Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
No, we can't. (we being the vast majority - e.g. non-workshy; non-soap dodgers; non-anarcho-wankers; non-scrounging etc. etc. etc. folk who actually contribute something to the fabric of the nation).
No, we can't. (we being the vast majority - e.g. non-workshy; non-soap dodgers; non-anarcho-wankers; non-scrounging etc. etc. etc. folk who actually contribute something to the fabric of the nation).
As soon as other posters refrain from:
1. Throwing abuse in my direction on any thread involving policing issues (often before I have even posted).
2. Simply posting abuse, with not even an attempt to engage on the substantive issues.
3. Obsessively stalking me from thread to thread, making post after post after post with nothing but abuse and other slagging off.
4. Failing to read what I actually post, and thus misrepresenting entirely what I have actually said.
5. Not even bothering to try to read what I have posted and posting on the basis of what their prejudices tell them I would have thought / said.
i.e. ... er, no time soon ...
In slagging off Proper Tidy I am responding to their deliberate misrepresentation of what I have said - they are perfectly capable of understanding what I posted, they have simply chosen not to do so, which is tedious and annoying ... and so results in a robust response. If I thought for one moment that they genuinely had special educational needs and genuinely didn't understand the complexities of the issue I had posted about then I wouldn't dream of abusing them as I did.
Oh dear ... another success for police continuation training ... there has been no such thing as a "serious arrestable offence" since 2005 (when the relevant provisions of PACE were amended and repealed by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act) ...That tallies with what I was told by a Sergeant at the Victoria Embankment end of the bridge, he said the road was closed because "serious arrestable offences" (his exact words) had occurred and were being investigated.
They were a bit more accurate with this bit: there is no specific power to move people around, contain them, etc. in order to prevent a breach of the peace - it is a Common Law power (probably a Common Law duty more accurately).This was justification not only for the kettle, but also apparently to not allow me to stand on the road and take of a photo of the outer cordon. The specific power invoked being "Bronze says so".
I will.
As soon as other posters refrain from:
1. Throwing abuse in my direction on any thread involving policing issues (often before I have even posted).
2. Simply posting abuse, with not even an attempt to engage on the substantive issues.
3. Obsessively stalking me from thread to thread, making post after post after post with nothing but abuse and other slagging off.
4. Failing to read what I actually post, and thus misrepresenting entirely what I have actually said.
5. Not even bothering to try to read what I have posted and posting on the basis of what their prejudices tell them I would have thought / said.
i.e. ... er, no time soon ...
.
I will.
As soon as other posters refrain from:
1. Throwing abuse in my direction on any thread involving policing issues (often before I have even posted).
2. Simply posting abuse, with not even an attempt to engage on the substantive issues.
3. Obsessively stalking me from thread to thread, making post after post after post with nothing but abuse and other slagging off.
4. Failing to read what I actually post, and thus misrepresenting entirely what I have actually said.
5. Not even bothering to try to read what I have posted and posting on the basis of what their prejudices tell them I would have thought / said.
i.e. ... er, no time soon ...
In slagging off Proper Tidy I am responding to their deliberate misrepresentation of what I have said - they are perfectly capable of understanding what I posted, they have simply chosen not to do so, which is tedious and annoying ... and so results in a robust response. If I thought for one moment that they genuinely had special educational needs and genuinely didn't understand the complexities of the issue I had posted about then I wouldn't dream of abusing them as I did.
I will.
As soon as other posters refrain from:
1. Throwing abuse in my direction on any thread involving policing issues (often before I have even posted).
2. Simply posting abuse, with not even an attempt to engage on the substantive issues.
3. Obsessively stalking me from thread to thread, making post after post after post with nothing but abuse and other slagging off.
4. Failing to read what I actually post, and thus misrepresenting entirely what I have actually said.
5. Not even bothering to try to read what I have posted and posting on the basis of what their prejudices tell them I would have thought / said.
i.e. ... er, no time soon ...
In slagging off Proper Tidy I am responding to their deliberate misrepresentation of what I have said - they are perfectly capable of understanding what I posted, they have simply chosen not to do so, which is tedious and annoying ... and so results in a robust response. If I thought for one moment that they genuinely had special educational needs and genuinely didn't understand the complexities of the issue I had posted about then I wouldn't dream of abusing them as I did.
