This is why people are losing respect for the police...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Suspect the police are using the same laws that some on here are cheering about being used on JSO protestors, you know the one about having to seek permission to demonstrate.
Yeah I suspect ;) that the thug team last night didn't have permission to hold their protest there at all so after being asked to move on they got the same treatment, arrest to remove them and then de-arrest at another location.

Whats good enough for one load of gormless morons is good enough for all the gormless morons.
Click to expand...

Ahahahahaha chickens coming home to roost for all the pathetic people who supported more government and police power over themselves.
 
Ayahuasca said:
Din du nuffin wrang, police just arresting anyone etc.

Peaceful protest to take back their country iirc.
Click to expand...

Isn't that effectively what that report is saying though? 87 arrested for contravening an order, which was extremely restrictive , i.e. from 19:00 to 20:30 with immediate dispersal, and confined to a tiny static area..

Reading their other reports for the last time they used these orders, the PSC and Enough is Enough protests on the same day/weekend, they allowed PSC to have a full on March, Enough is Enough was again limited to a small static protest.. How is that fair? surely people should be able to demonstrate peacefully where ever and whenever they wish (within sensible reason of course), it seems almost deliberate to make an order that restrictive for one group.

hurfdurf said:
Ahahahahaha chickens coming home to roost for all the pathetic people who supported more government and police power over themselves.
Click to expand...
I'd have to agree, who would have thought that powers peddled as just being able to stop highly disruptive protests would be abused to extend to confining any protests they don't like the look of.. Could have seen that coming a mile away!
 
Last edited:
Demon said:
Yes, did you have a point to go with that amazingly insightful question?

I only offered that as a secondary point.
Click to expand...

You appear to be arguing that the Bristol 4 received easier treatment because it was a BLM protest. When actually they felt the full force of the law and were put on trial. Perhaps your hero who ****** on the police memorial should have insisted on going to Crown Court and letting a judge and jury decide his fate, rather than accepting the more limited punishment available from a magistrate.
 
Demon said:
Why be disingenuous about it..
The BBC article says "Jailing Banks, Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot said: "I accept you were drunk and did not know where you were urinating."" - so he wasn't deliberately defacing it.. just caught short and still got 18 days in prison.

Yet we can contrast that with the Acquittal of the 4 people in Bristol who literally toppled a statue and threw it in the river in the name of BLM..
Click to expand...

They got an acquittal because they were correct to topple the statue. A jury found this to be true. The law was clear, that statue should have been toppled years ago. So much so, the police who erroneously tried to charge the heroes who did it couldn’t even argue legally for a retrial.

I’d like to see you argue that it was legally ok to **** yourself drunk on public property in front of people because of self inflicted intoxication.
 

The spycops enquiry is heating up.

I see it’s not getting any attention in GD though, not surprising really. Loads of posts about Tommy Robinson supporters being treated meanly for rioting and being racist, but none for the rape of women and government intervention in democracy and freedom.

It is clear the priorities of the people who post in GD.
 
hurfdurf said:
They got an acquittal because they were correct to topple the statue. A jury found this to be true. The law was clear, that statue should have been toppled years ago. So much so, the police who erroneously tried to charge the heroes who did it couldn’t even argue legally for a retrial.

I’d like to see you argue that it was legally ok to **** yourself drunk on public property in front of people because of self inflicted intoxication.
Click to expand...

"The law was clear, that statue should have been toppled years ago"

You have all the logical reasoning of an EDL member.. :D
 
Demon said:
Isn't that effectively what that report is saying though? 87 arrested for contravening an order, which was extremely restrictive , i.e. from 19:00 to 20:30 with immediate dispersal, and confined to a tiny static area..

Reading their other reports for the last time they used these orders, the PSC and Enough is Enough protests on the same day/weekend, they allowed PSC to have a full on March, Enough is Enough was again limited to a small static protest.. How is that fair? surely people should be able to demonstrate peacefully where ever and whenever they wish (within sensible reason of course), it seems almost deliberate to make an order that restrictive for one group.


I'd have to agree, who would have thought that powers peddled as just being able to stop highly disruptive protests would be abused to extend to confining any protests they don't like the look of.. Could have seen that coming a mile away!
Click to expand...

A hell of a lot of protests are being denied now.
The laws the last government implemented that took away a lot of our rights.
 
Last edited:
hurfdurf said:
The law was clear, that statue should have been toppled years ago.
Click to expand...
What law? I agree that sentiment and feelings towards who/what the statue represents made many people believe it was just to topple the statue. I think your fibbing if you think there is a law that justifies criminal damage based on feelings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom