Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion, domestic terrorists?

Burnsy2023 said:
:rolleyes:

Firstly, I'm not talking on behalf of the police, I can have my own opinions. Secondly, the police have a positive duty to facilitate lawful protest, and the Supreme Court has ruled that disrupting traffic, depending on the facts of the case can be a lawful expression of protest - which is why the Government has needed injunctions. You may not like it, but that doesn't make them the violent criminals you make them out to be.

Whether it's the best thing to do or not, the obvious point is that protests such as these won't be stopping anytime soon, indeed they're likely to increase in frequency and change tactics to stay in the news and in people's minds.
Click to expand...

I reckon my Grandads generation of Police men would've ensured ambulances could get to hospitals before worrying about lawful expressions of protest, it's honestly pathetic. This is the same generation of Police who watch statues being vandalised and thrown into rivers without intervening though.
 
Roar87 said:
I reckon my Grandads generation of Police men would've ensured ambulances could get to hospitals before worrying about lawful expressions of protest, it's honestly pathetic. This is the same generation of Police who watch statues being vandalised and thrown into rivers without intervening though.
Click to expand...

There are a few things that our Keystone Kops develop eyes wide shut-itis for when it suits them.
A neighbour was walking through a park, (on a pedestrian path), with his wife and daughter, when a motorcyclist buzzed them real close.
He aimed his phone at the rear number plate to take a photo, when the guy returned and beat him about the face, smashing his glasses and bloodying his nose.
When the cops came to his house to take his statement, they bent over backwards to try to convince him to forget it and treat it as just “one of those things.”
When he said that he didn’t want to drop it, they reluctantly withdrew, saying, “Are you sure, really sure?”
 
Jean-F said:
There are a few things that our Keystone Kops develop eyes wide shut-itis for when it suits them.
A neighbour was walking through a park, (on a pedestrian path), with his wife and daughter, when a motorcyclist buzzed them real close.
He aimed his phone at the rear number plate to take a photo, when the guy returned and beat him about the face, smashing his glasses and bloodying his nose.
When the cops came to his house to take his statement, they bent over backwards to try to convince him to forget it and treat it as just “one of those things.”
When he said that he didn’t want to drop it, they reluctantly withdrew, saying, “Are you sure, really sure?”
Click to expand...

That sounds like they were threatening him.

Roar87 said:
I reckon my Grandads generation of Police men would've ensured ambulances could get to hospitals before worrying about lawful expressions of protest, it's honestly pathetic. This is the same generation of Police who watch statues being vandalised and thrown into rivers without intervening though.
Click to expand...

Yep, the police are supposed to be there to protect the public. Allowing this to go on isn't protecting the public, it's protecting the threat to the public.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
That sounds like they were threatening him.
Click to expand...

I couldn’t understand what they had to gain from him dropping it, unless they recognised the motorcycle’s number plate as belonging to a cop, but that’s so far out in left field it has to be immediately discounted.
 
Jean-F said:
I couldn’t understand what they had to gain from him dropping it, unless they recognised the motorcycle’s number plate as belonging to a cop, but that’s so far out in left field it has to be immediately discounted.
Click to expand...

Probably, or it's one of their mates.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
:rolleyes:

Firstly, I'm not talking on behalf of the police, I can have my own opinions. Secondly, the police have a positive duty to facilitate lawful protest, and the Supreme Court has ruled that disrupting traffic, depending on the facts of the case can be a lawful expression of protest - which is why the Government has needed injunctions. You may not like it, but that doesn't make them the violent criminals you make them out to be.

Whether it's the best thing to do or not, the obvious point is that protests such as these won't be stopping anytime soon, indeed they're likely to increase in frequency and change tactics to stay in the news and in people's minds.
Click to expand...


I trust you write up your police notes with more accuracy than you give to this reply? There is no point where I say these scruffs are violent criminals, they aren't the Kray twins, they are just a bunch of layabouts led by an ill educated, ill tempered and appallingly presented hypocrite. Seemingly condoned by one of our police who might apparently be reluctant to admit the mayhem and danger they bring to the general public. I have to ponder just whether your heart would be in bringing them to justice once the necessary statutes have been brought into effect. It's no wonder paramedics and Joe Public are having to take the law into their own hands in these matters, if your opinion is commonplace in the force. I trust you put your militant sympathies behind you when on duty?
 
It's interesting that if its a load of BNP'ers or other causes considered right wing the police bring out the police dogs and try and intimidate protesters. But then these IB ones were being actively helped to sit down.

The police on the ground have obviously been told by the higher ups to treat IB people in a certain way.
 
So they've blocked the M25 again this morning, even though they have an injunction against them doing that...
 
Meanwhile in France a man was dragged off a Eurostar train for wearing the wrong type of facemask by "at least eight uniformed police officers". I wonder what would happen if IB tried what they're doing over there

Uther said:
So they've blocked the M25 again this morning, even though they have an injunction against them doing that...
Click to expand...

So come on Boris put your money where your mouth is or is this like literally every other thing you spout, nothing but hot air...
 
Doesn't the injunction state that they have to be repeat offenders before the full weight of the new law comes into effect? Or some similar soft twaddle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom