advertisement


Welcome to the fascist state

I've not read the new bill, or its narrative. What I do know is that up until I left it was very difficult to dislodge trespassers with vehicles from private land. it was time, money and staff intensive - mainly thru the civil courts initially, and IME the amount of damage to the land and rubbish left behind wasn't good. Also crime increases seemed to mirror such land occupancy.

Seanm said:
But the police serve the public, they don't represent them, and it's not their job to channel popular sentiment.
Click to expand...

Quite agree. Its their job to support the laws in place at a given time and, where possible, use the least intrusive means to do so. The protestors at the 2nd demo will have know locally what happened at the first, regionally what the local authorities stance would be re use of public land in the current climate, and nationally what the Covid regulations say. Its what any 'reasonable person' is expected to have known. Also, to reinforce this, advice would have been repeatedly given before and during the protest.

Now, how long you feel it ok for them to be there is a matter of opinion. You have the beauty of being able to have that opinion, without any redress at all The police do not.
 
ks.234 said:
Yes, people who put themselves in this situation deserve every inch of the law, eh?


Disclaimer
Click to expand...

Things have moved on a bit since Peterloo, even if you don't think so; the police don't use lethal weapons for riot control.

I support peaceful protest, but if there's plans to ramp it up a bit, then the perpetrators better make sure they have their big boy pants on because there is a predictable response to attempts at setting fire to police stations and vehicles. The big boys are not going to play games any more and it's going smart a bit in the morning.
 
Seeker_UK said:
Things have moved on a bit since Peterloo, even if you don't think so; the police don't use lethal weapons for riot control.

I support peaceful protest, but if there's plans to ramp it up a bit, then the perpetrators better make sure they have their big boy pants on because there is a predictable response to attempts at setting fire to police stations and vehicles. The big boys are not going to play games any more and it's going smart a bit in the morning.
Click to expand...
You start off by saying that we’ve moved on since Peterloo

But you end up proving that you at least, have not
 
ks.234 said:
You start off by saying that we’ve moved on since Peterloo

But you end up proving that you at least, have not
Click to expand...

Which bit of we don't send in the army and we don't send in police with lethal weapons is not a difference?

Or did the media reports airbrush out presence of both at Bristol?
 
Andrew C! said:
Quite agree. Its their job to support the laws in place at a given time and, where possible, use the least intrusive means to do so. The protestors at the 2nd demo will have know locally what happened at the first, regionally what the local authorities stance would be re use of public land in the current climate, and nationally what the Covid regulations say. Its what any 'reasonable person' is expected to have known. Also, to reinforce this, advice would have been repeatedly given before and during the protest.

Now, how long you feel it ok for them to be there is a matter of opinion. You have the beauty of being able to have that opinion, without any redress at all The police do not.
Click to expand...
There were certainly less intrusive means of supporting the law in this case, it's just that the repertoire is artificially limited: from what you say here, it seems to consist of warning people not to do something, reminding them what happened to their mates when they tried it on, deciding what's reasonable, and then wading in with batons and shields. I realise that expanding the repertoire isn't just a job for the police, but really, how interested are they in exploring different ways of doing things.

I'm not sure about your last point but you seem to be suggesting that all of this is consequence-free for me, and not for the police, so I'm talking out of turn. If you think about it a bit the opposite is really the case. How this pans out is going to affect what I can and can't do, sometimes in quite direct ways. Rarely any consequences for police pushing crusties around with shields and batons.
 
I find it deeply perplexing that we have before us a Parliamentary Bill that without amendment could have serious implications for certain rights we take for granted. Rights that underpin the basic rights of any functioning democracy.

But just asking for a piece of legislation to be looked at seems to produce a very angry and disproportionate response from, if pfm is anything to go by, a significant but very influential minority.

Anyone who has read the Bill will see one or two tiny little clauses that could have massively overwhelming impact.

Why does a request to look at a few words, result in such anger from the right wingers?
 
Seeker_UK said:
Which bit of we don't send in the army and we don't send in police with lethal weapons is not a difference?

Or did the media reports airbrush out presence of both at Bristol?
Click to expand...
Yes, but you’re argument is not based on principle, it’s based on the sharpness of the weapons used. The attitude and the arrogance that sent in the troops 150 years ago, is here with us now.

