Brian Haw, peace protester assualted by cops

LordSplodge said:
So it is OK for "terrorists" to blow up, say the local Fire Headquarters, but not Parliament. Rubbish.

You say that the right to peaceful protest is protected, yet contradict yourself by saying you can't in certain areas.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that it is ok for anyone to blow up any building. There are some buildings and areas that are more sensitve than others and thus need to be protected.
 
Slinwagh said:
Where did I say that it is ok for anyone to blow up any building. There are some buildings and areas that are more sensitve than others and thus need to be protected.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Free speech needs to be protected. I can peacefully protest outside buildings that are far more vital than the Houses of Parliament.

Just another example of how "anti-terrorism" laws are being used to erode our liberties.
 
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...

When democracy was founded many years ago we didn't have people strapping rucksacks to their backs full of homemade explosives and murdering innocent members of the public.
 
Meridian said:
My understanding is that the "loophole" concerned is the ancient principle of English law that you cannot bring in retrospective legislation. Or rather you can, but it will almost certainly be struck down by the courts as illegal.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of laws that are retrospective. Government's long since past caring what Dicey said. Article 7 HRA just stops criminal liability for past acts.They just forgot to put in this law that it was retrospective and, as such, it was seized upon as a reason that it shouldn't apply to him - despite the fact that there's compelling evidence in Hansard that the law was basically made to get rid of him specifically.
 
Last edited:
LordSplodge said:
Wrong. Free speech needs to be protected. I can peacefully protest outside buildings that are far more vital than the Houses of Parliament.

Just another example of how "anti-terrorism" laws are being used to erode our liberties.
Click to expand...


Free speech, the very thing abused by terrorists who then go on to commit acts of mass murder in order to "defend" it.
 
Whining hippies, it looks like his camera just got knocked in the tussle with the rest of the hippies, which cut his frail skin.
 
Evangelion said:
This incident occurred 6 days ago. The man in question is Brian Haw, a political activist who has maintained a legal, peaceful anti-war protest in Parliament Square for the past 5 years.

His account of the incident is recorded here in Wikipedia:


On January 12, Haw was at an unauthorised protest against the Serious and Organised Crime Police Act, outside Downing Street. Seven people were arrested (including Haw), Haw said "I was filming the students lying down in the road when one officer stepped forward, as I was walking back, and pushed the camera with his hand. It struck my face." He accused the police of using "violent and humiliating force".
​

The video is disturbing on a number of levels:

  • The police inspector dismisses Haw and refuses to address his complaint, despite the fact that Haw was able to give the badge number of the police officer who struck him

  • During the course of his arrest, Haw is unnecessarily dragged to the ground by four policemen (!) and handcuffed (why?)

  • Haw is then forced to walk doubled over, with his head halfway to his knees, as the police bundle him into their van; again, what is the reason for this treatment
  • When questioned by protesters, the police are unable to explain why Haw is being arrested

While I'm aware that the UK's Keystone Kops aren't exactly famous for their competence and professionalism (ahem, ahem, ahem), they appear to have plumbed new depths of thuggery in this latest escapade.
Click to expand...

That is the most unbaised and unsensationalised peice of thought provoking journalism I've ever read.
 
Slinwagh said:
When democracy was founded many years ago we didn't have people strapping rucksacks to their backs full of homemade explosives and murdering innocent members of the public.
Click to expand...

Essential liberties (of which Free Speech is one of them) > protection from terrorists.

Funny how we survived the IRA without having to implement all these laws.

But I see me and you disagree so I will avoid getting in a circular argument.
 
Slinwagh said:
1. Do you really expect the Inspector to deal with a complaint at the time of an ongoing incident, if Brain wanted to file a formal complaint he can do so at his local Police Station.
Click to expand...

I expect the inspector to take him seriously when he's quoting a badge number.

2. There is nothing wrong with taking a prisoner to the ground to handcuff him. It is perfectly legal and indeed safer.
Click to expand...

Four police officers forcing a passive protestor to the ground and cuffing him? Nothing wrong with that?

What if you were stopped for speeding and the cops treated you in the same manner? Would you consider this entirely appropriate?

3. Again, perfectly legal and this is done to control the person arrested, it stops them from struggling and flailing and thus limits inury to the person arrested, the Police Officers and the public.
Click to expand...

LOL! Forcing a passive protestor's head towards his knees while marching him to a police van is necessary... why?

4. The police are under no obligation to disclose the reason for the arrest to anyone other than the person arrested.
Click to expand...

OK, but aren't they supposed to give a reason at the time of arrest? If they did, I certainly didn't hear it.
 
Masterdog said:
1) Certainly not the right time for a complaint
Click to expand...

Why not? Are the public only allowed to complain at certain times now?

2 & 3) In what was no doubt a charged situation there's no reason not to arrest him in such a manner.
Click to expand...

Why is there "no reason to arrest him in such a manner"? He wasn't violent; why treat him like a football hooligan?

4) Unwilling and unable are not the same thing. The police aren't going to waste their time explaining why they're arresting the guy.
Click to expand...

Pretty pathetic tbh.
 
LordSplodge said:
Essential liberties (of which Free Speech is one of them) > protection from terrorists.

Funny how we survived the IRA without having to implement all these laws.

But I see me and you disagree so I will avoid getting in a circular argument.
Click to expand...


Many of the laws introduced in the PoTA were specifically designed to target the PIRA, UDA and the UFF to name a few.
 
To the people who are slating this guy: When you have the balls and determination to stand up for something you believe in as much as this guy does wheather you like his reasons or not, then come back and post a valid arguement against him.

You all sound like a load of sheep that want to be gagged:rolleyes:
 
Brutality? FFS Go watch the news articles about Kenya at the moment. That's police brutality.

Why's there always one hippy housewife stood in the middle yelling "Calm down! Calm Down!" If we all sit down with a nice cup of green tea I'm sure we can sort this out officer.
 
He was standing there and a policeman came upto him and shoved the camera hard into his face, hence the cut. This was the conversation last night on the radio and the reason why he was so upset.
 
Slinwagh said:
Many of the laws introduced in the PoTA were specifically designed to target the PIRA, UDA and the UFF to name a few.
Click to expand...

Did we have a 28 Day (and the desire for a 90 day) detention without charge law back in the days of the IRA or a restricted protest zone around Parliament?

A I said the protection of essential liberties far outweigh all other rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom