Shocking scenes in Bristol tonight

Laughing said:
You need to reread it.
Click to expand...
It’s 300
And odd pages - there seems to be some good stuff in there but I can’t find the section about peaceful protesting. I just think it’s a lot of people getting carried away about nothing. If you are law abiding I can’t see how it changes your life. Happy foe you to point me to the section that says otherwise.
 
FatCat said:
It’s 300
And odd pages - there seems to be some good stuff in there but I can’t find the section about peaceful protesting. I just think it’s a lot of people getting carried away about nothing. If you are law abiding I can’t see how it changes your life. Happy foe you to point me to the section that says otherwise.
Click to expand...
Sleepwalking are we fatcat?
 
FatCat said:
It’s 300
And odd pages - there seems to be some good stuff in there but I can’t find the section about peaceful protesting. I just think it’s a lot of people getting carried away about nothing. If you are law abiding I can’t see how it changes your life. Happy foe you to point me to the section that says otherwise.
Click to expand...
They have essentially worded it so police can arrest protestors for literally anything, being too loud for example. Isn't protest supposed to be loud, JonathanPie actually explains t really well in his last video. This new bill is a joke and this issue on protesting has been buried amongst 'some good stuff' exactly to invoke the reaction you're having right now.

If a group protest peacefully but get arrested because of the volume being too loud they have basically outlawed protest altogether. Its a travesty, its a huge infringement on civil liberty and if you can't see that I'm sorry but you are either blind or ignorant.
 
FatCat said:
It’s 300
And odd pages - there seems to be some good stuff in there but I can’t find the section about peaceful protesting. I just think it’s a lot of people getting carried away about nothing. If you are law abiding I can’t see how it changes your life. Happy foe you to point me to the section that says otherwise.
Click to expand...

Here you are fatcat. "Serious annoyance", as defined by a police officer on the ground, could mean literally anything.
 

Attachments

  • EwbUsQEW8AAzz9v.jpg
    EwbUsQEW8AAzz9v.jpg
    82.1 KB · Views: 9
JonnyHistory said:
Its the biggest attack on civil liberty in a generation and the so called right 'bastions of freedom and free speach' should be protesting with them.
Click to expand...
It's certainly separating the wheat from the chaff. Although I don't agree with the violence, I agree with the reason for the protests. The people that have talked about free speech on here and are now focussing on the violence and defending this Bill, have shown their true colours as Tory shills.
 
I'm slightly confused about this thread. I thought it was about the shocking scenes and law breaking (also less so covid). Yet it seems many think its 'ok' because people don't like something?

I watched a guy on TV try to set fire to a police van (with police in the vehicle) for 2-3 mins. Why is don't they arrest him? I mean you could from arson to attempted murder as people in the van.

I'm sure if I walked down the street and set fire to a police car or starting shouting at one I'd be arrested. Yet it seems 'ok' to do it at a protest. People were actually sat on police vehicles and the police inside simply had 'no f*cks given' approach.

The police are simply powerless to go anything. They are more worried about being filmed and going viral.

It just looked like people who wanted a tear up. I don't the majority who attended gave two f*cks about legislation or the government. Just looked like a load of teenagers drinking lager.
 
Laughing said:
We have 5 times the average world mortality rate for covid, that should astound you more.
Click to expand...
How much of that is down to the decimation of the NHS?

Quite apart from the covid situation, the gap between rich and poor has grown exponentially.
Look at the reduction in public services.
They underinvested in the Police up until the point they realised just how much they’d ***ed the public off, now they have panicked and have recruited more.
Laughing said:
Because they are angry and feel they and others are being marginalised by the government. I don't condone violence but I understand the depth of their feelings.

The government's failings are not a different subject either. It's exactly the same subject one led to the other.
Click to expand...
so, what you are saying basically is, that if you’re angry you can go out and hurt people?
 
FatCat said:
It’s 300
And odd pages - there seems to be some good stuff in there but I can’t find the section about peaceful protesting. I just think it’s a lot of people getting carried away about nothing. If you are law abiding I can’t see how it changes your life. Happy foe you to point me to the section that says otherwise.
Click to expand...
That's the classic response that allows fascism and the setting up of a police state isn't it? “If you are law abiding...” it’s like a free run for anyone wanting to control you.
 
HundredRoom said:
When you park a boat in a busy London Street and stop people earning a living by disrupting their right to travel in freedom then it cannot be allowed to repeat this summer. I say summer because it seems to have turned in to some kind of street party. It does look like most there don't need to worry about earning a living.
After reading a summary of the bill I don't see anything that takes away people right to protest in a non-violent way.

Could someone point me to the clause which is particularly upsetting them ?
Click to expand...
You're either being willfully ignorant or you know little about how wording and vagueness in a bill is dangerous. The bill is deliberately vague, police will be able to arrest anyone for basically anything. Protests to loud for example they can be arrested, protest is supposed to be loud its showing that you are against something. Laws should be specific and clear not vague and open to interpretation. That just allows for those laws to be open to interpretation which is a bad thing.
 
BoroMart said:
It's certainly separating the wheat from the chaff. Although I don't agree with the violence, I agree with the reason for the protests. The people that have talked about free speech on here and are now focussing on the violence and defending this Bill, have shown their true colours as Tory shills.
Click to expand...
Not me sir.

I agree with the right to protest and I have reservations about the bill, however the violence I will utterly condemn and it has no place within our society.
 
FatCat said:
It’s 300
And odd pages - there seems to be some good stuff in there but I can’t find the section about peaceful protesting. I just think it’s a lot of people getting carried away about nothing. If you are law abiding I can’t see how it changes your life. Happy foe you to point me to the section that says otherwise.
Click to expand...
Of course there is some 'good stuff' in there but that's how these things work.

There is also a lot of 'bad stuff' in there as well as some glaring omissions so it's not right to say 'well most of it is ok I don't know what you're problem is'.

The Government is being entirely disingenuous because it will say by voting against this bill, Labour are voting against tougher sentences for child murderers and sex offenders, killer drivers and measures that protect the vulnerable.

But Labour are actually drawing attention to the bad parts of the bill and the many unintended consequences of it. It says lots of things about statues and almost nothing about protecting women and girls, and particularly dealing with violence against women and girls.

The bill will impose disproportionate controls on free expression and the right to protest.

It will give the Police more powers to impose conditions on static protests, such as time and noise limits, as well as extending those rules to one-person demonstrations.

The bill gives far too much discretion to the police in determining the balance between protests and disruption and far too much power to the executive to change the law by decree if it chooses.

The bill will make defacing statues and monuments punishable by up to 10 years in jail which theoretically makes it possible for someone to be more harshly punished for this than for rape.

As the The DUP MP Gavin Robinson said: “The loose and lazy way this legislation is drafted would make a dictator blush. Protests will be noisy, protests will disrupt and no matter how offensive we may find the issue at their heart, the right to protest should be protected.”
 
SmallTown said:
That's the classic response that allows fascism and the setting up of a police state isn't it? “If you are law abiding...” it’s like a free run for anyone wanting to control you.
Click to expand...
But wasn't the push by many on here to enforce the lockdown rules also pointed out to them that we're close to a police state ?

We can't have it all ways.
 
Tommy_Dickfingers said:
But wasn't the push by many on here to enforce the lockdown rules also pointed out to them that we're close to a police state ?

We can't have it all ways.
Click to expand...
You’re missing my point. I’m just saying that using the “but I follow the law” excuse isn’t really that healthy. The law will change so we can’t protest. Who know what the next change will be? Who know what laws we will have to follow if we just allow them to make more and more?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top