It’s all kicking off in Bristol

Status
Not open for further replies.
ebilcake said:
tenor.gif
Click to expand...

Maybe people would take your views more seriously if you were able to engage in a conversation and debate.

I’d try again but the onus is on you to provide some basis to your argument and I don’t think you can.

The BLM protest in Glasgow didn’t see shops being trashed, people assaulted by the protestors, city property destroyed. So the police didn’t have a need to do anything.

Whereas the ‘right wing’ rangers mob trashed the city, attacked people, destroyed shops and threw missiles at the police. The police also didn’t do anything.

So, again, you are wrong. What’s your actual argument and issue here as I’m not sure what it is. You seem to want the police to treat both the left and right the same.
It seems they did, they did nothing.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
Bare in mind this is Oxford university here. Do you really think they would entertain a racist and give him the platform to amass 3 million views on this video alone?
Click to expand...
Point of clarity needed here, This is not Oxford University this is the Oxford Union. It is no way part of the University, the university pretty much hates it for all the issues they cause it and the assumption they are connected to it.

The Oxford Union has a habit of selecting controversial guests Candace Owens, Debra Soh, Le Pen for example.

In the case of Ebenezer Azamati (2020) who sued the Union over his mistreatment, before he appointed a law firm to take his case, several college professors and a head of house under the legal profession were willing to take his case on against the Union. Make no mistake there are very few university members that approve of the Union, speak to most students who signed up during freshers week and they will also feel they got duped into being members.
 
I don't have an issue with the intent of this new bill - it seems we had a clear gap that needed to be filled here when idiots from XR were blocking bridges in London or plonking some big silly boat down or delaying commuter trains etc.. (ditto to a few years ago when a bunch of people set up protest camps in the City by St Pauls etc..).

I am concerned about possible side effects though - I'm not a lawyer though and so don't really know to what extent I should be concerned but the police do have previous for abusing legislation and using it way beyond its original intent - see, for example, terrorism legislation used to harras photographers in London or as an excuse to stop and search people as a fishing exercise.
 
dowie said:
I don't have an issue with the intent of this new bill - it seems we had a clear gap that needed to be filled here when idiots from XR were blocking bridges in London or plonking some big silly boat down or delaying commuter trains etc.. (ditto to a few years ago when a bunch of people set up protest camps in the City by St Pauls etc..).

I am concerned about possible side effects though - I'm not a lawyer though and so don't really know to what extent I should be concerned but the police do have previous for abusing legislation and using it way beyond its original intent - see, for example, terrorism legislation used to harras photographers in London or as an excuse to stop and search people as a fishing exercise.
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-54823810

The police got involved back then, so what's the problem?
 
MadMossy said:
I hope they can identify those involved, and I hope they throw the book at them.

If anything their actions have just solidified the bill.
Click to expand...

They should all be locked up, named and shamed.

Most sane people wouldn't support this law but the actions of a minority will ensure support.

Police abuse their powers enough as it is, giving them more is the last thing we should be doing, they had the power to deal with these "protestors" but didn't for political reasons.
 
StriderX said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-54823810

The police got involved back then, so what's the problem?
Click to expand...

No one is saying the police don't get involved in protests, the problem is the current gaps.

Brief explanation re: the intent here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56400751

Ministers and police have worked together on the proposals covering protests.

Police chiefs including Dame Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, were frustrated they could not do more to lessen the impact of Extinction Rebellion demonstrations in 2019.

Mass occupations of roads and bridges in London and elsewhere stretched the police to the limit.
Click to expand...
 
I don't think as many people have an issue with the intent of the bill (though many obviously do) so much as the broad way it seems to be getting written and the scope for abuse.

Without having spent time to verify the claim, if the BBC link above is factual, things like this:

It will also become a crime to fail to follow restrictions the protesters "ought" to have known about, even if they have not received a direct order from an officer.

At present, police need to prove protesters knew they had been told to move on, before they can be said to have broken the law.
Click to expand...

should concern anyone, whichever side of the fence you sit on - it seems poorly written and ripe for abuse.
 
I wasn’t in London, but wasn’t the XR protest heavily advertised so people knew the route? Stopping some people getting to work, on a day(s) when they were told about the route ahead of time isn’t a reason to ban people shouting at protests.
I’d argue blocking roads is a perfectly legitimate form of protest.

You live/work near places which have attracted protests due to their visibility for years, you have to accept that you may be inconvenienced now and then. I live near a major football stadium, I’m too inconvenienced.

I accept the guys gluing themselves to trains is too far, but this can be dealt with under current provisions. Blocking a few roads and bridges is a legitimate form of protest IMO. As is protesting around parliament, as is blowing whistles and shouting. Looting, seriously damaging property and violence is not.
 
Ahleckz said:
I wasn’t in London, but wasn’t the XR protest heavily advertised so people knew the route? Stopping some people getting to work, on a day(s) when they were told about the route ahead of time isn’t a reason to ban people shouting at protests.
I’d argue blocking roads is a perfectly legitimate form of protest.

You live/work near places which have attracted protests due to their visibility for years, you have to accept that you may be inconvenienced now and then. I live near a major football stadium, I’m too inconvenienced.

I accept the guys gluing themselves to trains is too far, but this can be dealt with under current provisions. Blocking a few roads and bridges is a legitimate form of protest IMO. As is protesting around parliament, as is blowing whistles and shouting. Looting, seriously damaging property and violence is not.
Click to expand...
As with all these things, the 1% 'exciting' bit gets all the attention. The Tube roof climber, the Tower Bridge 'stoppers'... blah.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
Bare in mind this is Oxford university here. Do you really think they would entertain a racist and give him the platform to amass 3 million views on this video alone?
Click to expand...

Firstly, it's not Oxford University, it's The Oxford Union Society, which is a student run debating society. They regularly invited a range of people, including known racists, white-supremacists and other far right figures. The inclusion of extreme views is part of the debating environment for this particular society.

Edit: beaten by @iamtheoneneo
 
Ahleckz said:
Maybe people would take your views more seriously if you were able to engage in a conversation and debate.
Click to expand...

I was trying to think how best to put the stupidity of his posts in words. This is the best I could come up with:

"I've never seen a T-Rex have a tug, but I imagine it looks a lot like you trying to engage in a debate"

I think @ebilcake needs to learn what "burden of proof" means, as his arguments so far equate to nothing more than someone yelling random crap at a wall. Except that the wall is laughing at him.

And smarter than him :p
 
When rent a mob turns up and causes mayhem it only strengthens the position of the people for the new laws.
 
StriderX said:
So the government has a reason to infiltrate protests to justify passing draconian laws?
Click to expand...

Are there no limits to a peaceful protest in your mind? I mean you could peacefully protest while shutting half the country down and stopping medicine getting to hospitals and food getting to supermarkets. Of course people should be allowed to protest, but that isn't the unrestricted right to completely disrupt the economy and other peoples ability to earn a living and go about their business.

It's quite obvious the "we hate the Tory" brigade which is a bunch of far left very literal communists are just looking for an excuse to cause civil disobedience because they dislike the outcome of Democracy, again.
 
Roar87 said:
Of course people should be allowed to protest, but that isn't the unrestricted right to completely disrupt the economy and other peoples ability to earn a living and go about their business.
Click to expand...
So that right is, you can protest, but must be silent? And follow the directions that police give you?
 
Longbow said:
So that right is, you can protest, but must be silent? And follow the directions that police give you?
Click to expand...
That's one way to take it totally to the extremes of what was intended.

Another way to interpret it is to do protests in wide open spaces which don't risk loss of life. Or pre-agree routes like most sensible protestors arrange for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom