Brian Haw, peace protester assualted by cops

Adnams Drinker said:
At the end of the day, whatever else you can say about him - workshy, unwashed, craps in the street etc. - Brian Haw is a constant, highly prominent reminder that our esteemed Government took us to war in Iraq based on a blatant and outright lie, and as such, I hope he continues to be a thorn in the side of those in Parliament who consider him ... what's the phrase New Labour use? Ah, I know ... "off message" ...
Click to expand...

I'd never heard of him until I read this thread.

He sounds like just another bandwagon jumper who's made himself famous by deliberately provoking law enforcement into taking action against him then having his bleeding-heart propagandists moan and complain on his behalf.

I wish he'd come and camp outside my front door.
 
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...

You sound like Cartman...


Can anyone inform us as tho why there had to be 20 police officers there guarding what seemed to be quite a peaceful group of 10 or so 'hippies'?

Unless we have the full details of the case at hand it's quite ridiculous for any of us to pass judgment on it and I refuse to, myself, come down on either side of this argument.

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.
Click to expand...

Can I please, please ask that you learn your native language? Please?

And your rights as a civilian. Police have no greater rights then you whatsoever. The only difference is that you are punished more for striking/killing a police officer to offer them protection in heated situations. A police officer unlawfully striking a civilian is still a crime of assault.
 
Slinwagh said:
Isn't that part of the democratic process??
Click to expand...

No, that's part of a police state process. A democratic process would simply be the people deciding to protest. Not, the people deciding to protest then politely waiting to be told by their rulers that they can or cannot.
 
Darg said:
A democratic process would simply be the people deciding to protest. Not, the people deciding to protest then politely waiting to be told by their rulers that they can or cannot.
Click to expand...

But who listens to these people, who actually gives a toss about whatever it is they're bleating on about?
 
Slinwagh said:
Isn't that part of the democratic process??
Click to expand...

I most cases you have the freedom to congregate and engage in peaceful protest, but not outside parliament, not the one place where it really matters.

There you have to apply to the home office who will, in almost all cases, refuse your application thus restricting your right. It's not a law that was passed at the request of the population, it was passed to stop anti-war protests and specifically Brian Haws from protesting outside Westminster Palace.

How is that part of the democratic process?
 
[DOD]Asprilla;10923551 said:
I most cases you have the freedom to congregate and engage in peaceful protest, but not outside parliament, not the one place where it really matters.
Click to expand...

So in some respects you would you say that the right to protest has been preserved, the only limitation is where you can protest?

Shouldn't the substance of the protest, the message that is being promoted more important than the location where you congregate.
 
Slinwagh said:
Shouldn't the substance of the protest, the message that is being promoted more important than the location where you congregate.
Click to expand...

It should, but media in this country is very London centric and politics is incredibly Parliament centric, therefore it's not. Unless you were to pass the protest under the noses of those you want to hear the message then they could quite easily ignore it completely (I'm not saying they don't anyway).
 
Darg said:
Can anyone inform us as tho why there had to be 20 police officers there guarding what seemed to be quite a peaceful group of 10 or so 'hippies'?.
Click to expand...

The more police there to handle any problems, the safer it is. 2 men to restrain 1 sounds reasonable.
 
Adnams Drinker said:
At the end of the day, whatever else you can say about him - workshy, unwashed, craps in the street etc. - Brian Haw is a constant, highly prominent reminder that our esteemed Government took us to war in Iraq based on a blatant and outright lie, and as such, I hope he continues to be a thorn in the side of those in Parliament who consider him ... what's the phrase New Labour use? Ah, I know ... "off message" ...
Click to expand...

Ha, you lefty pinko communist hippy. Get back to reading the guardian, we don't need your kind in this thread!

/sarcasm
 
Tombo said:
The more police there to handle any problems, the safer it is. 2 men to restrain 1 sounds reasonable.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me why they needed restraining? What had they actually done for the police to go there in the first place?
 
andyp said:
But who listens to these people, who actually gives a toss about whatever it is they're bleating on about?
Click to expand...

It's not about who listens or even who is saying it. It's about the right to do so no matter what you are protesting about, who you are or who is listening.
 
Darg said:
It's not about who listens or even who is saying it. It's about the right to do so no matter what you are protesting about, who you are or who is listening.
Click to expand...

No one has taken his right to protest away, he is just not allowed to protest outside Parliament.
 
Darg said:
Can you tell me why they needed restraining? What had they actually done for the police to go there in the first place?
Click to expand...

It's called a precaution to send the police down - especially as protests with Brian Haw involved have got physical in the past. In any case parliament square always has tons of police for general security reasons - I wouldn't be surprised if there were 20 police officers there right now.
 
You have people moaning there are not enough Police Officers on the street, look how many were taken away from normal duties dealing with this guy.
 
Darg said:
No, that's part of a police state process. A democratic process would simply be the people deciding to protest. Not, the people deciding to protest then politely waiting to be told by their rulers that they can or cannot.
Click to expand...

Werewolf said:
IIRC Mark Thomas had some fun with that law, getting permission for numerous silly protests.
I don't think he was turned down for any of them, including the one where he broke the world record for the number of individual distinct protests in a single day by a single person, and the number of individuals protesting seperately in a single day (from memory one of the protests was about the amount of police time and paperwork was needed to authorise the protests).
Click to expand...

That too me says that it's more about warning them as Mark Thomas clearly had no problems gaining the right to protest.

Again it seems people don't look at the logic behind a decision but at what bit of sensationalism about freedom of speech and liberties the can rant about.
 
I won't be the first and the last to say this, but people have no idea in what Police brutality is. When occasionally some Policeman hits someone over the head a couple of times in a dark alley it's hardly Police brutality compared to what's going on in other countries.

As for the video, I hardly see anything that warrants the outrage in the description and the guy simply got the sharp end of the camera in his face and blood ran down his face making it look almost serious.
 
Last edited:
vonhelmet said:
Ha, you lefty pinko communist hippy. Get back to reading the guardian, we don't need your kind in this thread!

/sarcasm
Click to expand...

I note your use of the word sarcasm, but regrettably I'm none of the above - just an average Joe who believes our honest, upstanding and in-no-way-corrupt-whatsoever ruling regime deserves to be harangued and hassled at every step by citizens who feel moved to do so without that regime being able to sweep it under the carpet, like so much else, under the catch-all heading of 'national security' :) ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom