FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Public Order Bill - suppressing protesting
Public Order Bill - suppressing protesting
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Been going on for years, back in the 90s under blair they would just kettle you for 10-12 hours, same outcome of not being able to protest" Why have they introduced this new bill then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Been going on for years, back in the 90s under blair they would just kettle you for 10-12 hours, same outcome of not being able to protest Why have they introduced this new bill then? " because there now being blatant about it, before they could come up with some nonsense about it getting out off hand so they had to kettle people, now you can live stream its a bit harder to say it has turned violent if its being broadcast live,no doubt u was supporting me wen i was held in piccadilly circus for 8 hours for doing nothing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Been going on for years, back in the 90s under blair they would just kettle you for 10-12 hours, same outcome of not being able to protest Why have they introduced this new bill then? because there now being blatant about it, before they could come up with some nonsense about it getting out off hand so they had to kettle people, now you can live stream its a bit harder to say it has turned violent if its being broadcast live,no doubt u was supporting me wen i was held in piccadilly circus for 8 hours for doing nothing" So it’s not the ‘same’ at all, were you arrested for protesting? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Been going on for years, back in the 90s under blair they would just kettle you for 10-12 hours, same outcome of not being able to protest Why have they introduced this new bill then? because there now being blatant about it, before they could come up with some nonsense about it getting out off hand so they had to kettle people, now you can live stream its a bit harder to say it has turned violent if its being broadcast live,no doubt u was supporting me wen i was held in piccadilly circus for 8 hours for doing nothing So it’s not the ‘same’ at all, were you arrested for protesting? " not arrested no but held for 8hrs for no reason so yes we were stopped from protesting they done it regular aswell, every mayday for a few years,so yes stopped from protesting because back then all they had to say is it turned violent, nowdays they cant use that excuse so there just puting it into law to stop protests, im pretty sure though if it was a group you didnt like you wouldnt have a problem with them being arrested | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance of a link? Can't find it on omnisis website or via c&p Google search" Have a look at Byline Times. Not sure if links allowed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance of a link? Can't find it on omnisis website or via c&p Google search Have a look at Byline Times. Not sure if links allowed?" Found the article, cheers. Whilst I don't dispute the article (Byline are pretty good for facts), it's quite frustrating to find they haven't linked to the actual poll so can't see all the data. Feels like cherry picking from a left wing paper. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance of a link? Can't find it on omnisis website or via c&p Google search Have a look at Byline Times. Not sure if links allowed? Found the article, cheers. Whilst I don't dispute the article (Byline are pretty good for facts), it's quite frustrating to find they haven't linked to the actual poll so can't see all the data. Feels like cherry picking from a left wing paper." Maybe. But a question for you. If there was something you felt so strongly about you wanted to protest, would you feel confident that you could without any concern about the Police? I know I don’t any more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance of a link? Can't find it on omnisis website or via c&p Google search Have a look at Byline Times. Not sure if links allowed? Found the article, cheers. Whilst I don't dispute the article (Byline are pretty good for facts), it's quite frustrating to find they haven't linked to the actual poll so can't see all the data. Feels like cherry picking from a left wing paper. Maybe. But a question for you. If there was something you felt so strongly about you wanted to protest, would you feel confident that you could without any concern about the Police? I know I don’t any more." Honestly, outside of London, probably. I can categorically say I wouldn't ever protest in the way these do. Let's take JSO, glueing yourself to a road, climbing a structure on the M25 etc has the opposite effect that they seek. Go and blockade refineries or something, you'd get much more empathy (not actually you). On the flip side, I actually see the police as having very little power, maybe not for the will of the government but because there just aren't enough of them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance of a link? Can't find it on omnisis website or via c&p Google search Have a look at Byline Times. Not sure if links allowed? Found the article, cheers. Whilst I don't dispute the article (Byline are pretty good for facts), it's quite frustrating to find they haven't linked to the actual poll so can't see all the data. Feels like cherry picking from a left wing paper. Maybe. But a question for you. If there was something you felt so strongly about you wanted to protest, would you feel confident that you could without any concern about the Police? I know I don’t any more. Honestly, outside of London, probably. I can categorically say I wouldn't ever protest in the way these do. Let's take JSO, glueing yourself to a road, climbing a structure on the M25 etc has the opposite effect that they seek. Go and blockade refineries or something, you'd get much more empathy (not actually you). On the flip side, I actually see the police as having very little power, maybe not for the will of the government but because there just aren't enough of them. " But you jumped straight to the extreme and the type of actions the Govt have used as the excuse that needed to tackling. The whole point this survey and this thread is focused on is that those of us who would never consider taking extreme actions and would just peacefully protest no longer feel safe to do so. The Public Order Bill is therefore in reality a deterrent against all forms of protest just as it was intended. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. " I saw a programme a few years ago which followed the police whilst they attended protests, a policemen saw a person in the crowd shouting at the police line the policemen dragged out the person, who was surprised and struggled to find their feet. The policemen thumped the person in the chest, dragged them to a van and sat then on the step, the person was a letcture at a collage and lost his job as he got a criminal conviction. I haven't protested since I saw that, and this new law makes that behaviour acceptable for some, so no due to this law I would bother. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance of a link? Can't find it on omnisis website or via c&p Google search Have a look at Byline Times. Not sure if links allowed? Found the article, cheers. Whilst I don't dispute the article (Byline are pretty good for facts), it's quite frustrating to find they haven't linked to the actual poll so can't see all the data. Feels like cherry picking from a left wing paper. Maybe. But a question for you. If there was something you felt so strongly about you wanted to protest, would you feel confident that you could without any concern about the Police? I know I don’t any more. Honestly, outside of London, probably. I can categorically say I wouldn't ever protest in the way these do. Let's take JSO, glueing yourself to a road, climbing a structure on the M25 etc has the opposite effect that they seek. Go and blockade refineries or something, you'd get much more empathy (not actually you). On the flip side, I actually see the police as having very little power, maybe not for the will of the government but because there just aren't enough of them. But you jumped straight to the extreme and the type of actions the Govt have used as the excuse that needed to tackling. The whole point this survey and this thread is focused on is that those of us who would never consider taking extreme actions and would just peacefully protest no longer feel safe to do so. The Public Order Bill is therefore in reality a deterrent against all forms of protest just as it was intended." Got it, you asked a question, don't like the answer so try to rubbish it by 'you jumped straight to extreme'. If there weren't extremists, this bill never would have been dreamt of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance of a link? Can't find it on omnisis website or via c&p Google search Have a look at Byline Times. Not sure if links allowed? Found the article, cheers. Whilst I don't dispute the article (Byline are pretty good for facts), it's quite frustrating to find they haven't linked to the actual poll so can't see all the data. Feels like cherry picking from a left wing paper. Maybe. But a question for you. If there was something you felt so strongly about you wanted to protest, would you feel confident that you could without any concern about the Police? I know I don’t any more. Honestly, outside of London, probably. I can categorically say I wouldn't ever protest in the way these do. Let's take JSO, glueing yourself to a road, climbing a structure on the M25 etc has the opposite effect that they seek. Go and blockade refineries or something, you'd get much more empathy (not actually you). On the flip side, I actually see the police as having very little power, maybe not for the will of the government but because there just aren't enough of them. But you jumped straight to the extreme and the type of actions the Govt have used as the excuse that needed to tackling. The whole point this survey and this thread is focused on is that those of us who would never consider taking extreme actions and would just peacefully protest no longer feel safe to do so. The Public Order Bill is therefore in reality a deterrent against all forms of protest just as it was intended. Got it, you asked a question, don't like the answer so try to rubbish it by 'you jumped straight to extreme'. If there weren't extremists, this bill never would have been dreamt of." You’re a bit feisty/touchy this morning. I was just pointing out that you have missed the entire point of the poll and thread. It isn’t about extremists. Few people have sympathy with those glueing themselves to roads etc. But the knock on effect of this bill is normally moderate people who may have peacefully protested no longer feel safe to do so. That is anti-democratic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance of a link? Can't find it on omnisis website or via c&p Google search Have a look at Byline Times. Not sure if links allowed? Found the article, cheers. Whilst I don't dispute the article (Byline are pretty good for facts), it's quite frustrating to find they haven't linked to the actual poll so can't see all the data. Feels like cherry picking from a left wing paper. Maybe. But a question for you. If there was something you felt so strongly about you wanted to protest, would you feel confident that you could without any concern about the Police? I know I don’t any more. Honestly, outside of London, probably. I can categorically say I wouldn't ever protest in the way these do. Let's take JSO, glueing yourself to a road, climbing a structure on the M25 etc has the opposite effect that they seek. Go and blockade refineries or something, you'd get much more empathy (not actually you). On the flip side, I actually see the police as having very little power, maybe not for the will of the government but because there just aren't enough of them. But you jumped straight to the extreme and the type of actions the Govt have used as the excuse that needed to tackling. The whole point this survey and this thread is focused on is that those of us who would never consider taking extreme actions and would just peacefully protest no longer feel safe to do so. The Public Order Bill is therefore in reality a deterrent against all forms of protest just as it was intended. Got it, you asked a question, don't like the answer so try to rubbish it by 'you jumped straight to extreme'. If there weren't extremists, this bill never would have been dreamt of. You’re a bit feisty/touchy this morning. I was just pointing out that you have missed the entire point of the poll and thread. It isn’t about extremists. Few people have sympathy with those glueing themselves to roads etc. But the knock on effect of this bill is normally moderate people who may have peacefully protested no longer feel safe to do so. That is anti-democratic." Not touchy at all, how can I miss the point of the poll when, as already stated, I can't find the poll. Maybe the anger should be directed towards the extremists, as, without them the bill wouldn't exist. Of course moderates will get caught in the crossfire, unfortunate as it is, that's what happens with most anti-social laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance of a link? Can't find it on omnisis website or via c&p Google search Have a look at Byline Times. Not sure if links allowed? Found the article, cheers. Whilst I don't dispute the article (Byline are pretty good for facts), it's quite frustrating to find they haven't linked to the actual poll so can't see all the data. Feels like cherry picking from a left wing paper. Maybe. But a question for you. If there was something you felt so strongly about you wanted to protest, would you feel confident that you could without any concern about the Police? I know I don’t any more. Honestly, outside of London, probably. I can categorically say I wouldn't ever protest in the way these do. Let's take JSO, glueing yourself to a road, climbing a structure on the M25 etc has the opposite effect that they seek. Go and blockade refineries or something, you'd get much more empathy (not actually you). On the flip side, I actually see the police as having very little power, maybe not for the will of the government but because there just aren't enough of them. But you jumped straight to the extreme and the type of actions the Govt have used as the excuse that needed to tackling. The whole point this survey and this thread is focused on is that those of us who would never consider taking extreme actions and would just peacefully protest no longer feel safe to do so. The Public Order Bill is therefore in reality a deterrent against all forms of protest just as it was intended. Got it, you asked a question, don't like the answer so try to rubbish it by 'you jumped straight to extreme'. If there weren't extremists, this bill never would have been dreamt of. You’re a bit feisty/touchy this morning. I was just pointing out that you have missed the entire point of the poll and thread. It isn’t about extremists. Few people have sympathy with those glueing themselves to roads etc. But the knock on effect of this bill is normally moderate people who may have peacefully protested no longer feel safe to do so. That is anti-democratic. Not touchy at all, how can I miss the point of the poll when, as already stated, I can't find the poll. Maybe the anger should be directed towards the extremists, as, without them the bill wouldn't exist. Of course moderates will get caught in the crossfire, unfortunate as it is, that's what happens with most anti-social laws." You have surprised me. You have no problem with something that suppresses the democratic right of protest? The police already had sufficient powers to deal with extremists. That really wasn’t the underlying point of this bill as people have been saying. The real reason is to suppress protest of any kind. It is authoritarian at best and fascistic at worst. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance of a link? Can't find it on omnisis website or via c&p Google search Have a look at Byline Times. Not sure if links allowed? Found the article, cheers. Whilst I don't dispute the article (Byline are pretty good for facts), it's quite frustrating to find they haven't linked to the actual poll so can't see all the data. Feels like cherry picking from a left wing paper. Maybe. But a question for you. If there was something you felt so strongly about you wanted to protest, would you feel confident that you could without any concern about the Police? I know I don’t any more. Honestly, outside of London, probably. I can categorically say I wouldn't ever protest in the way these do. Let's take JSO, glueing yourself to a road, climbing a structure on the M25 etc has the opposite effect that they seek. Go and blockade refineries or something, you'd get much more empathy (not actually you). On the flip side, I actually see the police as having very little power, maybe not for the will of the government but because there just aren't enough of them. But you jumped straight to the extreme and the type of actions the Govt have used as the excuse that needed to tackling. The whole point this survey and this thread is focused on is that those of us who would never consider taking extreme actions and would just peacefully protest no longer feel safe to do so. The Public Order Bill is therefore in reality a deterrent against all forms of protest just as it was intended. Got it, you asked a question, don't like the answer so try to rubbish it by 'you jumped straight to extreme'. If there weren't extremists, this bill never would have been dreamt of. You’re a bit feisty/touchy this morning. I was just pointing out that you have missed the entire point of the poll and thread. It isn’t about extremists. Few people have sympathy with those glueing themselves to roads etc. But the knock on effect of this bill is normally moderate people who may have peacefully protested no longer feel safe to do so. That is anti-democratic. Not touchy at all, how can I miss the point of the poll when, as already stated, I can't find the poll. Maybe the anger should be directed towards the extremists, as, without them the bill wouldn't exist. Of course moderates will get caught in the crossfire, unfortunate as it is, that's what happens with most anti-social laws. You have surprised me. You have no problem with something that suppresses the democratic right of protest? The police already had sufficient powers to deal with extremists. That really wasn’t the underlying point of this bill as people have been saying. The real reason is to suppress protest of any kind. It is authoritarian at best and fascistic at worst." Why would it surprise you that I say your anger is wrongly directed? I know what you feel the 'real reason' for the bill is. Did you protest against the bill before it became law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance of a link? Can't find it on omnisis website or via c&p Google search Have a look at Byline Times. Not sure if links allowed? Found the article, cheers. Whilst I don't dispute the article (Byline are pretty good for facts), it's quite frustrating to find they haven't linked to the actual poll so can't see all the data. Feels like cherry picking from a left wing paper. Maybe. But a question for you. If there was something you felt so strongly about you wanted to protest, would you feel confident that you could without any concern about the Police? I know I don’t any more. Honestly, outside of London, probably. I can categorically say I wouldn't ever protest in the way these do. Let's take JSO, glueing yourself to a road, climbing a structure on the M25 etc has the opposite effect that they seek. Go and blockade refineries or something, you'd get much more empathy (not actually you). On the flip side, I actually see the police as having very little power, maybe not for the will of the government but because there just aren't enough of them. But you jumped straight to the extreme and the type of actions the Govt have used as the excuse that needed to tackling. The whole point this survey and this thread is focused on is that those of us who would never consider taking extreme actions and would just peacefully protest no longer feel safe to do so. The Public Order Bill is therefore in reality a deterrent against all forms of protest just as it was intended. Got it, you asked a question, don't like the answer so try to rubbish it by 'you jumped straight to extreme'. If there weren't extremists, this bill never would have been dreamt of. You’re a bit feisty/touchy this morning. I was just pointing out that you have missed the entire point of the poll and thread. It isn’t about extremists. Few people have sympathy with those glueing themselves to roads etc. But the knock on effect of this bill is normally moderate people who may have peacefully protested no longer feel safe to do so. That is anti-democratic. Not touchy at all, how can I miss the point of the poll when, as already stated, I can't find the poll. Maybe the anger should be directed towards the extremists, as, without them the bill wouldn't exist. Of course moderates will get caught in the crossfire, unfortunate as it is, that's what happens with most anti-social laws. You have surprised me. You have no problem with something that suppresses the democratic right of protest? The police already had sufficient powers to deal with extremists. That really wasn’t the underlying point of this bill as people have been saying. The real reason is to suppress protest of any kind. It is authoritarian at best and fascistic at worst. Why would it surprise you that I say your anger is wrongly directed? I know what you feel the 'real reason' for the bill is. Did you protest against the bill before it became law?" No I did not protest. Very few things have illicitted a strong enough response from me to actually march in protest. The 2nd Iraq War was one. We closed down the West End, halted traffic. Made a lot of noise. There was 1 million of us. That looks unlikely to happen again as too many moderate people are apparently now concerned they could be arrested. What I am surprised about is your apparent support for this bill and seemingly only looking at this through the lens of tackling extreme protesting behaviour. This poll (if we accept Byline have not cherry picked) shows moderate people will be suppressed from protesting. You appear to be ok with that and it surprises me! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I am surprised about is your apparent support for this bill and seemingly only looking at this through the lens of tackling extreme protesting behaviour. This poll (if we accept Byline have not cherry picked) shows moderate people will be suppressed from protesting. You appear to be ok with that and it surprises me!" If moderate people are dissuaded from protesting because they 'feel unsafe', then perhaps we can draw the conclusion that their feelings on the issue aren't very strong. Maybe we're better off without the sort of protest that's attended by people that don't have any strong opinion on the topic, but just turn up to have a nice day out and make themselves feel better about their lives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance of a link? Can't find it on omnisis website or via c&p Google search Have a look at Byline Times. Not sure if links allowed? Found the article, cheers. Whilst I don't dispute the article (Byline are pretty good for facts), it's quite frustrating to find they haven't linked to the actual poll so can't see all the data. Feels like cherry picking from a left wing paper. Maybe. But a question for you. If there was something you felt so strongly about you wanted to protest, would you feel confident that you could without any concern about the Police? I know I don’t any more. Honestly, outside of London, probably. I can categorically say I wouldn't ever protest in the way these do. Let's take JSO, glueing yourself to a road, climbing a structure on the M25 etc has the opposite effect that they seek. Go and blockade refineries or something, you'd get much more empathy (not actually you). On the flip side, I actually see the police as having very little power, maybe not for the will of the government but because there just aren't enough of them. But you jumped straight to the extreme and the type of actions the Govt have used as the excuse that needed to tackling. The whole point this survey and this thread is focused on is that those of us who would never consider taking extreme actions and would just peacefully protest no longer feel safe to do so. The Public Order Bill is therefore in reality a deterrent against all forms of protest just as it was intended. Got it, you asked a question, don't like the answer so try to rubbish it by 'you jumped straight to extreme'. If there weren't extremists, this bill never would have been dreamt of. You’re a bit feisty/touchy this morning. I was just pointing out that you have missed the entire point of the poll and thread. It isn’t about extremists. Few people have sympathy with those glueing themselves to roads etc. But the knock on effect of this bill is normally moderate people who may have peacefully protested no longer feel safe to do so. That is anti-democratic. Not touchy at all, how can I miss the point of the poll when, as already stated, I can't find the poll. Maybe the anger should be directed towards the extremists, as, without them the bill wouldn't exist. Of course moderates will get caught in the crossfire, unfortunate as it is, that's what happens with most anti-social laws. You have surprised me. You have no problem with something that suppresses the democratic right of protest? The police already had sufficient powers to deal with extremists. That really wasn’t the underlying point of this bill as people have been saying. The real reason is to suppress protest of any kind. It is authoritarian at best and fascistic at worst. Why would it surprise you that I say your anger is wrongly directed? I know what you feel the 'real reason' for the bill is. Did you protest against the bill before it became law? No I did not protest. Very few things have illicitted a strong enough response from me to actually march in protest. The 2nd Iraq War was one. We closed down the West End, halted traffic. Made a lot of noise. There was 1 million of us. That looks unlikely to happen again as too many moderate people are apparently now concerned they could be arrested. What I am surprised about is your apparent support for this bill and seemingly only looking at this through the lens of tackling extreme protesting behaviour. This poll (if we accept Byline have not cherry picked) shows moderate people will be suppressed from protesting. You appear to be ok with that and it surprises me!" We cannot accept that byline have have not cherry picked some numbers because we cannot find the poll. Byline, though a fairly trustworthy (meaning the numbers are probably true) publication, are a left sided publication. What aren't they telling us? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I am surprised about is your apparent support for this bill and seemingly only looking at this through the lens of tackling extreme protesting behaviour. This poll (if we accept Byline have not cherry picked) shows moderate people will be suppressed from protesting. You appear to be ok with that and it surprises me! If moderate people are dissuaded from protesting because they 'feel unsafe', then perhaps we can draw the conclusion that their feelings on the issue aren't very strong. Maybe we're better off without the sort of protest that's attended by people that don't have any strong opinion on the topic, but just turn up to have a nice day out and make themselves feel better about their lives." Totally disagree. The idea that only people who are devoted to a cause should protest rather than an issue mobilising larger numbers of people who might normally not do so is silly in my opinion. In your approach only extremists would protest. They can easily be dismissed in the public consciousness and the govt as fringe. What actually needs to happen to actually get attention is numbers. For the normally placid to stand up and say no. However, many of these will now be dissuades from doing so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a peaceful protest is stopped for no good reason, we should then show the concern it would merit, until that happens I feel the general public have little to worry about as they go about their daily lives. Just stop oil, XR and other such groups who employ gorilla tactics that disrupt the public beyond what is reasonable, have many questions to answer from those moderates who fear protesting. " Sorry but another person entirely missing the point. If the poll is to be believed, then the POB is now a deterrent against a very large number of people from protesting at all. Nothing to do with “go about their daily lives”. It is “I am not happy about XYZ and a few years ago I would have protested and joined a march/picket line but now I am worried I could get arrested so I won’t do it”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance of a link? Can't find it on omnisis website or via c&p Google search Have a look at Byline Times. Not sure if links allowed? Found the article, cheers. Whilst I don't dispute the article (Byline are pretty good for facts), it's quite frustrating to find they haven't linked to the actual poll so can't see all the data. Feels like cherry picking from a left wing paper. Maybe. But a question for you. If there was something you felt so strongly about you wanted to protest, would you feel confident that you could without any concern about the Police? I know I don’t any more. Honestly, outside of London, probably. I can categorically say I wouldn't ever protest in the way these do. Let's take JSO, glueing yourself to a road, climbing a structure on the M25 etc has the opposite effect that they seek. Go and blockade refineries or something, you'd get much more empathy (not actually you). On the flip side, I actually see the police as having very little power, maybe not for the will of the government but because there just aren't enough of them. But you jumped straight to the extreme and the type of actions the Govt have used as the excuse that needed to tackling. The whole point this survey and this thread is focused on is that those of us who would never consider taking extreme actions and would just peacefully protest no longer feel safe to do so. The Public Order Bill is therefore in reality a deterrent against all forms of protest just as it was intended. Got it, you asked a question, don't like the answer so try to rubbish it by 'you jumped straight to extreme'. If there weren't extremists, this bill never would have been dreamt of. You’re a bit feisty/touchy this morning. I was just pointing out that you have missed the entire point of the poll and thread. It isn’t about extremists. Few people have sympathy with those glueing themselves to roads etc. But the knock on effect of this bill is normally moderate people who may have peacefully protested no longer feel safe to do so. That is anti-democratic. Not touchy at all, how can I miss the point of the poll when, as already stated, I can't find the poll. Maybe the anger should be directed towards the extremists, as, without them the bill wouldn't exist. Of course moderates will get caught in the crossfire, unfortunate as it is, that's what happens with most anti-social laws. You have surprised me. You have no problem with something that suppresses the democratic right of protest? The police already had sufficient powers to deal with extremists. That really wasn’t the underlying point of this bill as people have been saying. The real reason is to suppress protest of any kind. It is authoritarian at best and fascistic at worst. Why would it surprise you that I say your anger is wrongly directed? I know what you feel the 'real reason' for the bill is. Did you protest against the bill before it became law? No I did not protest. Very few things have illicitted a strong enough response from me to actually march in protest. The 2nd Iraq War was one. We closed down the West End, halted traffic. Made a lot of noise. There was 1 million of us. That looks unlikely to happen again as too many moderate people are apparently now concerned they could be arrested. What I am surprised about is your apparent support for this bill and seemingly only looking at this through the lens of tackling extreme protesting behaviour. This poll (if we accept Byline have not cherry picked) shows moderate people will be suppressed from protesting. You appear to be ok with that and it surprises me! We cannot accept that byline have have not cherry picked some numbers because we cannot find the poll. Byline, though a fairly trustworthy (meaning the numbers are probably true) publication, are a left sided publication. What aren't they telling us?" Fair enough (they SHOULD publish it) but I think it is concerning in a democracy that 44% of people are afraid of being arrested if they protest. Doesn’t sound very democratic to me! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Without protests (including strikes) we would have nothing "It doesn’t affect me so nothing to be concerned about! First they came...! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance of a link? Can't find it on omnisis website or via c&p Google search Have a look at Byline Times. Not sure if links allowed? Found the article, cheers. Whilst I don't dispute the article (Byline are pretty good for facts), it's quite frustrating to find they haven't linked to the actual poll so can't see all the data. Feels like cherry picking from a left wing paper. Maybe. But a question for you. If there was something you felt so strongly about you wanted to protest, would you feel confident that you could without any concern about the Police? I know I don’t any more. Honestly, outside of London, probably. I can categorically say I wouldn't ever protest in the way these do. Let's take JSO, glueing yourself to a road, climbing a structure on the M25 etc has the opposite effect that they seek. Go and blockade refineries or something, you'd get much more empathy (not actually you). On the flip side, I actually see the police as having very little power, maybe not for the will of the government but because there just aren't enough of them. But you jumped straight to the extreme and the type of actions the Govt have used as the excuse that needed to tackling. The whole point this survey and this thread is focused on is that those of us who would never consider taking extreme actions and would just peacefully protest no longer feel safe to do so. The Public Order Bill is therefore in reality a deterrent against all forms of protest just as it was intended. Got it, you asked a question, don't like the answer so try to rubbish it by 'you jumped straight to extreme'. If there weren't extremists, this bill never would have been dreamt of. You’re a bit feisty/touchy this morning. I was just pointing out that you have missed the entire point of the poll and thread. It isn’t about extremists. Few people have sympathy with those glueing themselves to roads etc. But the knock on effect of this bill is normally moderate people who may have peacefully protested no longer feel safe to do so. That is anti-democratic. Not touchy at all, how can I miss the point of the poll when, as already stated, I can't find the poll. Maybe the anger should be directed towards the extremists, as, without them the bill wouldn't exist. Of course moderates will get caught in the crossfire, unfortunate as it is, that's what happens with most anti-social laws. You have surprised me. You have no problem with something that suppresses the democratic right of protest? The police already had sufficient powers to deal with extremists. That really wasn’t the underlying point of this bill as people have been saying. The real reason is to suppress protest of any kind. It is authoritarian at best and fascistic at worst. Why would it surprise you that I say your anger is wrongly directed? I know what you feel the 'real reason' for the bill is. Did you protest against the bill before it became law? No I did not protest. Very few things have illicitted a strong enough response from me to actually march in protest. The 2nd Iraq War was one. We closed down the West End, halted traffic. Made a lot of noise. There was 1 million of us. That looks unlikely to happen again as too many moderate people are apparently now concerned they could be arrested. What I am surprised about is your apparent support for this bill and seemingly only looking at this through the lens of tackling extreme protesting behaviour. This poll (if we accept Byline have not cherry picked) shows moderate people will be suppressed from protesting. You appear to be ok with that and it surprises me! We cannot accept that byline have have not cherry picked some numbers because we cannot find the poll. Byline, though a fairly trustworthy (meaning the numbers are probably true) publication, are a left sided publication. What aren't they telling us? Fair enough (they SHOULD publish it) but I think it is concerning in a democracy that 44% of people are afraid of being arrested if they protest. Doesn’t sound very democratic to me!" I agree they should publish it, we may not be having the same debate if they did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Without protests (including strikes) we would have nothing "Nothing? How dramatic  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Without protests (including strikes) we would have nothing
Nothing? How dramatic "Straight out of the socialist's 101 on how to answer just about anything, with added inspirational verses to keep your hopes up as you fight the machine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a peaceful protest is stopped for no good reason, we should then show the concern it would merit, until that happens I feel the general public have little to worry about as they go about their daily lives. Just stop oil, XR and other such groups who employ gorilla tactics that disrupt the public beyond what is reasonable, have many questions to answer from those moderates who fear protesting. Sorry but another person entirely missing the point. If the poll is to be believed, then the POB is now a deterrent against a very large number of people from protesting at all. Nothing to do with “go about their daily lives”. It is “I am not happy about XYZ and a few years ago I would have protested and joined a march/picket line but now I am worried I could get arrested so I won’t do it”." A poll on such a subjective matter smells of grasping at straws. Far, far to subjective. As I said and you chose to ignore, if a peaceful protest is stopped under this law, then we should revisit this, even as a protest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Without protests (including strikes) we would have nothing
Nothing? How dramatic "Not unreasonably though. The trade union movement helped bring us the 2 day weekends, working hour restrictions, minimum wage, parental leave, pay and condition discussion with employers, laws (and appeals) on employment contracts, increased annual leave and equality in employment laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Without protests (including strikes) we would have nothing
Nothing? How dramatic
Not unreasonably though. The trade union movement helped bring us the 2 day weekends, working hour restrictions, minimum wage, parental leave, pay and condition discussion with employers, laws (and appeals) on employment contracts, increased annual leave and equality in employment laws. "Not sure if you're new round here but our good friend enjoys being unreasonably dramatic on subjects without any context. I'll ask again. We would have nothing without protest?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Without protests (including strikes) we would have nothing
Nothing? How dramatic
Not unreasonably though. The trade union movement helped bring us the 2 day weekends, working hour restrictions, minimum wage, parental leave, pay and condition discussion with employers, laws (and appeals) on employment contracts, increased annual leave and equality in employment laws.
Not sure if you're new round here but our good friend enjoys being unreasonably dramatic on subjects without any context.