I have tried that several times. It has not the slightest effect.Be big enough to make the first step. Have the courage to rise above the abuse.
If those "attacks" are unlawful, sure ... but they are (for the most part) not.They have every right to defend themselves against police attacks, by whatever means necessary.
If those "attacks" are unlawful, sure ... but they are (for the most part) not.
If a crowd is using or threatening violence then the police have a duty to use whatever lawful, reasonable and necessary means that they have at their disposal to do so, including the use of reasonable and necessary force. That applies even if the crowd includes (or is even entirely made up of) "kids".
(Your entirely patronising depiction of "kids" as being incapable of making decisions for themselves and of being unable to present any threat to anyone at all, ever is pretty pathetic, by the way ... )
Oh look! The Collective rushing to defend each other ... what a fucking surprise ...stop making things up. This isn't the canteen.
Oh look! The Collective rushing to defend each other ... what a fucking surprise ...
If those "attacks" are unlawful, sure ... but they are (for the most part) not.
If a crowd is using or threatening violence then the police have a duty to use whatever lawful, reasonable and necessary means that they have at their disposal to do so, including the use of reasonable and necessary force. That applies even if the crowd includes (or is even entirely made up of) "kids".
(Your entirely patronising depiction of "kids" as being incapable of making decisions for themselves and of being unable to present any threat to anyone at all, ever is pretty pathetic, by the way ... )
Collective punishment isn't lawful ... as I have already acknowledged. But it isn't collective punishment. A collective use of force (on a crowd as a group) is lawful - it is NOT a collective punishment but is a lawful action taken to prevent a breach of the peace, crime, etc. It can usually only usually be justified to a minor degree (pushing and shoving or whatever) and certainly not to the point where any significant injury is caused. That may include the use of horses in a way which will not involve any significant injury (such as them moving sideways at walking pace or moving forwards a short distance into a crowd, under control and at low speed, to break up a crowd or move it back - as has been seen in the majority of the footage of the student demonstrations).How is indiscriminately running horses at, or whacking with truncheons, whoever is in the vicinity 'lawful'? I'm fairly confident that collective punishment isn't legally justifiable.
That is not my experience in the vast, vast majority of cases. It is not the case in the vast, vast majority of footage taken of any crowd control situation (strangely the boring bits which don't kick off don't make the headlines ... but they DO still exist ... ).Police purposefully provoke crowd in order to justify further police violence, every single time. No attempt to 'control', purely to inflame.
They are also capable of assault, murder and other serious crimes ...Kids under 18 are unable to enter a credit contract, or get married without consent, or drink etc for a reason you numpty. Because they are kids. Go batter a toddler or something big man. Fucking kapo.
Oh look! The Collective rushing to defend each other ... what a fucking surprise ...
If a crowd is using or threatening violence then the police have a duty to use whatever lawful, reasonable and necessary means that they have at their disposal to do so, including the use of reasonable and necessary force. That applies even if the crowd includes (or is even entirely made up of) "kids".
Another thread ruined.
Why is this idiot still allowed here?
They don't though.If the police are using or threatening violence then the general public have a duty to use whatever lawful, reasonable and necessary means that they have at their disposal to do so, including the use of reasonable and necessary force.
A 25-year-old Bristol student was arrested in a dawn raid at his house and locked in a police cell for 12 hours after video evidence emerged of him stroking a police horse at an anti-tuition fees demonstration.
Speaking about his time in the cells, Saville said: "There was no reason to come for me that early in the morning; the protest was three weeks before. And if we do live in a democracy then we should have a right to protest. But when I sat in the cell, I thought to myself, 'I don't want to be part of this any more.' I thought, 'Let the government make the cuts they want, I can't take this.' I gave up in that cell.
He wasn't arrested for "stroking a police horse" was he though ... as the article you link to makes clear and as you perfectly well know.Student protester who stroked police horse arrested. Could it get any more farcical than this?
He wasn't arrested for "stroking a police horse" was he though ... as the article you link to makes clear and as you perfectly well know.
So why lie?
So he wasn't arrested for "stroking a police horse" then.They stuck on an "alleged" affray charge Mr Ed.
Oh fuck off you supercillious prick ...It was a C&p headline from the article, which I suspect is nearer to the truth, but we'll wait and see? Now off you trot.