Crosswords1 min ago
Well Done To The Police Today
81 Answers
et al who suppressed any notion of major disruptive process in London today. KC - send them over 10 boxes or barrels of beer for each arrest - that's 520 by my reckoning.
Agree?
Agree?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DTCwordfan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Just a little more info on the potential disruption which was foiled on Saturday. There was some cove on the radio this morning by the name of Graham Smith who was described as the CEO of "Republic". This (as I have discovered today) is an organisation set up to campaign to replace the Monarchy. He was describing what his organisation planned to do at the Coronation (before they were thankfully prevented by the police from doing so). Among their activities was to be shouting messages of discontent via megaphones. He was asked why the people attending the event, who obviously went to enjoy it, should have their enjoyment spoiled by his lot among them shouting through megaphones in furtherance of their cause. He replied that those attending have no right to peaceful enjoyment (despite the protesters having their right to peaceful protest) and they would have to put up with it. Mr Smith apparently spent sixteen hours in police custody following his arrest.
I would hope the great majority of horses would not of been spooked by alarming noises. These horses have been used all year in central London on ceremonial duties. I know as fact that the Met Police Mounted school have coppers throwing fireworks, banging drums,sounding sirens etc to get these mounts used to riotous situations. They even had a shooting range next door to the establishment.
It has also emerged that the police arrested members of a long-standing women’s safety group who distribute rape alarms among other things…
all under the powers grants by the conservatives’ despicable public order bill which came into effect last week
i do hope that everyone who endorsed this fascist law are pleased because everyone else certainly is not
all under the powers grants by the conservatives’ despicable public order bill which came into effect last week
i do hope that everyone who endorsed this fascist law are pleased because everyone else certainly is not
//It has also emerged that the police arrested members of a long-standing women’s safety group who distribute rape alarms among other things…//
Yes I read that. It’s regrettable but I have to say that, bearing in mind it was well publicised that there may be an attempt to spook horses using rape alarms, it was somewhat foolish of the group to roam around Westminster in the early hours with those devices on their person.
// peaceful enjoyment is a right you have at home not in places that are shared by the public//
That is not correct. The public has a right to go about its lawful activities and not have them interrupted. The reason you don’t hear too much about these rights being claimed is that (a) they are, in the main, mostly respected and (b)when they are infringed “the public” does not usually go wailing to the media about it. The police have to maintain a balance. It is quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of people present on the Coronation route wanted to be there to enjoy the occasion and not interrupt it. The right to protest is not unlimited and on occasions it has to be qualified; last Saturday was one of those occasions.
//all under the powers grants by the conservatives’ despicable public order bill which came into effect last week
i do hope that everyone who endorsed this fascist law are pleased because everyone else certainly is not//
I would suggest you have no idea how many people are happy with the new Bill and how many are not. It is quite clear from a number of surveys that events of the last year or so, where protesters have caused serious disruption to roads, transport and infrastructure, that there is widespread disquiet among the public at the way the police have been forced to deal with them. The new Bill attempts to address those problems. It is aimed mainly at preventing disruption to major works or on key national infrastructure and addresses things such as “locking on” and illegal tunnelling. The extensions to stop and search are mainly associated with these activities.
We need to be clear: no other country would permit the kind of disruption seen here over the last year; nowhere else would protesters be permitted to glue themselves to the road or to trains and remain there whilst the police asked if there was anything they could do for them to make them more comfortable. Only here, in the UK, a country which you ludicrously suggest is now living under Fascist legislation, does this happen because of the extremely one-sided attitude to disruption that has developed. So engrained is this attitude that both you and Graham Smith have been laundered with the idea that the right to protest is paramount and sacrosanct. Everybody else must “put up with” disruptive activities so long as it is in furtherance of a cause (with which the victims of the disruption may or may not agree).
Before you talk about “Fascist” laws I suggest that you look at why the new Bill was necessary, examine what it aims to address and how it will address it. Then look up the dictionary definition of “Fascist” and compare.
Yes I read that. It’s regrettable but I have to say that, bearing in mind it was well publicised that there may be an attempt to spook horses using rape alarms, it was somewhat foolish of the group to roam around Westminster in the early hours with those devices on their person.
// peaceful enjoyment is a right you have at home not in places that are shared by the public//
That is not correct. The public has a right to go about its lawful activities and not have them interrupted. The reason you don’t hear too much about these rights being claimed is that (a) they are, in the main, mostly respected and (b)when they are infringed “the public” does not usually go wailing to the media about it. The police have to maintain a balance. It is quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of people present on the Coronation route wanted to be there to enjoy the occasion and not interrupt it. The right to protest is not unlimited and on occasions it has to be qualified; last Saturday was one of those occasions.
//all under the powers grants by the conservatives’ despicable public order bill which came into effect last week
i do hope that everyone who endorsed this fascist law are pleased because everyone else certainly is not//
I would suggest you have no idea how many people are happy with the new Bill and how many are not. It is quite clear from a number of surveys that events of the last year or so, where protesters have caused serious disruption to roads, transport and infrastructure, that there is widespread disquiet among the public at the way the police have been forced to deal with them. The new Bill attempts to address those problems. It is aimed mainly at preventing disruption to major works or on key national infrastructure and addresses things such as “locking on” and illegal tunnelling. The extensions to stop and search are mainly associated with these activities.
We need to be clear: no other country would permit the kind of disruption seen here over the last year; nowhere else would protesters be permitted to glue themselves to the road or to trains and remain there whilst the police asked if there was anything they could do for them to make them more comfortable. Only here, in the UK, a country which you ludicrously suggest is now living under Fascist legislation, does this happen because of the extremely one-sided attitude to disruption that has developed. So engrained is this attitude that both you and Graham Smith have been laundered with the idea that the right to protest is paramount and sacrosanct. Everybody else must “put up with” disruptive activities so long as it is in furtherance of a cause (with which the victims of the disruption may or may not agree).
Before you talk about “Fascist” laws I suggest that you look at why the new Bill was necessary, examine what it aims to address and how it will address it. Then look up the dictionary definition of “Fascist” and compare.
"The public has a right to go about its lawful activities and not have them interrupted."
peaceful protest IS lawful business. Nobody has any innate right to go outside in a public place and have a lovley time without being annoyed by anyone else... it is juvenile in the extreme to expect such a thing.
i understand that you find protests and people with other opinions irritating and that they "spoil your enjoyment" (odd thing for a person with "broad shoulders" to expect btw) but that is not a good reason to have them arrested by the state on your behalf!
peaceful protest IS lawful business. Nobody has any innate right to go outside in a public place and have a lovley time without being annoyed by anyone else... it is juvenile in the extreme to expect such a thing.
i understand that you find protests and people with other opinions irritating and that they "spoil your enjoyment" (odd thing for a person with "broad shoulders" to expect btw) but that is not a good reason to have them arrested by the state on your behalf!
Only a court can decide (if it is necessary) what is peaceful protest and what is not. As soon as a protest encroaches on other people, whether or not it is "peaceful" is open to debate. Usually the police make that decision and most people accept that. What has happened recently is that the definition of "peaceful" has become blurred, so a new Act was required to redefine it. But with or without the new Act, I would suggest that standing among a crowd of spectators at the Coronation, with megaphones broadcasting a campaign for the abolition of the Monarchy would not meet the definition of "peaceful". The don't have to simply refrain from knocking seven bells out of those nearby to remain peaceful.
Just a point of clarification:
//i understand that you find protests and people with other opinions irritating and that they "spoil your enjoyment"//
You understand incorrectly. Firstly, I don't find people with opinions contrary to mine irritating. I thrive on it. But it's not their opinions that concern me. My enjoyment has never been spoiled by any protests because I make a point of avoiding any areas where they are planned as far as possible. I simply find all protests objectionable, whether I agree or disagree with the cause. I consider the protesters are arrogant to believe that protesting about their cause is so important that it justifies them interfering with the activities of others.
Just a point of clarification:
//i understand that you find protests and people with other opinions irritating and that they "spoil your enjoyment"//
You understand incorrectly. Firstly, I don't find people with opinions contrary to mine irritating. I thrive on it. But it's not their opinions that concern me. My enjoyment has never been spoiled by any protests because I make a point of avoiding any areas where they are planned as far as possible. I simply find all protests objectionable, whether I agree or disagree with the cause. I consider the protesters are arrogant to believe that protesting about their cause is so important that it justifies them interfering with the activities of others.
"What has happened recently is that the definition of "peaceful" has become blurred, so a new Act was required to redefine it."
but it has done nothing of the sort... it has criminalised any protest that is "annoying"... holding a sign and saying nothing will annoy someone!
it is not actually possible to carry out a protest without in some way "interfering" with other people...
"The don't have to simply refrain from knocking seven bells out of those nearby to remain peaceful."
unless they are being personally abusive or harassing someone or in some other way being lewd or obscene then i don't see how any reasonable definition of "peaceful" has been violated.
monarchists do not have any right to attend a coronation without having the displeasure of seeing/hearing counter-protests... i do not understand where this idea has come from or how it could possibly work in a free country
but it has done nothing of the sort... it has criminalised any protest that is "annoying"... holding a sign and saying nothing will annoy someone!
it is not actually possible to carry out a protest without in some way "interfering" with other people...
"The don't have to simply refrain from knocking seven bells out of those nearby to remain peaceful."
unless they are being personally abusive or harassing someone or in some other way being lewd or obscene then i don't see how any reasonable definition of "peaceful" has been violated.
monarchists do not have any right to attend a coronation without having the displeasure of seeing/hearing counter-protests... i do not understand where this idea has come from or how it could possibly work in a free country
untitled: "monarchists do not have any right to attend a coronation without having the displeasure of seeing/hearing counter-protests." - yes I agree but they do not have the right to disrupt it and that is what they had planned. Plod were correct and I applaud the new law that stops these morons generally disrupting the lives of the majority going about their business.
If it has potential to cause a breach of the peace it is a police matter. Whilst is is not an offence, ....... warn the culprit of his behaviour and if he continues, to arrest him.
BoP is NOT a crime so it is used to arrest and remove....sort of give a breathing space. They didnt need the rushed-thro amendment, which wasnt used
about which Liberty are blaarting -
I speculated that the police had infiltrated - ("I didnt have time to give her a baby sarge." that section. erm hard men they are) them and learnt they planned to a) stick themselves to the gold coach, b) glue themselves to a horse c) let off a rape alarm near a skittish animal ( = something live that kicks another live thing) and watch it kick
so actually I thought their action permissible
BoP is NOT a crime so it is used to arrest and remove....sort of give a breathing space. They didnt need the rushed-thro amendment, which wasnt used
about which Liberty are blaarting -
I speculated that the police had infiltrated - ("I didnt have time to give her a baby sarge." that section. erm hard men they are) them and learnt they planned to a) stick themselves to the gold coach, b) glue themselves to a horse c) let off a rape alarm near a skittish animal ( = something live that kicks another live thing) and watch it kick
so actually I thought their action permissible
Latest Posts
Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
And They Wonder Why Insurance Is So...
News10 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
