It’s all kicking off in Bristol

[Outcast440]

The government and police here have been intent on banning many people from working for the entire last year, with probably another full year to come. And this site is actually full of its cheerleaders. Can't really see how the argument of banning protests that disrupt businesses can actually be used in defence of the new bill.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

So that right is, you can protest, but must be silent? And follow the directions that police give you?

Why do people debate like this, it clearly isn't what was said. The right to protest shouldn't be an unrestricted right, that's what was said and personally I agree with that.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Tommy Robinson dislikes Islamic fundamentalists (especially terrorists) and has been subjected to racist abuse both physical and verbally for trying to expose Islam for what it is.

Apparently you're now a racist nazi for speaking the truth against the religion of peace.

You may want to watch Tommy Robinson's Oxford union address on YouTube. Yes the same Oxford currently saving the world with a not for profit vaccine gave Tommy Robinson his own slot to address their members.

It's great to jump on bandwagons and I suspect yes a lot of his followers may be racists but Tommy himself is actually trying to tackle a real problem in this country which spreads worldwide.

I'd like to know how many folk have actually listened to his Oxford union address rather than just read what's spouted about him in the tabloid's. As we already know the media has its own agenda to promote hatred and fear. To form an opinion on him based just off tabloid gossip would be ignorant. I used to think he was a racist too until I actually heard his views but I don't think he hates black people or think they are beneath him. In fact a lot of his friends are black the media has portrayed him in this light.

So to answer your question no I wouldn't call them all racist Nazis. Only some of them will fall into that category and Tommy cannot exactly control who follows him and it's the media which has made that type of person become a follower of his rather than Tommy himself by promoting him as a racist.

Again Tommy doesn't shed himself in good light by supporting count Dackula or whatever that idiots name was but his agenda isn't racist although it may look that way to everyone who has never actually listened to him.

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?

I'm not a supporter of his but I do believe that he has been shone in a very bad light for his beliefs which are that Islam is an intolerant religion which tbh is true.

Before anyone responds it would be helpful if they actually listened to him for once rather than media gossip. I've made it easy by embedding the video above.

I was going to comment at what misinformed nonsense this is but I see you've already been schooled by @iamtheoneneo

As for Yaxley Lennon himself. He is a racist thug, he's been one for decades and a criminal for just as long. He spend years travelling around the country fighting as a Luton Town FC hooligan, he went out with his fellow racist thugs and terrorised non whites who live in Luton and Dunstable. He even took the name of Luton Town's most notorious football hooligan to make himself sound harder. How some people look up to this criminal is beyond me. He is criminal scum, yet some of you think he's great.

 

[Roar87]

So that right is, you can protest, but must be silent? And follow the directions that police give you?

I mean here you've posted loaded questions putting words in my mouth without responding to my post at all. There does need to be limits to peaceful protests when it becomes essentially economic terrorism, deliberately shutting the local economy down isn't just a peaceful protest that the majority have to put up with.

 

[dowie]

If protesters want to block a bridge, then fiddling with the law is not going to stop them.

the same is true of anyone intent on breaking any law, the point is, again, re: the gaps in the law to allow the police to act.

Though your claim isn't completely true - laws might well reduce some activity they're designed to deal with - for example, residential squatting is now illegal and the squatters know they can be evicted very easily so they target commercial property instead, Ireland has thought rules on travelers etc..etc...

I think people working around St Pauls, for example, would have been grateful if the police had been able to clear away the big tented camp much sooner.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

The government and police here have been intent on banning many people from working for the entire last year, with probably another full year to come. And this site is actually full of its cheerleaders. Can't really see how the argument of banning protests that disrupt businesses can actually be used in defence of the new bill.

The principles behind your first 'point' are one of the answers to your final 'point'.

Point is in apostrophes both times as most of what you said is hyperbole and a misrepresentation of the reality aka 'fake news'.

 

[StriderX]

the same is true of anyone intent on breaking any law, the point is, again, re: the gaps in the law to allow the police to act.

Though your claim isn't completely true - laws might well reduce some activity they're designed to deal with - for example, residential squatting is now illegal and the squatters know they can be evicted very easily so they target commercial property instead, Ireland has thought rules on travelers etc..etc...

I think people working around St Pauls, for example, would have been grateful if the police had been able to clear away the big tented camp much sooner.

It could also make protesters more brazen and defiant if they feel they might risk everything regardless of severity of their action or inaction.

 

[Roar87]

It could also make protesters more brazen and defiant if they feel they might risk everything regardless of severity of their action or inaction.

No one is getting 10 years in prison for peacefully protesting, it's quite obviously a deterrent to people who want to arrange mass economic disruption because they hate the Tories while calling it a protest.

 

[dowie]

It could also make protesters more brazen and defiant if they feel they might risk everything regardless of severity of their action or inaction.

Seems doubtful. IF they engage in more criminal acts they'll have more charges/existing laws used against them too.

 

[GGizmo]

So the government has a reason to infiltrate protests to justify passing draconian laws?

They are in there already. Any active groups are monitored.

I noticed in todays media the police are saying they had zero intelligence about these activities.

The whole event looked unnatural.

 

[Ahleckz]

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.

Completely disrupt the economy? When has that happened?
I see you’ve now compared protests to economical terrorism. Get a grip. Some tents in a square and standing around a bridge for a while hardly disrupts the economy of that immediate area, let alone completely disrupts the economy.

The funny thing is that the XR protests were to highlight the harm that human caused climate change will have on us, the economy and the world. That’s a bigger issue than McDonalds having to board up their windows for a day. It’s a shame people aren’t getting more worked up about those issues than some people camping in a public square.

 

[StriderX]

You know if you didn't want your economy to suffer you wouldn't put most of it in one location where a protest could do serious harm... Alas, here we are having abandoned most of the country to managed decline for decades.

 

[Roar87]

Completely disrupt the economy? When has that happened?
I see you’ve now compared protests to economical terrorism. Get a grip. Some tents in a square and standing around a bridge for a while hardly disrupts the economy of that immediate area, let alone completely disrupts the economy.

The funny thing is that the XR protests were to highlight the harm that human caused climate change will have on us, the economy and the world. That’s a bigger issue than McDonalds having to board up their windows for a day. It’s a shame people aren’t getting more worked up about those issues than some people camping in a public square.

Humans existing is damaging the environment, yes that is a thing that is true, yes we are working on improving it, no that will not happen at the pace that we would like because a lot of the world is still developing and people are prioritising feeding themselves and earning a living over a clean environment. As living standards improve the priorities will shift, as has happened over the developed world. Some unemployed tossers clogging up central London does nothing except **** people off and make people less likely to support their cause, especially when they're exposed on national TV for being hypocrites.

 

[Vulcan]

Why do people debate like this, it clearly isn't what was said. The right to protest shouldn't be an unrestricted right, that's what was said and personally I agree with that.

I mean here you've posted loaded questions putting words in my mouth without responding to my post at all. There does need to be limits to peaceful protests when it becomes essentially economic terrorism, deliberately shutting the local economy down isn't just a peaceful protest that the majority have to put up with.

My question was to find what that restriction should be. The bill restricts protest that creates too much noise, that could be any protest. Do you agree with this? The reason why this bill is controversial isn't because it prevents "economic terrorism" or "deliberately shutting the local economy", it's because it applies to almost every protest.

 

[Ahleckz]

Humans existing is damaging the environment, yes that is a thing that is true, yes we are working on improving it, no that will not happen at the pace that we would like because a lot of the world is still developing and people are prioritising feeding themselves and earning a living over a clean environment. As living standards improve the priorities will shift, as has happened over the developed world. Some unemployed tossers clogging up central London does nothing except **** people off and make people less likely to support their cause, especially when they're exposed on national TV for being hypocrites.

So, did they commit economical terrorism and completely disrupted the economy? All that, from a few “unemployed tossers”. Sounds like we’ve got a major issue with our economy and critical services if a few unemployed tossers can wreak havoc and cause terror.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

So, did they commit economical terrorism and completely disrupted the economy? All that, from a few “unemployed tossers”. Sounds like we’ve got a major issue with our economy and critical services if a few unemployed tossers can wreak havoc and cause terror.

Swap economy with legal system, and that's how this law came about

 

[potatolord]

Completely disrupt the economy? When has that happened?

...

The fuel duty protests twenty years ago risked enormous economic damage to the UK. Petrol stations ran dry and essential services were affected.

The protest was successful and the government reduced fuel duty.

People seem to have forgotten those, possibly because it wasn't "the usual lot".

 

[Ahleckz]

Swap economy with legal system, and that's how this law came about

Im not following?

this law came about because the government are an authoritarian power grabbing shambles that instead of reforming the police system and provide them with funding they need, they try and legislate their way out of the hole rather than deal with the actual problems.

 

[Dolph]

The fuel duty protests twenty years ago risked enormous economic damage to the UK. Petrol stations ran dry and essential services were affected.

The protest was successful and the government reduced fuel duty.

People seem to have forgotten those, possibly because it wasn't "the usual lot".

They also have appeared to forgotten that the public were strongly behind the change to the point where it was costing votes...

 

[Devrij]

Im not following?

this law came about because the government are an authoritarian power grabbing shambles that instead of reforming the police system and provide them with funding they need, they try and legislate their way out of the hole rather than deal with the actual problems.

Agreed, if we don't have a suitably sized and equipped police force to manage protests and keep the minority of people who are vandalising/violent under control, then that is the problem. Adding restrictions that might encompass any protest is just a cheap way of solving the problem from the wrong end.

 

[fez]

You know the result was 52/48% right?

Were they supposed to ignore pretty much half of their constituents?

I don't understand the argument here. StriderX claimed that they always vote down party lines and I said thats not the case and gave an example. The Tory MPs were likely to be in Tory areas and as an oversimplification, Tory voters wanted out and Labour etc wanted to remain. They didn't vote down party lines or arguably with their constituents wishes. They put what they thought was the good of the country over their party's wishes.