March in London on the 26th?

[PermaBanned]

A shop or place of business is not a public right of way, the public only have limited access and rights within the store or business premises or property owned by the store or business and the owners reserve the right to refuse entry to whomever they choose. If they refuse to leave then it becomes a matter for the police and a criminal offence under the public order act.

It's corporate property - it's the most public space there is! It wouldn't work if it was any other way.

 

[Robbo]

Business was carrying on as usual in the shop. Just another disgusting technique by the MET here, when it comes to working class struggle they may as well be the army.

Disgusting? Ha.

Didn't take much for the old bill to outsmart you all

 

[Al Vallario]

What's the point in debating with you if you won't even look at the evidence?

What evidence? I told you I watched the Guardian video in full.

At no point did the WPC say the protestors would not be detained or arrested, and even if she had said words to that effect it is irrelevant, because everyone was committing aggravated trespass and ought to have been arrested regardless..

I couldn't give less of a toss about protestors whinging "They promised us we wouldn't be arrested for the criminal offence we committed then arrested us anyway! No fair!"

 

[Castiel]

What's the point in debating with you if you won't even look at the evidence?

What evidence. The fact remains that if the store wants them to leave and they refuse they are committing an offence.

Did the store want them to stay?

Did the Store owners tell the Police to leave them be?

No, they did not, they asked the Police to remove them. That is all that is necessary.

 

[Mucky_Pup]

Your arguments are losing any credibility they might have had by making it sound like you're just rebelling against authority with no purpose.

To lose it, you have to have it to begin with.

 

[Castiel]

It's corporate property - it's the most public space there is! It wouldn't work if it was any other way.

You are completely and utterly off the wall sometimes.

Fortums is a privately owned company, the store and its environs are privately owned, there is no public right of way unless the owners of the property and business allow limited rights of access for the purposes of their business.

Corporate property being owned by the public indeed.

 

[PermaBanned]

What evidence. The fact remains that if the store wants them to leave and they refuse they are committing an offence.

Did the store want them to stay?

Did the Store owners tell the Police to leave them be?

No, they did not, they asked the Police to remove them. That is all that is necessary.

Actually, the police had kept them in the store when people wanted to leave.

Now, now weza - I'm sympathetic so some of your thoughts but you can't just make a blanket statement like that and tar them all with the same brush.

There were many Police officers I spoke to that day that were sympathetic to the cause and there were many off duty officers marching (putting themselves at significant risk of disciplinary action I might add) along with lots of retired police officers.

We also had Ghurkas marching and a contingent of soldiers in wheelchairs (their state assistance is being slashed under the current regime). To insinuate our Army would let themselves be used as a method of civilian oppression is frankly insulting.

Your arguments are losing any credibility they might have had by making it sound like you're just rebelling against authority with no purpose.

Exactly - real people don't last long in the met. They're the ones who give themselves the illusion of authority and get disappointed, in many cases angry, when people treat them as what they really are: equals. There may well be individual members of the police force that are decent people, and are in the job for all the right reasons, but the organization itself is ultimately, beyond the task of fighting real crime, a tool for controlling the working classes. Nobody with even a basic knowledge of Orgreave could disagree with that.

 

[Biohazard]

We also had Ghurkas marching and a contingent of soldiers in wheelchairs (their state assistance is being slashed under the current regime). To insinuate our Army would let themselves be used as a method of civilian oppression is frankly insulting.

Your arguments are losing any credibility they might have had by making it sound like you're just rebelling against authority with no purpose.

I'm sorry, but you yourself are just showing yourself up a bit not him.

The army have turned out against British civilians, they didn't use force, but they pointed guns and howitzers at them.

Those civilians were soldiers who had returned from WWI to bugger all, look up Red Clydeside.

It was a long time ago, but soldiers carry out orders. They would supress the population if the government requires it, and probably still could disconnect to do it today.

 

[Al Vallario]

Actually, the police had kept them in the store when people wanted to leave.

Irrelevant.

They were there with the intent of obstructing and disrupting the lawful activity of the business. It doesn't matter how long they were in there doing so, a criminal offence had been committed.

Edit: Obviously if these cases get to court the CPS will have great difficulty demonstrating intent on the part of the protestors to cause obstruction and disruption; most cases will fall through on this basis. Nevertheless, the police had grounds to arrest everyone on suspicion of the offence.

 

[PermaBanned]

I'm sorry, but you yourself are just showing yourself up a bit.

The army have turned out against British civilians, they didn't use force, but they pointed guns and howitzers at them.

Those civilians were soldiers who had returned from WWI to bugger all, look up Red Clydeside.

If we're using events from history, how about one of the events that led to creation of a police force in the first place? Peterloo?

 

[Danthus]

Exactly - real people don't last long in the met. They're the ones who give themselves the illusion of authority and get disappointed, in many cases angry, when people treat them as what they really are: equals. There may well be individual members of the police force that are decent people, and are in the job for all the right reasons, but the organization itself is ultimately, beyond the task of fighting real crime, a tool for controlling the working classes. Nobody with even a basic knowledge of Orgreave could disagree with that.

What real crime do the Police not tackle?

 

[Castiel]

Actually, the police had kept them in the store when people wanted to leave.

They had already broken the law, they decided it would be and I quote "creative and fun" to disrupt a lawful business. The Police do not have to ask them to move on, they do not have to give them that option if it is not in the interest of their safety or they are suspected (as in this case) of committing a criminal offence.

If they did not want to get arrested then they should not of occupied Fortums and instead held a peaceful protest outside the store or with the other protesters.

The only wrongdoing here is that of the Protesters themselves, no one else. They wished to make a stand for what they believe in, I can identify with that, but they must take responsibility for their actions and that includes being arrested and maybe charged with aggravated trespass in this case.

 

[PermaBanned]

They had already broken the law, they decided it would be and I quote "creative and fun" to disrupt a lawful business. The Police do not have to ask them to move on, they do not have to give them that option if it is not in the interest of their safety or they are suspected (as in this case) of committing a criminal offence.

If they did not want to get arrested then they should not of occupied Fortums and instead held a peaceful protest outside the store or with the other protesters.

The only wrongdoing here is that of the Protesters themselves, no one else. They wished to make a stand for what they believe in, I can identify with that, but they must take responsibility for their actions and that includes being arrested and maybe charged with aggravated trespass in this case.

Actually, they do. You have to receive at least two warnings before it can be classes as trespass of any sort.

 

[Al Vallario]

Actually, they do. You have to receive at least two warnings before it can be classes as trespass of any sort.

Please cite the law that states this, because once again, you are wrong but you don't know it.

First you claimed these protestors were only guilty of a civil offence. You were demonstrably wrong.

Then you claimed the fact they were peaceful meant they were not guilty of an offence. You were demonstrably wrong.

Then you claimed that because the store is 'corporate property' it is a 'public space' and implied this has some bearing on whether an offence had been committed. You were demonstrably wrong.

Then you alluded to the fact that the police prevented them from leaving the store at their will being a defence against an offence being committed. You were demonstrably wrong.

Are you starting to see a pattern here?

 

[Castiel]

I'm sorry, but you yourself are just showing yourself up a bit not him.

The army have turned out against British civilians, they didn't use force, but they pointed guns and howitzers at them.

Those civilians were soldiers who had returned from WWI to bugger all, look up Red Clydeside.

It was a long time ago, but soldiers carry out orders. They would supress the population if the government requires it, and probably still could disconnect to do it today.

No they would not.

Since WW1 the rules regarding the following of lawful orders is somewhat different.

The Armed Services Act states that orders must be lawful,

"Unlawful orders are not to be given and are not to be obeyed. Members of the UK Armed Forces must obey all lawful orders issued by a superior.

An order to commit an obviously criminal act, whether given directly or indirectly, such as the torture or other mistreatment of a prisoner, is an unlawful order which does not relieve a subordinate of his responsibility to comply with the law.

The possible defence that a subordinate was only ‘following orders’ will only succeed if the subordinate did not know, and could not reasonably have recognised, that the order was unlawful. Such circumstances are likely to be rare.

Where an order is capable of being misinterpreted, a subordinate must seek clarification. Where an order permits such degree of latitude to a subordinate that it is capable of being carried out lawfully or unlawfully, it should only be carried out lawfully."


In a civilian situation the civilian law would take precedence and unless there is some serious changes to legislation and a complete retraction from UK law of the auspices of the Geneva convention then what you seem to be suggesting simply would not take place.

 

[Castiel]

Actually, they do. You have to receive at least two warnings before it can be classes as trespass of any sort.

You are just making stuff up as you go along.

 

[PermaBanned]

You are just making stuff up as you go along.

The first is to inform them that they are trespassing, and the second is to inform them that something will be done about it. Feel free to find me a legal force that will act on a charge of trespass if those accused haven't even been told about it

 

[Mucky_Pup]

He's just aggrieved because he got "Aggravated Trespass" thrown at him, when the shopkeeper told him to get out of the newsagents at lunchtime because he was in a group of more than 2.

 

[Danthus]

The first is to inform them that they are trespassing, and the second is to inform them that something will be done about it. Feel free to find me a legal force that will act on a charge of trespass if those accused haven't even been told about it

Source for having to issue the warnings?

 

[Robbo]

You are just making stuff up as you go along.

Well in fairness, its his little fantasy world, there are no boundaries