Search results

Sounds like Britain to me.

Those with a history violence get 'preventative' justice.

Prejudice is the foundation of our society.

So prior behaviour of football hooligans shouldn't be used against them when they march for highly charged political reasons? Yeah, no.

One event is not proof that they many dozens of protests haven't been peaceful and clearly the police have assumed (probably because of intel/it being at night) that could end up violent thus have resourced themselves for it. How often do football ultras instigate violence? Forgive me for...

Hopefully it keeps Stephen busy for years and off the streets.

So we have the vast majority of pro-Palestine marches/protests/whatever being generally peaceful besides a few garbage individuals who do appear to be receiving attention when they cause a scene like those Hamas parachute ladies versus a group of people that are a near 1:1 match for football...

I want his speech denied, ngl.

All of this is pointless because the arrest happened and that's all that matters because any court time after can't undo the arrest. It's a neat little trick the police can do.

A representative (the boss in fact...) of a pro-Isreali lobbying group is almost certainly there intentionally.

That they're merely holding the bag of prior malfeasance is irrelevant to me, the country's establishment is in desperate need of some forceful reminders that they're allegiance is to this country and not merely their pockets. Some public flogging may go a long way in reorganising their priorities.

I still thoroughly believe that it's very little to do with racism in the case of the likes of Rotherham and far more to do with how the police perceives the actions of women either because of prejudices they've grown up with or through their work (clubbing culture, dealing with orphanages...

The board of Thames Water needs to be charged with sabotaging the country's infrastructure.

Well that's what happens when the police lose the trust of the public.

Carillion didn't sit on a fundamental necessity of human survival though, who cares if it crumbled? The provision of water would be taken by force during wartime if need be and nobody would be wondering if it was illegal then.

Well that's why you leave no witnesses isn't it?

The government should be investing in this not a bunch of faceless suits with no accountability to the citizens that actually use the infrastructure. As for it being illegal... make it legal.

They absolutely can take it over for nothing since it's a piece of critical infrastructure. Whats the worst that could happen? All the other public service companies become anathema to vultures? That'd be a shame.

One last insult before this government flees the scene of the crime. *********.

I think a rather significant issue is that people are growing up without siblings who I believe (usually) make up for parental shortcomings and since that's not happening the kids simply don't have any street sense at all.