London Student protests - Wed 8th Dec+ Thurs 9th
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Refused as fuck
"ethnic pakistani tosser"
Refused as fuck
"ethnic pakistani tosser"
Doesn't matter how you say it, moon23, it's still a hilarious self-pwn.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Latest lib-dem leaflet - fuck the coalition!
Desperate.
Desperate.
Refused as fuck
"ethnic pakistani tosser"
O ye of little faith. moon23's local libdem's are harvesting the commune. Locally for local people! Isn't that what you lefties are always on about? You were when he was in some party he can't remember the name of or indeed, anything about, which makes his claim not suspicious in the least.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Meanwhile in Sheffield the Lib Dems are so committed to consultation that they've just abandoned it; consultation procedures much trumpeted in the authority's Sheffield Compact have been ditched, so that 15% cuts to the voluntary sector can be pushed through for the coming year (these are disproportionate to the 28% overall budget cuts handed down from central government over the next three years).
Louis MacNeice
Louis MacNeice
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
So they're salting the earth in expectation of their retreat next may. Nice.
Refused as fuck
"ethnic pakistani tosser"
but he made a fucking leaflet and everything!
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
We've yet to see any of these attack leaflets (part A4 , part pit bull cross); maybe they're as grounded in reality as the 'splitter' chanting SWPers?
Louis MacNeice
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
I must point out that no one became abusive towards me.
It wasn't ... but if the cap fits ...
I don't need examples of when containment is used before violence is used by a crowd - it's a preventative measure, acknowledged as such by the Courts. The clue is in the name ...
If you actually ready the history of the exchanges you would see that I was asking for examples of these many occasions on which the police started the violence (and note that we have since differentiated "violence" in it's theoretical definition (thus including any containment or cordon what has some (low) level of force implicit in it's existence) from "violence" in it's usually intended definition (i.e. throwing rocks, using batons).
Like you've never gratuitously insulted me ...
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Point of order. Militant did not "split" from the Labour Party, they were first witch hunted and then expelled. Kinnock essentially did the bidding of Thatcher.
Here's his infamous speech (I get the feeling that you've never seen this before)
It isn't.
(I know it's the pantomime season ... but I'm sure everyone would prefer you to explain why you think it's incorrect ...
)
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Exactly, what more do you lefties want?
I was using containment tactics, which involved preventing people leaving, holding them for extended periods of time (though not as long as some exmaples recently) and taking names / addresses / photographs as they were released, as long ago as the late 1980s.
Containment is nothing new. The fact that you have invented a cool new name for it dosn't change that fact.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
great, looks like I'll be looking forward to another nine months of unemploymeny and negotiating redundancies then. Marvellous
Combination of both.
Indeed not. And the Courts would be quick to rule it as such if that were the case on any well-documented and challenged occasion. In the vast majority of cases they haven't - they have acknowledged the police have a lawful right (a duty in fact) to collectively use force on a crowd which is, or which is about to be, violent. It is acknowledged that this use of force by one group on another inevitably involves some individual use of force on individual members of the crowd who may themselves be acting lawfully.
The interaction between this collective and individual justification is precisely the point where I say that there are concerns about the use of individual officer safety tactics in a public order collective use of force situation.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You found that pink snooker ball yet?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
do stalinists believe in freedom of speech?
There was certainly a lot of collective use of force. But there was also a clear justification for that at the collective level and it is simply impossible to deal only with the individual violent individuals when they are hiding within the general mass of the protest.
It is inaccurate to portray it as collective punishment unless there is no clear other justification for it. (And it would be unlawful (Article 7 ECHR - No punishment without law) if there was not. Pop along to the High Court if you think you have a case ...)
No. Facts are facts. But before we can know what they are there has to be an inquiry or investigation unless we personally witnessed everything of any relevance to the situation.
Society, through politicians. Usually the judiciary are appointed as that is what they are in their day jobs.
Only if they commit an offence justifying arrest, otherwise they would be sued for unlawful arrest. But they would not be "independent" anyway - they are evidence gatherers for one side.
Where have I said the police should be independent. In any challenge to the lawfulness of their actions they clearly are anything but independent.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Lol i love it when people act surprised when hard-liners come out with - well, hard lines ...
past caring
The Cathars were right
If you are using the theoretical definition of "violence" then I would suggest that there was "violence" on the same level as the police using cordons, etc. by the protestors before those cordons were enforced by the use of force (i.e. the cordon was there and the use of force to break it came first).
If you are using the usual definition of "violence" then I would disagree that the imposition of cordons, etc. (which in and of itself involves no more than minimal force (pushing and shoving)) amounted to the police using "violence" first. The protestors would be entitled to use a minimal level of force (pushing and shoving) in response ... but not to escalate that to the higher levels of violence which then resulted in the police defending themselves using batons and other more violent responses.
Perhaps that is because there are millions more interactions between the police and the public than between soldiers and the public ...
If you think that what gunneradt posts is the same as what I post then you are a bigger idiot than I thought ...
Similar threads