The difference you describe is one of appearance not substance
 
Andrew C! said:
I've not read the new bill, or its narrative. What I do know is that up until I left it was very difficult to dislodge trespassers with vehicles from private land. it was time, money and staff intensive - mainly thru the civil courts initially, and IME the amount of damage to the land and rubbish left behind wasn't good. Also crime increases seemed to mirror such land occupancy
Click to expand...

Interesting to hear your direct experiences. The latest ‘24 hours in custody’ on Channel 4 this week was utterly horrendous. The 10 minutes I saw involved theft, knocking a young girl off her bike giving horrible injuries, a motorbike handbag snatch from an elderly lady who was left for dead on the pavement, more theft and kidnap and attempted rape of a teenage girl. Predictably, the response every time was ‘no comment’. I turned over at that point. Seems I got off relatively lightly with intimidating threats to family and property.
 
ks.234 said:
I find it deeply perplexing that we have before us a Parliamentary Bill that without amendment could have serious implications for certain rights we take for granted. Rights that underpin one of the basic rights of any functioning democracy.

But just asking for a piece of legislation to be looked at seems to produce a very angry and disproportionate response from, if pfm is anything to go by, a significant but very influential minority.

Anyone who has read the Bill will see one or two tiny little clauses that could have massively overwhelming impact.

Why does a request to look at a few words, result in such anger from the right wingers?
Click to expand...

The cleverer elements among the Police and the Tories realise that the Bill is unnecessary - it's much more preferable to hide behind existing powers and to allow the letting off of steam from time to time when things boil over. After all, there have been over 1000 deaths in custody and a further almost 1000 after contact with the police without anybody being prosecuted for manslaughter over the past 30 years. It's difficult to know what more they want really...
 
ks.234 said:
Yes, but you’re argument is not based on principle, it’s based on the sharpness of the weapons used. The attitude and the arrogance that sent in the troops 150 years ago, is here with us now.

The difference you describe is one of appearance not substance
Click to expand...

You might believe that to be the case but the threshold of use, decision process, force used and consequences of use and accountability are not the same as 200 years ago.
 
Ponty said:
Interesting to hear your direct experiences. The latest ‘24 hours in custody’ on Channel 4 this week was utterly horrendous. The 10 minutes I saw involved theft, knocking a young girl off her bike giving horrible injuries, a motorbike handbag snatch from an elderly lady who was left for dead on the pavement, more theft and kidnap and attempted rape of a teenage girl. Predictably, the response every time was ‘no comment’. I turned over at that point. Seems I got off relatively lightly with intimidating threats to family and property.
Click to expand...

Horrendous - yes.
I watched the whole programme and it was telling that your account fell a bit short of what actually occurred in the interview room. He also falsely imprisoned and raped two underage girls, not one. The outcome was a well earned 18 year custodial sentence.

Had the scumbag in question indeed stuck consistently to the 'no comment' approach the outcome would unlikely have been much different. Predictably, he didn't but instead let his arrogance and macho defiance get the better hand and dug a deep hole by clear contradictions in his accounts of what happened.

Notable was that his father provided no barrier to the Police when they came to examine the scene of the rapes (he owned the location of the mobile home used by the rapist) and fully complied with their requests for access.

Scumbags can exist in any community (even the Police force judging by recent cases) so to highlight this case in the context of this discussion is both disingenuous and quite frankly, abhorrent.
 
miktec said:
Horrendous - yes.
I watched the whole programme and it was telling that your account fell a bit short of what actually occurred in the interview room. He also falsely imprisoned and raped two underage girls, not one. The outcome was a well earned 18 year custodial sentence.

Had the scumbag in question indeed stuck consistently to the 'no comment' approach the outcome would unlikely have been much different. Predictably, he didn't but instead let his arrogance and macho defiance get the better hand and dug a deep hole by clear contradictions in his accounts of what happened.

Notable was that his father provided no barrier to the Police when they came to examine the scene of the rapes (he owned the location of the mobile home used by the rapist) and fully complied with their requests for access.

Scumbags can exist in any community (even the Police force judging by recent cases) so to highlight this case in the context of this discussion is both disingenuous and quite frankly, abhorrent.
Click to expand...

Thank you for filling in on the rest of the program, I just couldn’t watch it any more. Sorry, but a custodial is just not enough. I take people as I find them and have views founded on personal experiences. I’d imagine others do too.
 
flatpopely said:
What would you suggest we could do more than a custodial sentence?
Click to expand...

Problem is, he’ll be out in much less, with a bunch of new mates and a badge of honour. I feel there needs to be a method of keeping tabs on such individuals once released.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top