject to any major review by the Courts.

I have no immoveable attachment to those principles ... but if you are arguing against them you need to be able to engage with a very well-supported rationale for doing so.

then go crying to teacher when you get it back.

I don't go "crying to teacher" just for random abuse. I have never complained of others doing anything that I have done myself. Go back and read editors post earlier - I even get a bollocking for NOT reporting the trolling posts ...

 

[detective-boy]

The static demonstration would be illegal if it could be proven they intended to remain static, which doesn't appear to be the case on published evidence.

I agree it doesn't appear that it intended to remain static ... on the basis of the information in the public domain it appears their intent was to break into Parliament and ... well, I'm not sure they know what they wanted to do when then got into Parliament but I suspect it would have ended in the same way as Millbank with most people just milling about not knowing what to do and others committing acts of damage and violence of varying degrees on any one and any thing which they encountered or which got in their way ...

 

[ymu]

Deluded.

 

[detective-boy]

There will always be a certain tension between the law and what it is right to do. Some of us are less concerned with the law than doing what is right. It's a nuance that is always lost on certain posters here.

If you think that it is right to break the law then, as many posters other than me have pointed out, don't whinge when the police try to stop you (as that is their job and, in fact, they have a duty to do so and would be committing a criminal offence themselves if they did not do all that is reasonably possible to do so).

What is really pathetic is that you demand the right to break the law because it is "right" ... AND demand the right not to be stopped by the police from doing so ...

You cannot have your cake and eat it. If you really think that it is necessary to break the law in the pursuit of some right, grow some balls and stand up and be counted for taking the action you did and the consequences which follow.

 

[detective-boy]

It was the same methods at Duisberg - people in a confined space only been let out in trickles.

No, it wasn't. It was the management of access to a site. It was NOT a containment in any way.

 

[detective-boy]

If enough people are present then the snatch squad gets cut off and beaten.

In that case stop bleating about why the police contain the entire crowd instead of just the troublemakers.

If you are unwilling to allow them to deal with those intent on causing trouble then they will have no alternative but to deal with the entitre crowd containing them. The only other alternative (doing nothing) is simply not possible.

 

[dylans]

I will guarantee you will not find me wading into someone with abuse without them having started things.

bullshit.

 

[detective-boy]

That Tesco at Trafalgar square had nowhere for the staff to run to -

Now you mention Tesco, it was their staff I remember seeing interviewed. They were plainly terrified (despite the platuitudes spoken by the apologists for criminal thugs on here that there is no reason for anyone inside premises being attacked to be the slightest bit concerned for their own safety ...)

 

[TopCat]

In that case stop bleating about why the police contain the entire crowd instead of just the troublemakers.

If you are unwilling to allow them to deal with those intent on causing trouble then they will have no alternative but to deal with the entitre crowd containing them. The only other alternative (doing nothing) is simply not possible.

Well you may well face the whole crowd turning on the police and expressing a massive amount of rage.

 

[detective-boy]

Still waiting for your appology...LIAR.

Still lying, eh?

I notice that you don't actually link to the quote you take the out of context line "You can't prove that containment has any potential to cause injury" from ... no doubt because you know perfectly well that taken in context it was not actually saying that at all - it was being used in a rhetorical way to demonstrate the threadbare nature of the position of another poster whose words I mirrored ... Look, it's here for anyone who is interested...

You can't prove that containment has any potential to cause injury ... on the basis of your argument "It's back to intent. Prove intent. You can't. Why shouldn't the police use containment? Ban it is there's injury caused, sure. But preventing the police using a tactic intended to prevent crime and disorder in case injury is caused ... is bullshit?

Double standards anyone ...

 

[detective-boy]

Deluded.

Thank you for your thoughful contributions to the substantive debate ...

 

[detective-boy]

bullshit.

Prove it.

 

[detective-boy]

Well you may well face the whole crowd turning on the police and expressing a massive amount of rage.

That is something that the crowd should (and would) be criticised for.

What do you suggest that the police do?

 

[dylans]

Prove it.

Show me one post where I have EVER used abuse aimed at you. One. Your abusive attacks on me where COMPLETELY unprovoked and unilateral.

(In fact I would quite like an apology but I won't hold my breath)

 

[discokermit]

What do you suggest that the police do?

fuck off.

 

[sherpa]

I do not suffer fools gladly, no. I show my frustration easily, yes. But watch how things happen and I will guarantee you will not find me wading into someone with abuse without them having started things.

You have called me all sorts of names, most recently "thick cunt" - please refer me to the posts where I have delivered a similar level of abuse in your direction.

I'm patient.

 

[dylans]

You have called me all sorts of names, most recently "thick cunt" - please refer me to the posts where I have delivered a similar level of abuse in your direction.

I'm patient.

Join the queue.

 

[TopCat]

That is something that the crowd should (and would) be criticised for.

What do you suggest that the police do?

Take their beating like a man.