Far left riots the new norm?

Associate
Joined
5 Jan 2004
Posts
1,495
This idea of 'far left' is just the standard Trump nonsense which all started with this 'Antifa' madness. Protests happen, they have always happened and will always happen. Some get stirred up into violence, especially when you have a violent opposition such as police with riot gear or anti-protestors involved.

People are getting angry at our government taking liberties, the most recent of which is this police bill which has upset a lot of people. We also have a government who is clearly not far right, but there is a lot of dodgy dealings and a rather high level of lying going on more than the typical UK government over the last 20 years this again is angering many people. For example the current Conservative government is what I would judge as a considerably more corrupt than the previous 2 Conservative administrations.

So what happens when you have a worse than usual government in charge, many people bitter over how Brexit has been handled of course you have the Pandemic and the usual anti-lockdown, anti-mask groups. Then we have a vile media which keeps drumming up hatred in people. You get unrest and violence.

To be honest I am completely surprised it isn't 10x worse than it is right now. Considering everything going on, it all still feels fairly civil and I believe we have a lot worse to come if we keep going in this direction...
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Oct 2004
Posts
7,448
Location
Sunny Torbaydos
Protests have and always will happen, the issue we have now is a large number of highly organised and funded groups are hijacking them and causing trouble with intent to disrupt.

Look at the school protest last week, hijacked by a left wing social justice group who supplied propeganda material including posters, banners and stickers to a group of kids protesting about the union jack in their school. This one didn't turn violent, not a big enough issue for the outcry squad to cause trouble. It's going to end with a serious clash between the police and rioters, much like the incident in belgium where they used riot police on horse back and water canons to disperse the crowd, which refused to obey instruction so ended up being forced to obey.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 May 2014
Posts
3,263
117 years ago the left wing riots were suffragettes for womens rights.

57 years ago the left rioted for black rights and the end of segregation.

.
Go on. I want to hear more about these "lefties".

First and foremost how do you know they were left?
And by whose definition of left?
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
8,389
This idea of 'far left' is just the standard Trump nonsense which all started with this 'Antifa' madness.
The hilarious thing about it is that it's the very thing they seemingly moan about most, identity politics and cancel culture. It's identifying a group of people as 'far left' and doing it so you can shutdown (cancel) any debate on the subject.

In whatever protest that Barrett Brown bloke was taking part in they've (not on this forum afaict) identified the group as 'far left' so they can cancel discussion of whatever the subject was that they were protesting about. (i don't actually know what they were protesting about)
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
The hilarious thing about it is that it's the very thing they seemingly moan about most, identity politics and cancel culture. It's identifying a group of people as 'far left' and doing it so you can shutdown (cancel) any debate on the subject.

In whatever protest that Barrett Brown bloke was taking part in they've (not on this forum afaict) identified the group as 'far left' so they can cancel discussion of whatever the subject was that they were protesting about. (i don't actually know what they were protesting about)

That hilarity exists on both sides, in that the failure to understand that cancel culture can be applied to views you support as well as views you oppose, much like justifying violent and disruptive protests can.

The motivation or subject should be irrelevant as to whether a particular set of actions is acceptable.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
8,389
For sure and my intention wasn't to suggest otherwise if that's how it came across, i may not agree with people or even find what they say offensive but short of inciting violence I'd stand by their side when it comes to the freedom to say it as that's the only way (IMO) that ideas can be challenged and minds changed.

Not that many people seem up for having their minds changed but hey ho. :)
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
For sure and my intention wasn't to suggest otherwise if that's how it came across, i may not agree with people or even find what they say offensive but short of inciting violence I'd stand by their side when it comes to the freedom to say it as that's the only way (IMO) that ideas can be challenged and minds changed.

Not that many people seem up for having their minds changed but hey ho. :)

I support the right of people to speak freely and to protest, but in a mature, liberal democracy like the UK (or most of western Europe for that matter), I don't support the right to intentionally disrupt. It doesn't have to be violent, but as soon as you start using your rights to intentionally disrupt or suppress the rights of others to move freely through their lives, you lose my support.

Groups like XR, groups blockading shops or schools, digging tunnels under construction, and so on aren't protestors, they are disrupters. They aren't trying to engage in democracy, they are trying to subvert it, and should be prevented from doing so.
 
