You've lost because you are offended and surprised by this as opposed to seeing it a mile off. No one, as far as I can see, are condoning the violence. Understanding why someone feels the need to protest its not the same thing. You're looking in the wrong direction.
this bill is for life, not just for lockdown
Let me be clear. At some point the public will riot, you think it's not justified yet, I think we are getting close to the point where it will be our only recourse.
Oppress people for long enough and eventually they’ll turn - the Tories are slowly eroding all the rights we have that have been fought for over the years. They just want a nation of puppets they can control that go to work pay their taxes and do as they’re told, whilst they pilfer the public purse handing out our money to their pals and donors, and they themselves flaunt and break every law that we are supposed to abide by - we’re sleepwalking into authoritarianism and fascism and we aren’t going to take it. I’ll be on the protest marches planned in June
I do Mart - I’ve copied the bill down and I will have a look after work today. I think I understand the bits people are getting het up about - it’s too vague in parts and gives too much power to the police to define what is and isn’t allowable. I get that people may be upset about that hopefully those parts are ironed out of the bill. Personally living in London I’ve seen first hand what BLM and extinction rebellion protests do and the impact they have on honest hardworking people not to mention the cost - so I would like to see these type of protest curtailed as they attract trouble makers and quite often the message of the cause is lost. So yes I would like to see the police have more powers in those instances - I don’t think that’s such a bad position to take.
Not so sure, what these idiots did was already covered by existing laws. They should have been arrested, but since the 10,000 extra police we were promised haven't arrived and won't arrive, then they are unable to safely enforce the law. The argument that last night supports it is a fallacy. Last night proved that soft targets like a vigil of women will be attacked, and more difficult targets like big crowds containing plenty of aggressive young men will not.
Yes, catch up, there was illegality, stolen data, immoral campaigning, and a defined option vs. an undefined option which is effectively pitching many outcomes against one. If we ran an election as the current government or leave the current government, you would never get a two term government.
That's an excellent analogy. Well done.
Those people are protesting for their and everyone's lives in some cases. The police have enough power to deal with trouble makers already. Everything that happened last night was covered adequately by the current law. They don't need extra powers they just need to enforce those they already have. This bill is quite simply there to enable government to break up and protest they dont like.
How did the BLM protests affect your daily life? Are you a copper? Were you that one that rode into a traffic light?
I see your point but I was just saying that the same people who are saying that we'll turn in to a police state if this bill goes through are the same who wanted people punishing for breaking lockdown rules.
You can never justify riot. Riot is not focused, not a demonstration it is chaos. Chaos where ordinary people get hurt. You would probably condone riot until it’s outside your home, business or your family was somehow caught up in it. Riot and demonstrators achieve nothing. The only way you change anything is through ballot boxes.
www.bristolpost.co.uk
I'm offended and not so surprised by some, including you, virtually condoning the violence yesterday.
She’s a dangerous and nasty piece of work that one - sacked by May for having secret meetings with Israeli officials an businessman then 18 months later lands the job of Home Secretary - you couldn’t make it up
People could see the benefit of a lockdown. It was reasonable and proportional. The policing bill isn't. That's the difference.
That's just wrong on every level.
Did you enjoy that? Do you like seeing people hurt?
How have I virtually condoned violence? You're talking nonsense because you don't agree with my viewpoint.
It's not just the police, also the home secretary is given executive powers to decide how she chooses. So if she sees political gain in allowing a march she allows it, if she sees a march opposes her stance and strength, she can tell the cops to wade in with the riot police. That's fascism.
You have to question what kind of mindset a minister would have to put that in to start with. It's draconian and tells us all we need to know about the aims and morals of this government. They really are that dark.
If 1 million people decide to march for BLM, that's a good thing. A minor inconvenience for people. Anyone causing damage can already be arrested, the reason they aren't is nothing to do with legislation, and entirely to do with resources.
Every protest will attract a small number of trouble makers, you're either for the right to protest or you aren't?