This Is How You Do It .....Part Deux

[ToraToraTora]

Now I'd buy this guy a pint for showing the way......

[andy-hughes]

I kicked off the previous thread. And at the time of writing, I maintain the same position.

Frustration and anger do not allow you to respond to a peaceful protest with physical violence.

Ok - let's get to it ...

[Peter Pedant]

oh dear are we gonna take our partners for the usual day-ance?
how passe

foo ! I might even say

[Peter Pedant]

so erm new rule, there is to be no crime reporting on AB - for fear of glorifying it ? - righto!

[naomi24]

I think more people will be going down that path, TTT.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - I think you are right.

But it's not right.

[Bobbisox1]

Sadly the one losing their temper will be the one who cops it, not the scumbag on the deck!

[retrocop]

‘We are engaged in peaceful protest they plead.’
They had better give up or learn self defence. Their protestations don’t butter the parsnips with ordinary decent people who wish to lawfully go about their business without hindrance and inconvenience. Attending an appointment is lawful.
Blocking them is not.

[naomi24]

I actually think the public has been extremely patient with this bunch. They don’t deserve it.

[andy-hughes]

I would not argue with any of the above - I didn't on the previous thread, and I don't here.

but assault is a crime, and justifying it from here to the moon and back doesn't alter that simple fact.

[Peter Pedant]

I dont understand why ( you would have to wear maisie's for this) a driver or other doesnt glue a protester's hand to a lamp-post or bollared or waste basket.

yes yes I know that would be assault....

oh, whilst I am at it - during the atom protests 1955-1960- the sit down protest. ( in sacks) - one wag got up from the front of the lorry and walk around to the back
whereupon the lorry reversed over his legs
acquitted I think - (no criminal intent proven)

Barbara Castle had a dog called ALdermaston

[calmck]

It would be interesting to see a public pole on how many people support the actions of JSO

[ToraToraTora]

AH: "I kicked off the previous thread. And at the time of writing, I maintain the same position.

Frustration and anger do not allow you to respond to a peaceful protest with physical violence" - of course you are correct and it's easy from your armchair when it is not affecting you. We are taught that the law will stand up for our interests. It has been shown many times that when the public have no faith in the law and the police then they take the law into their own hands. This will start to happen more and more until the law is enforced on these morons. Obstructing the highway is a crime, drag them off and bang them up, that's all we ask.

[barry1010]

The punch is understandable but the kick to the head is too far. Much too far.

[andy-hughes]

Again, no argument.

But the fact the the police don't act as we think they should, when we think they should, does not give us a free pass to break the law ourselves.

[ToraToraTora]

AH: "But the fact the the police don't act as we think they should, when we think they should, does not give us a free pass to break the law ourselves. " - I agree it does not but do you accept that it many will ignore that and garner a great deal of sympathy. Especially as these people are curtailing our lives for no reason whatsoever. If they all got 100% their way tomorrow it would make zero difference, zero.

[Deskdiary]

At some point I fear these people are really going to upset the wrong person, and it will be worse than a punch.

People may have sympathy with their message, but their methods are entirely wrong and they absolutely do not have the support of the vast majority of people.

[andy-hughes]

Barry - Yes the punch is 'understandable' but 'understandable' does not mean 'acceptable'.

I have less than no sympathy for these people.

I think they are attention-seeking seeking idiots, their cause is bogus, and their actions to support it are indefensible.

But, as Deskdiary points out, how long before we start saying that GBH is 'understandable', and then life-changing injury, and then death.

We have to stop at the beginning of that road, and that is where we are, because we are supporting lawless behaviour as a response to lawless behaviour, and that will only drag us into a vigilante culture.

[ToraToraTora]

AH: "We have to stop at the beginning of that road, and that is where we are, because we are supporting lawless behaviour as a response to lawless behaviour, and that will only drag us into a vigilante culture. " - we are here because plod is not enforcing the law because of some wishy washy "exception" that hasn't really been tested. Change the law so it is clear then tell plod to enforce it.

[andy-hughes]

TTT - Agreed again, but that doesn't mean we give assault a slide while we wait for due process.

I trust that my posts thus far disavow your notion expressed on another thread, that I actually support the beliefs and actions of these vexatious loons.

[ToraToraTora]

Yes I now understand your position Andy.