Associate
Joined
5 Jan 2004
Posts
1,495
I support the right of people to speak freely and to protest, but in a mature, liberal democracy like the UK (or most of western Europe for that matter), I don't support the right to intentionally disrupt. It doesn't have to be violent, but as soon as you start using your rights to intentionally disrupt or suppress the rights of others to move freely through their lives, you lose my support.

Groups like XR, groups blockading shops or schools, digging tunnels under construction, and so on aren't protestors, they are disrupters. They aren't trying to engage in democracy, they are trying to subvert it, and should be prevented from doing so.

If you look throughout history though, only this sort of action has ever led to any change.

If you don't cause any disruption then you are mostly ignored.

None violent, but disruptive has been XRs stance. Can't say I agree with *everything* they do. But it's time for us to start taking environmental issues seriously here instead of just blaming China.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
8,389
I support the right of people to speak freely and to protest, but in a mature, liberal democracy like the UK (or most of western Europe for that matter), I don't support the right to intentionally disrupt. It doesn't have to be violent, but as soon as you start using your rights to intentionally disrupt or suppress the rights of others to move freely through their lives, you lose my support.

Groups like XR, groups blockading shops or schools, digging tunnels under construction, and so on aren't protestors, they are disrupters. They aren't trying to engage in democracy, they are trying to subvert it, and should be prevented from doing so.
On that I'd disagree, disrupt is such an open ended definition that it could be interpreted as almost anything, if i have to walk around you to get where I'm going you've disrupted me, if you hold up a sign i could argue that you've disrupted my view, if you talk or shout something i could argue that you've disrupted my hearing something else.

Yes Extinction Rebellion, blocking schools, standing outside abortion clinics, etc, etc. Is a PITA but we have laws to deal with such things, blocking thoroughfare or highways springs to mind, digging tunnels would probably fall under destruction of property or some other law as you can't just go around digging up public or private properties.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Feb 2011
Posts
6,056
He’s got an extensive history across the pound for a plant and having a press pass is what gets you behind police lines.

You might want to ask why someone who wants to kill cops was hiding behind police lines.

Anyway: Brown has admitted that it was him at the protest - he's been living in London for the last year, by the way - and that the banner did originally say "COPS KILL" before he and his two friends rearranged it. He's also tacitly admitted being there as a provocateur.
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Feb 2018
Posts
7,858
For sure and my intention wasn't to suggest otherwise if that's how it came across, i may not agree with people or even find what they say offensive but short of inciting violence I'd stand by their side when it comes to the freedom to say it as that's the only way (IMO) that ideas can be challenged and minds changed.

Not that many people seem up for having their minds changed but hey ho. :)
It didnt come across like that at all, it was just a lead into Dolphs whataboutery.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,151
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Left wing riots aren't the new norm, no. They're the old norm and the existing norm.

117 years ago the left wing riots were suffragettes for womens rights.

57 years ago the left rioted for black rights and the end of segregation.

52 years ago the left rioted at Stonewall for gay rights.

Every time there's social discord from progressives it's downplayed as radical leftists, yet it almost always seems to be on the correct side of history.

Only after extreme cherry-picking and usually some very thorough whitewashing.

For example, the suffragettes were full on terrorists who only failed to kill lots of people due to luck, their own incompetence and the limited technology of the time. They planted bombs in public places with the intention of killing many random civilians. This is attested to by their own writings about themselves, for which the originals still exist. They publically boasted about their lesser acts of violence, including ones such as arson that only fail to kill people due to luck and good response by the emergency services. The suffragette ideology was also extreme authoritarian, with two commanders and two commanders only. Had the ideology persisted, I'm sure that would have become one commander. There's no room in an authoritarian ideology for two commanders, although it can happen temporarily. Probably the most famous example of that is Stalin and Trotsky.

None of those things are completely hidden (the original writing still exists), but they are very thoroughly whitewashed.

Then there's the extreme cherry-picking. You don't, for example, include the equally "progressive" actions of people such as Gavrilo Princip, not even if they were self-declared leftists (Stalin, Mao, Robespierre, etc, etc). There are many examples of people using violence and intimidation as a political tool and all of them were and are progressive, i.e. they were trying to make society more like what they wanted it to be. That's what "progressive" means - anything that's more of what the person using the word wants.
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
On that I'd disagree, disrupt is such an open ended definition that it could be interpreted as almost anything, if i have to walk around you to get where I'm going you've disrupted me, if you hold up a sign i could argue that you've disrupted my view, if you talk or shout something i could argue that you've disrupted my hearing something else.

Yes Extinction Rebellion, blocking schools, standing outside abortion clinics, etc, etc. Is a PITA but we have laws to deal with such things, blocking thoroughfare or highways springs to mind, digging tunnels would probably fall under destruction of property or some other law as you can't just go around digging up public or private properties.

That's a fair point, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not talking about being slightly in the way, being noisy or so on. I'm talking about (for example) fully blocking the entrance to a workplace or the exit from newspaper warehouses, blocking roads, blocking flights and so on. Those are the things we currently don't deal robustly enough with, whether that needs more robust use of existing laws or new laws is another question. The key part is that claiming to do something as a protest shouldn't be a defence.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
Only after extreme cherry-picking and usually some very thorough whitewashing.

For example, the suffragettes were full on terrorists who only failed to kill lots of people due to luck, their own incompetence and the limited technology of the time. They planted bombs in public places with the intention of killing many random civilians. This is attested to by their own writings about themselves, for which the originals still exist. They publically boasted about their lesser acts of violence, including ones such as arson that only fail to kill people due to luck and good response by the emergency services. The suffragette ideology was also extreme authoritarian, with two commanders and two commanders only. Had the ideology persisted, I'm sure that would have become one commander. There's no room in an authoritarian ideology for two commanders, although it can happen temporarily. Probably the most famous example of that is Stalin and Trotsky.

None of those things are completely hidden (the original writing still exists), but they are very thoroughly whitewashed.

Then there's the extreme cherry-picking. You don't, for example, include the equally "progressive" actions of people such as Gavrilo Princip, not even if they were self-declared leftists (Stalin, Mao, Robespierre, etc, etc). There are many examples of people using violence and intimidation as a political tool and all of them were and are progressive, i.e. they were trying to make society more like what they wanted it to be. That's what "progressive" means - anything that's more of what the person using the word wants.

You could have spent two minutes online and used wiki to note you're point on whitewashing and these facts being kept secret is nonsense. The only controversy here is the way one feminist historian objects to the tag, terrorism, which has been used for some time.

The culture war aspect and 'secret history' style is a literary device that has been popular since the late 17th century in works of historical fiction. Generally studied by English lit rather than English history.
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
If you look throughout history though, only this sort of action has ever led to any change.

If you don't cause any disruption then you are mostly ignored.

None violent, but disruptive has been XRs stance. Can't say I agree with *everything* they do. But it's time for us to start taking environmental issues seriously here instead of just blaming China.


We really haven't, because emissions are a global problem, not a local one.

What the west has largely done is outsourced it's emissions elsewhere and pretended they are doing a good thing, at no real benefit to the planet and damage to the economies of the west.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
That's a fair point, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not talking about being slightly in the way, being noisy or so on. I'm talking about (for example) fully blocking the entrance to a workplace or the exit from newspaper warehouses, blocking roads, blocking flights and so on. Those are the things we currently don't deal robustly enough with, whether that needs more robust use of existing laws or new laws is another question. The key part is that claiming to do something as a protest shouldn't be a defence.

The things you are talking about are illegal and protesting is not a defense against arrest or prosecution although every one is entitled to a defense and to try and defend their actions in court, although this is a crime and arrest for such offenses is perfectly legal.

No one defends the action of extremists, contrary when it comes to both left and right: conspiracy theories permeate many different groups. Fringe environmental groups and alternative medical theories result in very similar types of narratives to the ones deployed by Q. anon, which is associated with the far right.

Political deployment of these serious issues, to tag opponents as being the true and only cause of issues, helps these beliefs which are highly detrimental to thrive as they are not grounded in political ideology and exist across the political spectrum.

Ironically extremists from the left and right, who claim to hate each other, share rather a lot in common.

Mistrust of authority, mistrust of science, being two of the most problematic.

No one wants a nutters charter or groups of numpty's roaming the streets, disrupting everyday life.

edit. Laws are in place, they are extensive, issues are down to tactics and resources, managing these events, which are far from easy to deal with. Police have a difficult job as do politicians in ensuring legislation is actualy legal and accords with standard legal principles.

This Bill does not, Trump's campaign N.D.A's are now junk as he sought to define 'confidential' as anything he wanted it to mean (happened a couple of days ago). The home secretory has done the same thing in this bill, introducing law in an attempt to make this practice legal.

If it remains, it sets a precedents that can be used in other legislation, giving serious power to ministers, who get to determine and alter law as they see fit.

One of the key issues here. Why you see objections from within the Conservative party as well, as many people share the same beliefs in regard to democracy and legal practice, its not driven by political ideology but shared principles in regard to liberty and the rule of law.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
The things you are talking about are illegal and protesting is not a defense against arrest or prosecution although every one is entitled to a defense and to try and defend their actions in court, although this is a crime and arrest for such offenses is perfectly legal.

No one defends the action of extremists, contrary when it comes to both left and right: conspiracy theories permeate many different groups. Fringe environmental groups and alternative medical theories result in very similar types of narratives to the ones deployed by Q. anon, which is associated with the far right.

Political deployment of these serious issues, to tag opponents as being the true and only cause of issues, helps these beliefs which are highly detrimental to thrive as they are not grounded in political ideology and exist across the political spectrum.

Ironically extremists from the left and right, who claim to hate each other, share rather a lot in common.

Mistrust of authority, mistrust of science, being two of the most problematic.

No one wants a nutters charter or groups of numpty's roaming the streets, disrupting everyday life.

edit. Laws are in place, they are extensive, issues are down to tactics and resources, managing these events, which are far from easy to deal with. Police have a difficult job as do politicians in ensuring legislation is actual legal and accords with standard legal principles.

This Bill does not, Trump's campaign N.D.A's are now junk as he sought to define 'confidential' as anything he wanted it to mean. The home secretory has done the same thing in this bill, introducing law in an attempt to make this practice legal.

If it remains, it sets a precedents that can be used in other legislation, giving serious power to ministers, who get to determine and alter law as they see fit.

Advocating that the general public has insufficient protections from excessive, malicious disruption is not, and should not be taken as support for the police, crime and sentencing bill, which goes way beyond what's necessary to redress the balance.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
8,389
It didnt come across like that at all, it was just a lead into Dolphs whataboutery.
I know you and Dolph don't always see eye-to-eye but would you mind leaving me out of it.
That's a fair point, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not talking about being slightly in the way, being noisy or so on. I'm talking about (for example) fully blocking the entrance to a workplace or the exit from newspaper warehouses, blocking roads, blocking flights and so on. Those are the things we currently don't deal robustly enough with, whether that needs more robust use of existing laws or new laws is another question. The key part is that claiming to do something as a protest shouldn't be a defence.
It's a balancing act for sure and whether someone thinks we aren't 'robust' enough or to 'robust' is a matter of opinion, personally i think the judicial system (police and the courts) gets the balance about right.
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
I know you and Dolph don't always see eye-to-eye but would you mind leaving me out of it.

It's a balancing act for sure and whether someone thinks we aren't 'robust' enough or to 'robust' is a matter of opinion, personally i think the judicial system (police and the courts) gets the balance about right.

I'm not convinced, but our judicial system is at points highly random and erratic in how it views and punishes certain behaviours. That's not to say it's unfair or prejudiced, because largely I don't believe it is, but that different crimes or activities with similar impact can be treated very differently. The pandemic response, for example, would have been much more successful if police had used their powers with the same zeal and lack of compromise when they use their powers on motorists. When it comes to intentionally disruptive protests, it's relatively rare to see any meaningful punishment (unless the event is formally declared a riot), same with eco protests, and even with repeat offenders, so there is no deterrence.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
It's a balancing act for sure and whether someone thinks we aren't 'robust' enough or to 'robust' is a matter of opinion, personally i think the judicial system (police and the courts) gets the balance about right.

If you look at the legislation covering the crimes Dolph is referring to, which are trespass. The legal history is apparent from the repeated references to Scotland, in English legislation.

The feudal nature of trespass law, and a judiciary drawn from the aristocracy, has been even more of an issue in Scotland as it has in England. Trespass ( poaching is a form of it), was one of the big three crimes along with, murder and rape.



Changing the laws on protest effects the law of trespass generally. The issue here, is not that the history is one of Britain being to soft, rather that these laws historically have been rather draconian and heavily policed and enforced.



The idea that extensive powers do not all ready exist, is simple not the case. Really do not know where the idea comes from that a county traditionally governed by a landowning class, is soft or lacks legislation in regard to trespass.

Heck, traditional even animals were subject to these laws.

Fundamental to the construction of law in agrarian society as traditionally it covered animals as well and is and was a significant cause of dispute.
 
Last edited:
Top