Brian Haw, peace protester assualted by cops

"Peace protester".

Hypocrite. Orchestrating disturbance and unrest as well as creating a significant security risk in public is far from peaceful. He deserves more than a camera in the face. I applaud the police handling of the matter in this instance.

Hippies do not understand reason. They are blindly convinced that they are correct and are unwilling to listen or take into account any other views and opinions. Force is the only way to control them. They will stop at nothing to get their way and are a genuine threat to security.
 
JaFFa said:
Did I miss it or do you not actually see any one get 'brutally assaulted' ?
Click to expand...


exactly and he even admits his own camera hits him in the face. I expect a policemen pushed him away and he smacked himself in the face.

Nothing more than stupid protesters who should be locked up anyway for wasting police time. With allegations such as these.
 
fini said:
Snip
Click to expand...

Interrumpting the democratic processes which removes his democratic right to freedom of congregation and protest. Nice.

just because he's not as apathetic as the rest of us about how this government does as it pleases without the mandate of the people it doesn't mean he should be locked up because he's a bit untidy and noisy.

Edit - as for police brutality I know coppers who regularly break their own rules with regards to the use of CS gas and who use their mag-lites to control people because it means they can hit people hard than they can with their trucheons.
 
Last edited:
Hobgoblin said:
funny. if i did that to a policeman i would be arrested for assault. and i think they would love to take my details pertaining the incident at that very moment. in fact if i did that to a bystander i would be done for assault.
Click to expand...

If you was having a scuffle with a police officer then yes, obviously you would be arrested. We as civilians don't have the rights police officers do, like it or lump it.

If you was involved in a similar situation with a bystander and it couldn't be proved you done it then you probably wouldn't. To be fair, very little can be seen in the video.

it is clearly assault by the laws of this country. not kenya. this country.
Click to expand...

I didn't see assault in that video. I saw a scuffle where someone was injured, not assaulted though. Are you watching a different video?
 
Scuzi said:
"Peace protester".

Hypocrite. Orchestrating disturbance and unrest as well as creating a significant security risk in public is far from peaceful. He deserves more than a camera in the face. I applaud the police handling of the matter in this instance.

Hippies do not understand reason. They are blindly convinced that they are correct and are unwilling to listen or take into account any other views and opinions. Force is the only way to control them. They will stop at nothing to get their way and are a genuine threat to security.
Click to expand...

How is he a "threat to security"?
 
LordSplodge said:
How is he a "threat to security"?
Click to expand...

Orchestrating disturbance and unrest in public. Whilst the protest in itself is a threat due the relative ease with which a riot can break out, the massive amount of police resources being tied up in containing and controlling the protest is such that it leaves significant vulnerabilities of which the list is endless.
 
Scuzi said:
Orchestrating disturbance and unrest in public. Whilst the protest in itself is a threat due the relative ease with which a riot can break out, the massive amount of police resources being tied up in containing and controlling the protest is such that it leaves significant vulnerabilities of which the list is endless.
Click to expand...

But any protest uses police resources so why is this any different?

It's not a major threat to security IMO. A bit of a scuffle would be welcomed a lot more than a bomber.
 
Meridian said:
My challenge for tonight: list five of them.
Click to expand...
Five? This is going to take ages :(

let's get the ball rolling with the the Finance Act 2004, which has received retrospective amendments in 2005.

More as I think of them
EDIT:
Personal and Occupational Pension Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No 2) Regulations 1997
Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997
Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (see R v Field (2002))
Finance Act 1997 (yes slightly cheating as I have the Finance Act 2004 up there, but I have other things to do tonight lol)
 
Last edited:
Meridian said:
If there are lots of them as you said, surely it should be easy?
Click to expand...

Already finished by the time you posted that. (EDIT: Woops maybe not, hadn't reloaded the page lol) There are tons, but you have to go through Halsburys, or search through cases, for mention of them, which if you've ever used LexisNexis you'll know takes a while.

EDIT: If you think the last one's a cheat you can have the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 as well.
 
LordSplodge said:
It is not one mans right but rather the right of the nation. The right to peaceful protest has been removed in this area by the Government under the thin guise of "anti-terrorism" and thus breaking one of the founding principles of Democracy.
Click to expand...

I would fully understand things before you get on your soap box.

You can protest in the 1/2 mile restricted area if it is organised and you give the police warning. Which suggests the motivation behind it is security reasons and not your sensationalist claims.
 
fini said:
Why should one man have more right to protest than anyone else? At the moment Brian Haw does. Right to protest, yes. Right to indefinitely squat, no. Right to be a health hazard, no. Right to interrupt the workings of democracy, no.
Click to expand...

Sitting outside the houses of parliament hardly qualifies as interrupting democracy.

Besides, I'd say that if you can't interrupt democracy to some extent, then it's probably not democracy you're interrupting...
 
I don't see anything wrong with that, nobody is being hurt and if the guy wasn't struggling there'd be no need for police to restrain him. He's brought it on himself as with most plonkers who get arrested and play up for cameras.
 
fini said:
Already finished by the time you posted that. (EDIT: Woops maybe not, hadn't reloaded the page lol) There are tons, but you have to go through Halsburys, or search through cases, for mention of them, which if you've ever used LexisNexis you'll know takes a while.
Click to expand...

Indeed... Lexisnexis is murder to use.

Yes, there are laws that are retrospective. I've seen it from time to time just in the field of tax law alone.
 
Scuzi said:
Orchestrating disturbance and unrest in public. Whilst the protest in itself is a threat due the relative ease with which a riot can break out, the massive amount of police resources being tied up in containing and controlling the protest is such that it leaves significant vulnerabilities of which the list is endless.
Click to expand...

With logic like that I assume you're all for banning of football matches then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom