comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
“So here it says 2am yet someone posted at about 10pm last night that it was happening.”
People were posting about it (and the media very widely reporting on it) throughout the day yesterday, because it happened at 2am on Saturday morning. Westminster Council itself has commented specifically on the arrest of its volunteers, expressing its concern.
I haven’t posted anything on here in terms of summaries of yesterday’s (and previous days&rsquoevents which hasn’t been reported in the mainstream media. The police haven’t denied any of those reports, as far as I am aware.
There are numerous videos circulating, with plenty of context, with the police refusing to give reasons as to why they’re arresting people, with one quite confidently saying, “We’ll work something out.”
Is that the kind of country you want to live in?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would much prefer violent protestors face no consequences, theft and arson permitted - as long as they’re ‘protesting’ for whatever left-wing cause of the month that becomes popular.
There wasn’t any violence it seems, from either the protestors nor the police. Some, not all of the protestors were arrested and released on bail. If they haven’t broken the law that will be the end of it.
=====
But it's not, is it? Ever heard of arrest and release as a strategy for controlling people? And this is what I'm talking about as that's a daft thing to say. They've still been intimidated, bruised and have suffered for protesting and will be less likely to do it again in future, which is the aim of harassing protesters.
If they did nothing wrong then they should have never been arrested in the first place so you can't say "that will be that". Just shows your attitude and how little you value these rights. Authorities are intentionally and clearly coming down on protesters, peaceful or not and you try to deflect or defend that. It's insane.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
“So here it says 2am yet someone posted at about 10pm last night that it was happening.”
People were posting about it (and the media very widely reporting on it) throughout the day yesterday, because it happened at 2am on Saturday morning. Westminster Council itself has commented specifically on the arrest of its volunteers, expressing its concern.
I haven’t posted anything on here in terms of summaries of yesterday’s (and previous days&rsquoevents which hasn’t been reported in the mainstream media. The police haven’t denied any of those reports, as far as I am aware.
There are numerous videos circulating, with plenty of context, with the police refusing to give reasons as to why they’re arresting people, with one quite confidently saying, “We’ll work something out.”
Is that the kind of country you want to live in?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would much prefer violent protestors face no consequences, theft and arson permitted - as long as they’re ‘protesting’ for whatever left-wing cause of the month that becomes popular.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, would just prefer peaceful protesters not get harassed, deterred, limited or arrested in their endeavour.
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 6 seconds ago
There wasn’t any violence it seems, from either the protestors nor the police. Some, not all of the protestors were arrested and released on bail. If they haven’t broken the law that will be the end of it.
=====
But it's not, is it? Ever heard of arrest and release as a strategy for controlling people? And this is what I'm talking about as that's a daft thing to say. They've still been intimidated, bruised and have suffered for protesting and will be less likely to do it again in future, which is the aim of harassing protesters.
If they did nothing wrong then they should have never been arrested in the first place so you can't say "that will be that". Just shows your attitude and how little you value these rights. Authorities are intentionally and clearly coming down on protesters, peaceful or not and you try to deflect or defend that. It's insane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did the protest go ahead or not? Was tear gas used? Batons? General violence?
It was a successful protest and neither you nor Rosso know the details of what exactly happened and why yet you’re forming an exaggerated position based on supposition upon supposition.
If every protest (and I have protested myself previously) goes the way that this one went as opposed to so many that have been violent, true intimidation, arson, pain, bloodshed - caused by either police or protestors - then I’m perfectly happy. It’s not taking us down a road to the gestapo. 50 people (out of how many?!) got arrested for a few hours of their life - big fking deal.
If one cries constantly about the tiniest event, then it loses its effect when something genuinely worrying happens.
Neither of you seem to accept any responsibility on the huge increase in non-peaceful protests over the past few years as to why such legal protest-related changes have been made. Yet the vast majority of protest went ahead uninterrupted.
====
Of course we don't accept responsibility and we keep telling you that police action and the new laws are a major contributing factor to that trend but you can't get it through your mind. With police having the powers they do now, you can forget about peaceful protests. Any protest they don't like will turn "violent" or some sheet like that.
Across the world it is the Tory way to come down on protests and other forms in which people exercise their rights against their interests. Violent and criminal protests are in their interest as it allows them to introduce anti protest measures with the backing of most people because they know most people are thick as fack.
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
“So here it says 2am yet someone posted at about 10pm last night that it was happening.”
People were posting about it (and the media very widely reporting on it) throughout the day yesterday, because it happened at 2am on Saturday morning. Westminster Council itself has commented specifically on the arrest of its volunteers, expressing its concern.
I haven’t posted anything on here in terms of summaries of yesterday’s (and previous days&rsquoevents which hasn’t been reported in the mainstream media. The police haven’t denied any of those reports, as far as I am aware.
There are numerous videos circulating, with plenty of context, with the police refusing to give reasons as to why they’re arresting people, with one quite confidently saying, “We’ll work something out.”
Is that the kind of country you want to live in?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would much prefer violent protestors face no consequences, theft and arson permitted - as long as they’re ‘protesting’ for whatever left-wing cause of the month that becomes popular.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, would just prefer peaceful protesters not get harassed, deterred, limited or arrested in their endeavour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t doubt for one second that the police were geared up / rallied up to act hastily. But what were the actions? As someone above posted, the reaction on here is much more equivalent to if the protestors were smashed in the face by batons whilst they were posing in a mediation position.
Nothing of the sort happened, some people got arrested and that’s all. Some rightly so and some wrongly.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
Did the protest go ahead or not? Was tear gas used? Batons? General violence?
=====
No, they are operating at a much higher, complicated and sophisticated level than that.
Tear gas, Batons and violence is for simpletons and cannot work in this day and age to deter or stop protests that authorities don't want. They have other means, like changing the laws to help them achieve that aim.
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 57 seconds ago
Neither of you seem to accept any responsibility on the huge increase in non-peaceful protests over the past few years as to why such legal protest-related changes have been made. Yet the vast majority of protest went ahead uninterrupted.
====
Of course we don't accept responsibility and we keep telling you that police action and the new laws are a major contributing factor to that trend but you can't get it through your mind. With police having the powers they do now, you can forget about peaceful protests. Any protest they don't like will turn "violent" or some sheet like that.
Across the world it is the Tory way to come down on protests and other forms in which people exercise their rights against their interests. Violent and criminal protests are in their interest as it allows them to introduce anti protest measures with the backing of most people because they know most people are thick as fack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether or not such laws increase the number of violent protests is yet more supposition on your part; completely meaningless with no substance.
When did these laws get changed Vs when did we see a lot of violent protests in recent years - which came first please? Thank you.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 36 seconds ago
Did the protest go ahead or not? Was tear gas used? Batons? General violence?
=====
No, they are operating at a much higher, complicated and sophisticated level than that.
Tear gas, Batons and violence is for simpletons and cannot work in this day and age to deter or stop protests that authorities don't want. They have other means, like changing the laws to help them achieve that aim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did the protest go ahead or not? Yes it did.
Was there any particular violence by either protestors or police? No I don’t think so.
I don’t doubt for one second that the police were geared up / rallied up to act hastily. But what were the actions? As someone above posted, the reaction on here is much more equivalent to if the protestors were smashed in the face by batons whilst they were posing in a mediation position.
Nothing of the sort happened, some people got arrested and that’s all. Some rightly so and some wrongly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's your view, IMO because you don't value or appreciate what's happened. While you wonder what the big deal is about, I'm wondering why no one is ringing the alarm bells and sounding the tsunami alert. Why isn't anyone hollering from the mountain top. How did the Tories even achieve this in the first place? It's a complete joke that's a century out of date and yet here we are, I see otherwise educated folk defending it I'm like wtf? Didn't your history and legal studies lecturers not hammer this point home enough times, or is it that you didn't go to school at all?
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
I don’t doubt for one second that the police were geared up / rallied up to act hastily. But what were the actions? As someone above posted, the reaction on here is much more equivalent to if the protestors were smashed in the face by batons whilst they were posing in a mediation position.
Nothing of the sort happened, some people got arrested and that’s all. Some rightly so and some wrongly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's your view, IMO because you don't value or appreciate what's happened. While you wonder what the big deal is about, I'm wondering why no one is ringing the alarm bells and sounding the tsunami alert. Why isn't anyone hollering from the mountain top. How did the Tories even achieve this in the first place? It's a complete joke that's a century out of date and yet here we are, I see otherwise educated folk defending it I'm like wtf? Didn't your history and legal studies lecturers not hammer this point home enough times, or is it that you didn't go to school at all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes we have a difference of opinion - you’re very concerned by 52 people being arrested some legally, others not. Now if hundreds of them got arrested, if the protests weren’t allowed to take place or if they got assaulted or worse then I’d be with you.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes the covid laws are the same as these laws, not different at all. When you have to use a patently false and bad faith comparison to demonstrate your daft presumption on my future actions then you’re making yourself look pretty stupid.
I don’t post here as much I did previously but as soon as I do, here you are trying to make predictions on my future actions and not even contributing to the topic at hand.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 57 seconds ago
Neither of you seem to accept any responsibility on the huge increase in non-peaceful protests over the past few years as to why such legal protest-related changes have been made. Yet the vast majority of protest went ahead uninterrupted.
====
Of course we don't accept responsibility and we keep telling you that police action and the new laws are a major contributing factor to that trend but you can't get it through your mind. With police having the powers they do now, you can forget about peaceful protests. Any protest they don't like will turn "violent" or some sheet like that.
Across the world it is the Tory way to come down on protests and other forms in which people exercise their rights against their interests. Violent and criminal protests are in their interest as it allows them to introduce anti protest measures with the backing of most people because they know most people are thick as fack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether or not such laws increase the number of violent protests is yet more supposition on your part; completely meaningless with no substance.
When did these laws get changed Vs when did we see a lot of violent protests in recent years - which came first please? Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No reply to this big man?
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 57 seconds ago
Neither of you seem to accept any responsibility on the huge increase in non-peaceful protests over the past few years as to why such legal protest-related changes have been made. Yet the vast majority of protest went ahead uninterrupted.
====
Of course we don't accept responsibility and we keep telling you that police action and the new laws are a major contributing factor to that trend but you can't get it through your mind. With police having the powers they do now, you can forget about peaceful protests. Any protest they don't like will turn "violent" or some sheet like that.
Across the world it is the Tory way to come down on protests and other forms in which people exercise their rights against their interests. Violent and criminal protests are in their interest as it allows them to introduce anti protest measures with the backing of most people because they know most people are thick as fack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether or not such laws increase the number of violent protests is yet more supposition on your part; completely meaningless with no substance.
When did these laws get changed Vs when did we see a lot of violent protests in recent years - which came first please? Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened first is the Tories came into power and shortly after that suddenly protests couldn't stay peaceful anymore so they had to conveniently introduce draconian amendments.
In any case this is a silly debate because protests getting violent isn't a justification for changing the laws or for police to actively work to harass, discourage, deter and destroy protesters and protests, especially when the amendments will probably lead to worse kinda of protesting, but the Tories don't care, they just want power to shut down anyone that dares expose their corruption and how they've run the country into a sorry state of stratospheric proportions, destroying social services, destroying the judiciary, destroying the NHS and health services, using lies to make the UK impose sanctions worse than Russia on itself via Brexit etc etc, all while fattening themselves and their pals bank accounts and with most of the people clapping for them and cheering them on.
Both laws impinge on people's freedoms. You are in favour of the permanent ones that currently impact the opposition to your opinion, but not the temporary ones during a public health emergency.
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 57 seconds ago
Neither of you seem to accept any responsibility on the huge increase in non-peaceful protests over the past few years as to why such legal protest-related changes have been made. Yet the vast majority of protest went ahead uninterrupted.
====
Of course we don't accept responsibility and we keep telling you that police action and the new laws are a major contributing factor to that trend but you can't get it through your mind. With police having the powers they do now, you can forget about peaceful protests. Any protest they don't like will turn "violent" or some sheet like that.
Across the world it is the Tory way to come down on protests and other forms in which people exercise their rights against their interests. Violent and criminal protests are in their interest as it allows them to introduce anti protest measures with the backing of most people because they know most people are thick as fack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether or not such laws increase the number of violent protests is yet more supposition on your part; completely meaningless with no substance.
When did these laws get changed Vs when did we see a lot of violent protests in recent years - which came first please? Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened first is the Tories came into power and shortly after that suddenly protests couldn't stay peaceful anymore so they had to conveniently introduce draconian amendments.
In any case this is a silly debate because protests getting violent isn't a justification for changing the laws or for police to actively work to harass, discourage, deter and destroy protesters and protests, especially when the amendments will probably lead to worse kinda of protesting, but the Tories don't care, they just want power to shut down anyone that dares expose their corruption and how they've run the country into a sorry state of stratospheric proportions, destroying social services, destroying the judiciary, destroying the NHS and health services, using lies to make the UK impose sanctions worse than Russia on itself via Brexit etc etc, all while fattening themselves and their pals bank accounts and with most of the people clapping for them and cheering them on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that is also where we disagree. The country cannot allow violence like we have seen in recent years. If you don’t like the current government, vote them out. Protests like we have seen in recent years (not yesterday’s) are not justified because of the determined poor performance of the government policies, Brexit et cetera.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
Both laws impinge on people's freedoms. You are in favour of the permanent ones that currently impact the opposition to your opinion, but not the temporary ones during a public health emergency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations.
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think I’m thick?
Sign in if you want to comment
Arrests for anti-monarchy protests
Page 10 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 7/5/23
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
“So here it says 2am yet someone posted at about 10pm last night that it was happening.”
People were posting about it (and the media very widely reporting on it) throughout the day yesterday, because it happened at 2am on Saturday morning. Westminster Council itself has commented specifically on the arrest of its volunteers, expressing its concern.
I haven’t posted anything on here in terms of summaries of yesterday’s (and previous days&rsquoevents which hasn’t been reported in the mainstream media. The police haven’t denied any of those reports, as far as I am aware.
There are numerous videos circulating, with plenty of context, with the police refusing to give reasons as to why they’re arresting people, with one quite confidently saying, “We’ll work something out.”
Is that the kind of country you want to live in?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would much prefer violent protestors face no consequences, theft and arson permitted - as long as they’re ‘protesting’ for whatever left-wing cause of the month that becomes popular.
posted on 7/5/23
There wasn’t any violence it seems, from either the protestors nor the police. Some, not all of the protestors were arrested and released on bail. If they haven’t broken the law that will be the end of it.
=====
But it's not, is it? Ever heard of arrest and release as a strategy for controlling people? And this is what I'm talking about as that's a daft thing to say. They've still been intimidated, bruised and have suffered for protesting and will be less likely to do it again in future, which is the aim of harassing protesters.
If they did nothing wrong then they should have never been arrested in the first place so you can't say "that will be that". Just shows your attitude and how little you value these rights. Authorities are intentionally and clearly coming down on protesters, peaceful or not and you try to deflect or defend that. It's insane.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
“So here it says 2am yet someone posted at about 10pm last night that it was happening.”
People were posting about it (and the media very widely reporting on it) throughout the day yesterday, because it happened at 2am on Saturday morning. Westminster Council itself has commented specifically on the arrest of its volunteers, expressing its concern.
I haven’t posted anything on here in terms of summaries of yesterday’s (and previous days&rsquoevents which hasn’t been reported in the mainstream media. The police haven’t denied any of those reports, as far as I am aware.
There are numerous videos circulating, with plenty of context, with the police refusing to give reasons as to why they’re arresting people, with one quite confidently saying, “We’ll work something out.”
Is that the kind of country you want to live in?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would much prefer violent protestors face no consequences, theft and arson permitted - as long as they’re ‘protesting’ for whatever left-wing cause of the month that becomes popular.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, would just prefer peaceful protesters not get harassed, deterred, limited or arrested in their endeavour.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 6 seconds ago
There wasn’t any violence it seems, from either the protestors nor the police. Some, not all of the protestors were arrested and released on bail. If they haven’t broken the law that will be the end of it.
=====
But it's not, is it? Ever heard of arrest and release as a strategy for controlling people? And this is what I'm talking about as that's a daft thing to say. They've still been intimidated, bruised and have suffered for protesting and will be less likely to do it again in future, which is the aim of harassing protesters.
If they did nothing wrong then they should have never been arrested in the first place so you can't say "that will be that". Just shows your attitude and how little you value these rights. Authorities are intentionally and clearly coming down on protesters, peaceful or not and you try to deflect or defend that. It's insane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did the protest go ahead or not? Was tear gas used? Batons? General violence?
It was a successful protest and neither you nor Rosso know the details of what exactly happened and why yet you’re forming an exaggerated position based on supposition upon supposition.
If every protest (and I have protested myself previously) goes the way that this one went as opposed to so many that have been violent, true intimidation, arson, pain, bloodshed - caused by either police or protestors - then I’m perfectly happy. It’s not taking us down a road to the gestapo. 50 people (out of how many?!) got arrested for a few hours of their life - big fking deal.
If one cries constantly about the tiniest event, then it loses its effect when something genuinely worrying happens.
posted on 7/5/23
Neither of you seem to accept any responsibility on the huge increase in non-peaceful protests over the past few years as to why such legal protest-related changes have been made. Yet the vast majority of protest went ahead uninterrupted.
====
Of course we don't accept responsibility and we keep telling you that police action and the new laws are a major contributing factor to that trend but you can't get it through your mind. With police having the powers they do now, you can forget about peaceful protests. Any protest they don't like will turn "violent" or some sheet like that.
Across the world it is the Tory way to come down on protests and other forms in which people exercise their rights against their interests. Violent and criminal protests are in their interest as it allows them to introduce anti protest measures with the backing of most people because they know most people are thick as fack.
posted on 7/5/23
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
“So here it says 2am yet someone posted at about 10pm last night that it was happening.”
People were posting about it (and the media very widely reporting on it) throughout the day yesterday, because it happened at 2am on Saturday morning. Westminster Council itself has commented specifically on the arrest of its volunteers, expressing its concern.
I haven’t posted anything on here in terms of summaries of yesterday’s (and previous days&rsquoevents which hasn’t been reported in the mainstream media. The police haven’t denied any of those reports, as far as I am aware.
There are numerous videos circulating, with plenty of context, with the police refusing to give reasons as to why they’re arresting people, with one quite confidently saying, “We’ll work something out.”
Is that the kind of country you want to live in?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would much prefer violent protestors face no consequences, theft and arson permitted - as long as they’re ‘protesting’ for whatever left-wing cause of the month that becomes popular.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, would just prefer peaceful protesters not get harassed, deterred, limited or arrested in their endeavour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t doubt for one second that the police were geared up / rallied up to act hastily. But what were the actions? As someone above posted, the reaction on here is much more equivalent to if the protestors were smashed in the face by batons whilst they were posing in a mediation position.
Nothing of the sort happened, some people got arrested and that’s all. Some rightly so and some wrongly.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
posted on 7/5/23
Did the protest go ahead or not? Was tear gas used? Batons? General violence?
=====
No, they are operating at a much higher, complicated and sophisticated level than that.
Tear gas, Batons and violence is for simpletons and cannot work in this day and age to deter or stop protests that authorities don't want. They have other means, like changing the laws to help them achieve that aim.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 57 seconds ago
Neither of you seem to accept any responsibility on the huge increase in non-peaceful protests over the past few years as to why such legal protest-related changes have been made. Yet the vast majority of protest went ahead uninterrupted.
====
Of course we don't accept responsibility and we keep telling you that police action and the new laws are a major contributing factor to that trend but you can't get it through your mind. With police having the powers they do now, you can forget about peaceful protests. Any protest they don't like will turn "violent" or some sheet like that.
Across the world it is the Tory way to come down on protests and other forms in which people exercise their rights against their interests. Violent and criminal protests are in their interest as it allows them to introduce anti protest measures with the backing of most people because they know most people are thick as fack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether or not such laws increase the number of violent protests is yet more supposition on your part; completely meaningless with no substance.
When did these laws get changed Vs when did we see a lot of violent protests in recent years - which came first please? Thank you.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 36 seconds ago
Did the protest go ahead or not? Was tear gas used? Batons? General violence?
=====
No, they are operating at a much higher, complicated and sophisticated level than that.
Tear gas, Batons and violence is for simpletons and cannot work in this day and age to deter or stop protests that authorities don't want. They have other means, like changing the laws to help them achieve that aim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did the protest go ahead or not? Yes it did.
Was there any particular violence by either protestors or police? No I don’t think so.
posted on 7/5/23
I don’t doubt for one second that the police were geared up / rallied up to act hastily. But what were the actions? As someone above posted, the reaction on here is much more equivalent to if the protestors were smashed in the face by batons whilst they were posing in a mediation position.
Nothing of the sort happened, some people got arrested and that’s all. Some rightly so and some wrongly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's your view, IMO because you don't value or appreciate what's happened. While you wonder what the big deal is about, I'm wondering why no one is ringing the alarm bells and sounding the tsunami alert. Why isn't anyone hollering from the mountain top. How did the Tories even achieve this in the first place? It's a complete joke that's a century out of date and yet here we are, I see otherwise educated folk defending it I'm like wtf? Didn't your history and legal studies lecturers not hammer this point home enough times, or is it that you didn't go to school at all?
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
I don’t doubt for one second that the police were geared up / rallied up to act hastily. But what were the actions? As someone above posted, the reaction on here is much more equivalent to if the protestors were smashed in the face by batons whilst they were posing in a mediation position.
Nothing of the sort happened, some people got arrested and that’s all. Some rightly so and some wrongly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's your view, IMO because you don't value or appreciate what's happened. While you wonder what the big deal is about, I'm wondering why no one is ringing the alarm bells and sounding the tsunami alert. Why isn't anyone hollering from the mountain top. How did the Tories even achieve this in the first place? It's a complete joke that's a century out of date and yet here we are, I see otherwise educated folk defending it I'm like wtf? Didn't your history and legal studies lecturers not hammer this point home enough times, or is it that you didn't go to school at all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes we have a difference of opinion - you’re very concerned by 52 people being arrested some legally, others not. Now if hundreds of them got arrested, if the protests weren’t allowed to take place or if they got assaulted or worse then I’d be with you.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes the covid laws are the same as these laws, not different at all. When you have to use a patently false and bad faith comparison to demonstrate your daft presumption on my future actions then you’re making yourself look pretty stupid.
I don’t post here as much I did previously but as soon as I do, here you are trying to make predictions on my future actions and not even contributing to the topic at hand.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 57 seconds ago
Neither of you seem to accept any responsibility on the huge increase in non-peaceful protests over the past few years as to why such legal protest-related changes have been made. Yet the vast majority of protest went ahead uninterrupted.
====
Of course we don't accept responsibility and we keep telling you that police action and the new laws are a major contributing factor to that trend but you can't get it through your mind. With police having the powers they do now, you can forget about peaceful protests. Any protest they don't like will turn "violent" or some sheet like that.
Across the world it is the Tory way to come down on protests and other forms in which people exercise their rights against their interests. Violent and criminal protests are in their interest as it allows them to introduce anti protest measures with the backing of most people because they know most people are thick as fack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether or not such laws increase the number of violent protests is yet more supposition on your part; completely meaningless with no substance.
When did these laws get changed Vs when did we see a lot of violent protests in recent years - which came first please? Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No reply to this big man?
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 57 seconds ago
Neither of you seem to accept any responsibility on the huge increase in non-peaceful protests over the past few years as to why such legal protest-related changes have been made. Yet the vast majority of protest went ahead uninterrupted.
====
Of course we don't accept responsibility and we keep telling you that police action and the new laws are a major contributing factor to that trend but you can't get it through your mind. With police having the powers they do now, you can forget about peaceful protests. Any protest they don't like will turn "violent" or some sheet like that.
Across the world it is the Tory way to come down on protests and other forms in which people exercise their rights against their interests. Violent and criminal protests are in their interest as it allows them to introduce anti protest measures with the backing of most people because they know most people are thick as fack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether or not such laws increase the number of violent protests is yet more supposition on your part; completely meaningless with no substance.
When did these laws get changed Vs when did we see a lot of violent protests in recent years - which came first please? Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened first is the Tories came into power and shortly after that suddenly protests couldn't stay peaceful anymore so they had to conveniently introduce draconian amendments.
In any case this is a silly debate because protests getting violent isn't a justification for changing the laws or for police to actively work to harass, discourage, deter and destroy protesters and protests, especially when the amendments will probably lead to worse kinda of protesting, but the Tories don't care, they just want power to shut down anyone that dares expose their corruption and how they've run the country into a sorry state of stratospheric proportions, destroying social services, destroying the judiciary, destroying the NHS and health services, using lies to make the UK impose sanctions worse than Russia on itself via Brexit etc etc, all while fattening themselves and their pals bank accounts and with most of the people clapping for them and cheering them on.
posted on 7/5/23
Ah good man 😉
posted on 7/5/23
Both laws impinge on people's freedoms. You are in favour of the permanent ones that currently impact the opposition to your opinion, but not the temporary ones during a public health emergency.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 57 seconds ago
Neither of you seem to accept any responsibility on the huge increase in non-peaceful protests over the past few years as to why such legal protest-related changes have been made. Yet the vast majority of protest went ahead uninterrupted.
====
Of course we don't accept responsibility and we keep telling you that police action and the new laws are a major contributing factor to that trend but you can't get it through your mind. With police having the powers they do now, you can forget about peaceful protests. Any protest they don't like will turn "violent" or some sheet like that.
Across the world it is the Tory way to come down on protests and other forms in which people exercise their rights against their interests. Violent and criminal protests are in their interest as it allows them to introduce anti protest measures with the backing of most people because they know most people are thick as fack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether or not such laws increase the number of violent protests is yet more supposition on your part; completely meaningless with no substance.
When did these laws get changed Vs when did we see a lot of violent protests in recent years - which came first please? Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened first is the Tories came into power and shortly after that suddenly protests couldn't stay peaceful anymore so they had to conveniently introduce draconian amendments.
In any case this is a silly debate because protests getting violent isn't a justification for changing the laws or for police to actively work to harass, discourage, deter and destroy protesters and protests, especially when the amendments will probably lead to worse kinda of protesting, but the Tories don't care, they just want power to shut down anyone that dares expose their corruption and how they've run the country into a sorry state of stratospheric proportions, destroying social services, destroying the judiciary, destroying the NHS and health services, using lies to make the UK impose sanctions worse than Russia on itself via Brexit etc etc, all while fattening themselves and their pals bank accounts and with most of the people clapping for them and cheering them on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that is also where we disagree. The country cannot allow violence like we have seen in recent years. If you don’t like the current government, vote them out. Protests like we have seen in recent years (not yesterday’s) are not justified because of the determined poor performance of the government policies, Brexit et cetera.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
Both laws impinge on people's freedoms. You are in favour of the permanent ones that currently impact the opposition to your opinion, but not the temporary ones during a public health emergency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think I’m thick?
Page 10 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14