I'll ask again. We would have nothing without protest??"We would have vastly reduced rights, for certain. That’s something to be cherished, is it not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a peaceful protest is stopped for no good reason, we should then show the concern it would merit, until that happens I feel the general public have little to worry about as they go about their daily lives. Just stop oil, XR and other such groups who employ gorilla tactics that disrupt the public beyond what is reasonable, have many questions to answer from those moderates who fear protesting. Sorry but another person entirely missing the point. If the poll is to be believed, then the POB is now a deterrent against a very large number of people from protesting at all. Nothing to do with “go about their daily lives”. It is “I am not happy about XYZ and a few years ago I would have protested and joined a march/picket line but now I am worried I could get arrested so I won’t do it”. A poll on such a subjective matter smells of grasping at straws. Far, far to subjective. As I said and you chose to ignore, if a peaceful protest is stopped under this law, then we should revisit this, even as a protest." NotMe you continue to miss the point. Moderate people are afraid they will be arrested if they protest. In the UK. A democracy! It isn’t about whether a peaceful protest is stopped. It is about people not feeling they can protest in the first place! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a peaceful protest is stopped for no good reason, we should then show the concern it would merit, until that happens I feel the general public have little to worry about as they go about their daily lives. Just stop oil, XR and other such groups who employ gorilla tactics that disrupt the public beyond what is reasonable, have many questions to answer from those moderates who fear protesting. Sorry but another person entirely missing the point. If the poll is to be believed, then the POB is now a deterrent against a very large number of people from protesting at all. Nothing to do with “go about their daily lives”. It is “I am not happy about XYZ and a few years ago I would have protested and joined a march/picket line but now I am worried I could get arrested so I won’t do it”. A poll on such a subjective matter smells of grasping at straws. Far, far to subjective. As I said and you chose to ignore, if a peaceful protest is stopped under this law, then we should revisit this, even as a protest. NotMe you continue to miss the point. Moderate people are afraid they will be arrested if they protest. In the UK. A democracy! It isn’t about whether a peaceful protest is stopped. It is about people not feeling they can protest in the first place!" technicality pickets standing quietly on a picket line during a perfectly legal strike can now be arrested that is very very concerning . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a peaceful protest is stopped for no good reason, we should then show the concern it would merit, until that happens I feel the general public have little to worry about as they go about their daily lives. Just stop oil, XR and other such groups who employ gorilla tactics that disrupt the public beyond what is reasonable, have many questions to answer from those moderates who fear protesting. Sorry but another person entirely missing the point. If the poll is to be believed, then the POB is now a deterrent against a very large number of people from protesting at all. Nothing to do with “go about their daily lives”. It is “I am not happy about XYZ and a few years ago I would have protested and joined a march/picket line but now I am worried I could get arrested so I won’t do it”. A poll on such a subjective matter smells of grasping at straws. Far, far to subjective. As I said and you chose to ignore, if a peaceful protest is stopped under this law, then we should revisit this, even as a protest. NotMe you continue to miss the point. Moderate people are afraid they will be arrested if they protest. In the UK. A democracy! It isn’t about whether a peaceful protest is stopped. It is about people not feeling they can protest in the first place!" Odd so you are not going to protest for fear of government. Yet I support our 2A to have the government fear the people. It's crazy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a peaceful protest is stopped for no good reason, we should then show the concern it would merit, until that happens I feel the general public have little to worry about as they go about their daily lives. Just stop oil, XR and other such groups who employ gorilla tactics that disrupt the public beyond what is reasonable, have many questions to answer from those moderates who fear protesting. Sorry but another person entirely missing the point. If the poll is to be believed, then the POB is now a deterrent against a very large number of people from protesting at all. Nothing to do with “go about their daily lives”. It is “I am not happy about XYZ and a few years ago I would have protested and joined a march/picket line but now I am worried I could get arrested so I won’t do it”. A poll on such a subjective matter smells of grasping at straws. Far, far to subjective. As I said and you chose to ignore, if a peaceful protest is stopped under this law, then we should revisit this, even as a protest. NotMe you continue to miss the point. Moderate people are afraid they will be arrested if they protest. In the UK. A democracy! It isn’t about whether a peaceful protest is stopped. It is about people not feeling they can protest in the first place! Odd so you are not going to protest for fear of government. Yet I support our 2A to have the government fear the people. It's crazy. " Primary school children also fear "the people". They drill for it in your country, I believe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. " It isn't. That was it's intent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a peaceful protest is stopped for no good reason, we should then show the concern it would merit, until that happens I feel the general public have little to worry about as they go about their daily lives. Just stop oil, XR and other such groups who employ gorilla tactics that disrupt the public beyond what is reasonable, have many questions to answer from those moderates who fear protesting. Sorry but another person entirely missing the point. If the poll is to be believed, then the POB is now a deterrent against a very large number of people from protesting at all. Nothing to do with “go about their daily lives”. It is “I am not happy about XYZ and a few years ago I would have protested and joined a march/picket line but now I am worried I could get arrested so I won’t do it”. A poll on such a subjective matter smells of grasping at straws. Far, far to subjective. As I said and you chose to ignore, if a peaceful protest is stopped under this law, then we should revisit this, even as a protest. NotMe you continue to miss the point. Moderate people are afraid they will be arrested if they protest. In the UK. A democracy! It isn’t about whether a peaceful protest is stopped. It is about people not feeling they can protest in the first place! Odd so you are not going to protest for fear of government. Yet I support our 2A to have the government fear the people. It's crazy. Primary school children also fear "the people". They drill for it in your country, I believe." But as you see some adults will not protest. Like it or not a right was stripped away.  So they drill for it they also drill for tornados earthquakes and fires. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a peaceful protest is stopped for no good reason, we should then show the concern it would merit, until that happens I feel the general public have little to worry about as they go about their daily lives. Just stop oil, XR and other such groups who employ gorilla tactics that disrupt the public beyond what is reasonable, have many questions to answer from those moderates who fear protesting. Sorry but another person entirely missing the point. If the poll is to be believed, then the POB is now a deterrent against a very large number of people from protesting at all. Nothing to do with “go about their daily lives”. It is “I am not happy about XYZ and a few years ago I would have protested and joined a march/picket line but now I am worried I could get arrested so I won’t do it”. A poll on such a subjective matter smells of grasping at straws. Far, far to subjective. As I said and you chose to ignore, if a peaceful protest is stopped under this law, then we should revisit this, even as a protest. NotMe you continue to miss the point. Moderate people are afraid they will be arrested if they protest. In the UK. A democracy! It isn’t about whether a peaceful protest is stopped. It is about people not feeling they can protest in the first place!" I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a peaceful protest is stopped for no good reason, we should then show the concern it would merit, until that happens I feel the general public have little to worry about as they go about their daily lives. Just stop oil, XR and other such groups who employ gorilla tactics that disrupt the public beyond what is reasonable, have many questions to answer from those moderates who fear protesting. Sorry but another person entirely missing the point. If the poll is to be believed, then the POB is now a deterrent against a very large number of people from protesting at all. Nothing to do with “go about their daily lives”. It is “I am not happy about XYZ and a few years ago I would have protested and joined a march/picket line but now I am worried I could get arrested so I won’t do it”. A poll on such a subjective matter smells of grasping at straws. Far, far to subjective. As I said and you chose to ignore, if a peaceful protest is stopped under this law, then we should revisit this, even as a protest. NotMe you continue to miss the point. Moderate people are afraid they will be arrested if they protest. In the UK. A democracy! It isn’t about whether a peaceful protest is stopped. It is about people not feeling they can protest in the first place! I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate " So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a peaceful protest is stopped for no good reason, we should then show the concern it would merit, until that happens I feel the general public have little to worry about as they go about their daily lives. Just stop oil, XR and other such groups who employ gorilla tactics that disrupt the public beyond what is reasonable, have many questions to answer from those moderates who fear protesting. Sorry but another person entirely missing the point. If the poll is to be believed, then the POB is now a deterrent against a very large number of people from protesting at all. Nothing to do with “go about their daily lives”. It is “I am not happy about XYZ and a few years ago I would have protested and joined a march/picket line but now I am worried I could get arrested so I won’t do it”. A poll on such a subjective matter smells of grasping at straws. Far, far to subjective. As I said and you chose to ignore, if a peaceful protest is stopped under this law, then we should revisit this, even as a protest. NotMe you continue to miss the point. Moderate people are afraid they will be arrested if they protest. In the UK. A democracy! It isn’t about whether a peaceful protest is stopped. It is about people not feeling they can protest in the first place! I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data "How do you identify people in the UK that were involved in a tragic accident when they are in unrecognizable. Let's say a car accident. Licence plates ? Vin numbers? Personal ID ? Credit cards? Cell phone ? Bank accounts? Yet to you voter ID is a bad thing. So you basically saying no one gets identified. You are ridiculous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a peaceful protest is stopped for no good reason, we should then show the concern it would merit, until that happens I feel the general public have little to worry about as they go about their daily lives. Just stop oil, XR and other such groups who employ gorilla tactics that disrupt the public beyond what is reasonable, have many questions to answer from those moderates who fear protesting. Sorry but another person entirely missing the point. If the poll is to be believed, then the POB is now a deterrent against a very large number of people from protesting at all. Nothing to do with “go about their daily lives”. It is “I am not happy about XYZ and a few years ago I would have protested and joined a march/picket line but now I am worried I could get arrested so I won’t do it”. A poll on such a subjective matter smells of grasping at straws. Far, far to subjective. As I said and you chose to ignore, if a peaceful protest is stopped under this law, then we should revisit this, even as a protest. NotMe you continue to miss the point. Moderate people are afraid they will be arrested if they protest. In the UK. A democracy! It isn’t about whether a peaceful protest is stopped. It is about people not feeling they can protest in the first place! I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data How do you identify people in the UK that were involved in a tragic accident when they are in unrecognizable. Let's say a car accident. Licence plates ? Vin numbers? Personal ID ? Credit cards? Cell phone ? Bank accounts? Yet to you voter ID is a bad thing. So you basically saying no one gets identified. You are ridiculous."Must be alot of unidentified people . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate" "So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data" But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Without protests (including strikes) we would have nothing
Nothing? How dramatic
Not unreasonably though. The trade union movement helped bring us the 2 day weekends, working hour restrictions, minimum wage, parental leave, pay and condition discussion with employers, laws (and appeals) on employment contracts, increased annual leave and equality in employment laws.
Not sure if you're new round here but our good friend enjoys being unreasonably dramatic on subjects without any context.
I'll ask again. We would have nothing without protest??
We would have vastly reduced rights, for certain. That’s something to be cherished, is it not? "For certain? That's a bold claim that we both know can't be backed up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us." Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy." You could always have been arrested on 'suspicion of'. You know as well as I do that's how arrests work. You are arrested on 'suspicion of' pending investigation. When did anyone get arrested for simple standing with a placard? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy." You better watch out, you may get the police knocking your door to "Check your thinking" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. You could always have been arrested on 'suspicion of'. You know as well as I do that's how arrests work. You are arrested on 'suspicion of' pending investigation. When did anyone get arrested for simple standing with a placard? " A couple of Saturdays ago, I believe 16 hours in custody then released without charge at 11.00 at night. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. You could always have been arrested on 'suspicion of'. You know as well as I do that's how arrests work. You are arrested on 'suspicion of' pending investigation. When did anyone get arrested for simple standing with a placard? A couple of Saturdays ago, I believe 16 hours in custody then released without charge at 11.00 at night." Wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. You could always have been arrested on 'suspicion of'. You know as well as I do that's how arrests work. You are arrested on 'suspicion of' pending investigation. When did anyone get arrested for simple standing with a placard? A couple of Saturdays ago, I believe 16 hours in custody then released without charge at 11.00 at night. Wrong " Can you feel the hate yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. You could always have been arrested on 'suspicion of'. You know as well as I do that's how arrests work. You are arrested on 'suspicion of' pending investigation. When did anyone get arrested for simple standing with a placard? A couple of Saturdays ago, I believe 16 hours in custody then released without charge at 11.00 at night. Wrong Can you feel the hate yet?" You do realise released without charge isn't the same as wrongful arrest don't you? Your answer was wrong, care to find me another example? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy." It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. You could always have been arrested on 'suspicion of'. You know as well as I do that's how arrests work. You are arrested on 'suspicion of' pending investigation. When did anyone get arrested for simple standing with a placard? A couple of Saturdays ago, I believe 16 hours in custody then released without charge at 11.00 at night. Wrong Can you feel the hate yet? You do realise released without charge isn't the same as wrongful arrest don't you? Your answer was wrong, care to find me another example?" No | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture." I do not protest, I haven't since I saw a protester assaulted by the police for nothing, and then lost their employment as they got a criminal record. So in short a few hours in the station lead to no job for that protester. I believe in what the O.P states, I have been put off and wouldn't go to a protest again especially after this new law. Thats the way it is for me now and I suspect many others, that's a consequence of this law for me. It will be the strikers next, then something else, and no one can stop it because of the fear the new law causes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. I do not protest, I haven't since I saw a protester assaulted by the police for nothing, and then lost their employment as they got a criminal record. So in short a few hours in the station lead to no job for that protester. I believe in what the O.P states, I have been put off and wouldn't go to a protest again especially after this new law. Thats the way it is for me now and I suspect many others, that's a consequence of this law for me. It will be the strikers next, then something else, and no one can stop it because of the fear the new law causes." The protestor who got 'assaulted' for nothing also got a 'criminal record' for nothing? Like a judge actually convicted him without evidence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. I do not protest, I haven't since I saw a protester assaulted by the police for nothing, and then lost their employment as they got a criminal record. So in short a few hours in the station lead to no job for that protester. I believe in what the O.P states, I have been put off and wouldn't go to a protest again especially after this new law. Thats the way it is for me now and I suspect many others, that's a consequence of this law for me. It will be the strikers next, then something else, and no one can stop it because of the fear the new law causes. The protestor who got 'assaulted' for nothing also got a 'criminal record' for nothing? Like a judge actually convicted him without evidence?" Can you see the hate yet? Press the green arrow to see other conversations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. I do not protest, I haven't since I saw a protester assaulted by the police for nothing, and then lost their employment as they got a criminal record. So in short a few hours in the station lead to no job for that protester. I believe in what the O.P states, I have been put off and wouldn't go to a protest again especially after this new law. Thats the way it is for me now and I suspect many others, that's a consequence of this law for me. It will be the strikers next, then something else, and no one can stop it because of the fear the new law causes. The protestor who got 'assaulted' for nothing also got a 'criminal record' for nothing? Like a judge actually convicted him without evidence? Can you see the hate yet? Press the green arrow to see other conversations." I'd rather just converse in an adult manner. If you hate me so much you're welcome to ignore me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. I do not protest, I haven't since I saw a protester assaulted by the police for nothing, and then lost their employment as they got a criminal record. So in short a few hours in the station lead to no job for that protester. I believe in what the O.P states, I have been put off and wouldn't go to a protest again especially after this new law. Thats the way it is for me now and I suspect many others, that's a consequence of this law for me. It will be the strikers next, then something else, and no one can stop it because of the fear the new law causes." I agree, people have benefitted so much from the brave protests of their ancestors, without protests (including strikes) we have nothing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. I do not protest, I haven't since I saw a protester assaulted by the police for nothing, and then lost their employment as they got a criminal record. So in short a few hours in the station lead to no job for that protester. I believe in what the O.P states, I have been put off and wouldn't go to a protest again especially after this new law. Thats the way it is for me now and I suspect many others, that's a consequence of this law for me. It will be the strikers next, then something else, and no one can stop it because of the fear the new law causes. I agree, people have benefitted so much from the brave protests of their ancestors, without protests (including strikes) we have nothing "How dramatic 
Care to back that claim up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. I do not protest, I haven't since I saw a protester assaulted by the police for nothing, and then lost their employment as they got a criminal record. So in short a few hours in the station lead to no job for that protester. I believe in what the O.P states, I have been put off and wouldn't go to a protest again especially after this new law. Thats the way it is for me now and I suspect many others, that's a consequence of this law for me. It will be the strikers next, then something else, and no one can stop it because of the fear the new law causes. The protestor who got 'assaulted' for nothing also got a 'criminal record' for nothing? Like a judge actually convicted him without evidence? Can you see the hate yet? Press the green arrow to see other conversations. I'd rather just converse in an adult manner. If you hate me so much you're welcome to ignore me." Thank you I will. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. I do not protest, I haven't since I saw a protester assaulted by the police for nothing, and then lost their employment as they got a criminal record. So in short a few hours in the station lead to no job for that protester. I believe in what the O.P states, I have been put off and wouldn't go to a protest again especially after this new law. Thats the way it is for me now and I suspect many others, that's a consequence of this law for me. It will be the strikers next, then something else, and no one can stop it because of the fear the new law causes. The protestor who got 'assaulted' for nothing also got a 'criminal record' for nothing? Like a judge actually convicted him without evidence? Can you see the hate yet? Press the green arrow to see other conversations. I'd rather just converse in an adult manner. If you hate me so much you're welcome to ignore me. Thank you I will. " Imagine 'hating' someone who you disagree with on an Internet forum. I'm glad I'm me and not you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a peaceful protest is stopped for no good reason, we should then show the concern it would merit, until that happens I feel the general public have little to worry about as they go about their daily lives. Just stop oil, XR and other such groups who employ gorilla tactics that disrupt the public beyond what is reasonable, have many questions to answer from those moderates who fear protesting. Sorry but another person entirely missing the point. If the poll is to be believed, then the POB is now a deterrent against a very large number of people from protesting at all. Nothing to do with “go about their daily lives”. It is “I am not happy about XYZ and a few years ago I would have protested and joined a march/picket line but now I am worried I could get arrested so I won’t do it”. A poll on such a subjective matter smells of grasping at straws. Far, far to subjective. As I said and you chose to ignore, if a peaceful protest is stopped under this law, then we should revisit this, even as a protest. NotMe you continue to miss the point. Moderate people are afraid they will be arrested if they protest. In the UK. A democracy! It isn’t about whether a peaceful protest is stopped. It is about people not feeling they can protest in the first place! I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data How do you identify people in the UK that were involved in a tragic accident when they are in unrecognizable. Let's say a car accident. Licence plates ? Vin numbers? Personal ID ? Credit cards? Cell phone ? Bank accounts? Yet to you voter ID is a bad thing. So you basically saying no one gets identified. You are ridiculous."Yep, it is that simple people do have ID and if they don't the government and local councils will provide them for free, but some people, only a few very vocal ones, insist we should not step forward and remain in the 1900's. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a peaceful protest is stopped for no good reason, we should then show the concern it would merit, until that happens I feel the general public have little to worry about as they go about their daily lives. Just stop oil, XR and other such groups who employ gorilla tactics that disrupt the public beyond what is reasonable, have many questions to answer from those moderates who fear protesting. Sorry but another person entirely missing the point. If the poll is to be believed, then the POB is now a deterrent against a very large number of people from protesting at all. Nothing to do with “go about their daily lives”. It is “I am not happy about XYZ and a few years ago I would have protested and joined a march/picket line but now I am worried I could get arrested so I won’t do it”. A poll on such a subjective matter smells of grasping at straws. Far, far to subjective. As I said and you chose to ignore, if a peaceful protest is stopped under this law, then we should revisit this, even as a protest. NotMe you continue to miss the point. Moderate people are afraid they will be arrested if they protest. In the UK. A democracy! It isn’t about whether a peaceful protest is stopped. It is about people not feeling they can protest in the first place! I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data "I'm sure you simply answer a question or scenario you make up in your head because you do a very good job at proving this time and time again, it can't be an accident. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. I do not protest, I haven't since I saw a protester assaulted by the police for nothing, and then lost their employment as they got a criminal record. So in short a few hours in the station lead to no job for that protester. I believe in what the O.P states, I have been put off and wouldn't go to a protest again especially after this new law. Thats the way it is for me now and I suspect many others, that's a consequence of this law for me. It will be the strikers next, then something else, and no one can stop it because of the fear the new law causes. The protestor who got 'assaulted' for nothing also got a 'criminal record' for nothing? Like a judge actually convicted him without evidence? Can you see the hate yet? Press the green arrow to see other conversations. I'd rather just converse in an adult manner. If you hate me so much you're welcome to ignore me. Thank you I will. Imagine 'hating' someone who you disagree with on an Internet forum. I'm glad I'm me and not you "Makes it so it will never end, I do not hate you, I have asked others to press the green arrow read your past interactions and make their own opinion regarding your interactions with others. I find my interactions with you leave me feeling assaulted in some way strange but that's how I feel, maybe im feeling your hate as that's all you do hate on others and if people want that proof they only need to press that arrow to read your comments and mine. I do now hope you will leave me alone as you said you would, I realise you need to reply ego and all that so after you have your say will you leave me alone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. I do not protest, I haven't since I saw a protester assaulted by the police for nothing, and then lost their employment as they got a criminal record. So in short a few hours in the station lead to no job for that protester. I believe in what the O.P states, I have been put off and wouldn't go to a protest again especially after this new law. Thats the way it is for me now and I suspect many others, that's a consequence of this law for me. It will be the strikers next, then something else, and no one can stop it because of the fear the new law causes. The protestor who got 'assaulted' for nothing also got a 'criminal record' for nothing? Like a judge actually convicted him without evidence? Can you see the hate yet? Press the green arrow to see other conversations. I'd rather just converse in an adult manner. If you hate me so much you're welcome to ignore me. Thank you I will. Imagine 'hating' someone who you disagree with on an Internet forum. I'm glad I'm me and not you
Makes it so it will never end, I do not hate you, I have asked others to press the green arrow read your past interactions and make their own opinion regarding your interactions with others.
I find my interactions with you leave me feeling assaulted in some way strange but that's how I feel, maybe im feeling your hate as that's all you do hate on others and if people want that proof they only need to press that arrow to read your comments and mine.
I do now hope you will leave me alone as you said you would, I realise you need to reply ego and all that so after you have your say will you leave me alone?"Thanks for making it personal and trying to shut me down by using 'my ego' against me
I hope peoplebdo go and press the green arrow and they'll see I do no such thing as 'all you do is hate on other people'
Maybe you have me confused with someone else, or maybe you just hate people who don't agree with you.
Good day mate  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. I do not protest, I haven't since I saw a protester assaulted by the police for nothing, and then lost their employment as they got a criminal record. So in short a few hours in the station lead to no job for that protester. I believe in what the O.P states, I have been put off and wouldn't go to a protest again especially after this new law. Thats the way it is for me now and I suspect many others, that's a consequence of this law for me. It will be the strikers next, then something else, and no one can stop it because of the fear the new law causes. The protestor who got 'assaulted' for nothing also got a 'criminal record' for nothing? Like a judge actually convicted him without evidence? Can you see the hate yet? Press the green arrow to see other conversations." What "hate"???? Do you mean 'rational and constructive debate by adults...'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can you see the hate yet? Press the green arrow to see other conversations." I did press the green arrow. I see one of the more considered and flexible posters in this forum. I don't see any hate in her posts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a peaceful protest is stopped for no good reason, we should then show the concern it would merit, until that happens I feel the general public have little to worry about as they go about their daily lives. Just stop oil, XR and other such groups who employ gorilla tactics that disrupt the public beyond what is reasonable, have many questions to answer from those moderates who fear protesting. Sorry but another person entirely missing the point. If the poll is to be believed, then the POB is now a deterrent against a very large number of people from protesting at all. Nothing to do with “go about their daily lives”. It is “I am not happy about XYZ and a few years ago I would have protested and joined a march/picket line but now I am worried I could get arrested so I won’t do it”. A poll on such a subjective matter smells of grasping at straws. Far, far to subjective. As I said and you chose to ignore, if a peaceful protest is stopped under this law, then we should revisit this, even as a protest. NotMe you continue to miss the point. Moderate people are afraid they will be arrested if they protest. In the UK. A democracy! It isn’t about whether a peaceful protest is stopped. It is about people not feeling they can protest in the first place! I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data How do you identify people in the UK that were involved in a tragic accident when they are in unrecognizable. Let's say a car accident. Licence plates ? Vin numbers? Personal ID ? Credit cards? Cell phone ? Bank accounts? Yet to you voter ID is a bad thing. So you basically saying no one gets identified. You are ridiculous.Must be alot of unidentified people ."There is no information to indicate that there is a problem with voter fraud in the UK. Show that there is a problem to fix, then find the best solution. Change the law when the data is gathered, otherwise you are changing the law just because you believe something. What's your preferred process? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. You could always have been arrested on 'suspicion of'. You know as well as I do that's how arrests work. You are arrested on 'suspicion of' pending investigation. When did anyone get arrested for simple standing with a placard? A couple of Saturdays ago, I believe 16 hours in custody then released without charge at 11.00 at night. Wrong " True. This is wrong. They were actually arrested and held for 16 hours before they were able to stand anywhere with a placard. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65527007 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. You could always have been arrested on 'suspicion of'. You know as well as I do that's how arrests work. You are arrested on 'suspicion of' pending investigation. When did anyone get arrested for simple standing with a placard? A couple of Saturdays ago, I believe 16 hours in custody then released without charge at 11.00 at night. Wrong True. This is wrong. They were actually arrested and held for 16 hours before they were able to stand anywhere with a placard. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65527007" Why were they arrested? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture." "Police arrested volunteers ahead of the coronation despite a direct partnership between their organisation and the Metropolitan Police, with the force’s logo displayed on their jackets." "Mr Smith was one of six Republic members who were the first people to be arrested under the sweeping Public Order Act, brought in days before the coronation. He told MPs that the arrests came despite Republic having written to the Met in January and held meetings about the details of their protests since February." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/met-police-police-diana-johnson-commons-home-affairs-committee-mps-b1081781.html So what do you have to do to not get arrested? Not protest at all, it seems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. You could always have been arrested on 'suspicion of'. You know as well as I do that's how arrests work. You are arrested on 'suspicion of' pending investigation. When did anyone get arrested for simple standing with a placard? A couple of Saturdays ago, I believe 16 hours in custody then released without charge at 11.00 at night. Wrong True. This is wrong. They were actually arrested and held for 16 hours before they were able to stand anywhere with a placard. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65527007 Why were they arrested?" For no good reason that would take 16 hours to resolve. They were arrested for "suspicion" of doing something that the Met was fully informed of. "Mr Smith added that, after months of discussions with the Met, the force had "repeatedly said, right up until Friday, that they had no concerns about our protest plans, that they were well aware of what we were going to do and they would engage with us and not disrupt us"." That is why: "The Met said a review found there was no proof the six protesters, who were detained when their vehicle was stopped near the procession route, were planning to "lock on", a protesting tactic which is now banned. But the force said it was "unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event"." "Mr Smith said a chief inspector and two other officers visited his Reading home on Monday evening to issue the apology." This was overreach due to deliberately loosely worded legislation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. "Police arrested volunteers ahead of the coronation despite a direct partnership between their organisation and the Metropolitan Police, with the force’s logo displayed on their jackets." "Mr Smith was one of six Republic members who were the first people to be arrested under the sweeping Public Order Act, brought in days before the coronation. He told MPs that the arrests came despite Republic having written to the Met in January and held meetings about the details of their protests since February." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/met-police-police-diana-johnson-commons-home-affairs-committee-mps-b1081781.html So what do you have to do to not get arrested? Not protest at all, it seems." **************************************** And do you think that, considering the previous methods used by these type of 'protestors', the police would be naive enough to trust any assurances these idiots may give.....??!! The occasion and the public support was far too important to risk the 'word' of such people. Again, I say the above is merely my own opinion on this subject. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. You could always have been arrested on 'suspicion of'. You know as well as I do that's how arrests work. You are arrested on 'suspicion of' pending investigation. When did anyone get arrested for simple standing with a placard? A couple of Saturdays ago, I believe 16 hours in custody then released without charge at 11.00 at night. Wrong True. This is wrong. They were actually arrested and held for 16 hours before they were able to stand anywhere with a placard. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65527007 Why were they arrested? For no good reason that would take 16 hours to resolve. They were arrested for "suspicion" of doing something that the Met was fully informed of. "Mr Smith added that, after months of discussions with the Met, the force had "repeatedly said, right up until Friday, that they had no concerns about our protest plans, that they were well aware of what we were going to do and they would engage with us and not disrupt us"." That is why: "The Met said a review found there was no proof the six protesters, who were detained when their vehicle was stopped near the procession route, were planning to "lock on", a protesting tactic which is now banned. But the force said it was "unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event"." "Mr Smith said a chief inspector and two other officers visited his Reading home on Monday evening to issue the apology." This was overreach due to deliberately loosely worded legislation." They were arrested on suspicion of intent to lock on. You forgot one of them was carrying a sharp object. That's not 'no good reason'. As I've already explained before, police arrest 'on suspicion' and then 'investigate', which they did. They found no proof and subsequently released them without charge. Release without charge is not the same as wrongful arrest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. "Police arrested volunteers ahead of the coronation despite a direct partnership between their organisation and the Metropolitan Police, with the force’s logo displayed on their jackets." "Mr Smith was one of six Republic members who were the first people to be arrested under the sweeping Public Order Act, brought in days before the coronation. He told MPs that the arrests came despite Republic having written to the Met in January and held meetings about the details of their protests since February." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/met-police-police-diana-johnson-commons-home-affairs-committee-mps-b1081781.html So what do you have to do to not get arrested? Not protest at all, it seems. **************************************** And do you think that, considering the previous methods used by these type of 'protestors', the police would be naive enough to trust any assurances these idiots may give.....??!! The occasion and the public support was far too important to risk the 'word' of such people. Again, I say the above is merely my own opinion on this subject." The police have admitted that they got it wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. "Police arrested volunteers ahead of the coronation despite a direct partnership between their organisation and the Metropolitan Police, with the force’s logo displayed on their jackets." "Mr Smith was one of six Republic members who were the first people to be arrested under the sweeping Public Order Act, brought in days before the coronation. He told MPs that the arrests came despite Republic having written to the Met in January and held meetings about the details of their protests since February." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/met-police-police-diana-johnson-commons-home-affairs-committee-mps-b1081781.html So what do you have to do to not get arrested? Not protest at all, it seems. **************************************** And do you think that, considering the previous methods used by these type of 'protestors', the police would be naive enough to trust any assurances these idiots may give.....??!! The occasion and the public support was far too important to risk the 'word' of such people. Again, I say the above is merely my own opinion on this subject. The police have admitted that they got it wrong "I know they have...!! I suspect they knew all along they would have to admit to 'getting it wrong' Again, my opinion. Good afternoon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. "Police arrested volunteers ahead of the coronation despite a direct partnership between their organisation and the Metropolitan Police, with the force’s logo displayed on their jackets." "Mr Smith was one of six Republic members who were the first people to be arrested under the sweeping Public Order Act, brought in days before the coronation. He told MPs that the arrests came despite Republic having written to the Met in January and held meetings about the details of their protests since February." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/met-police-police-diana-johnson-commons-home-affairs-committee-mps-b1081781.html So what do you have to do to not get arrested? Not protest at all, it seems. **************************************** And do you think that, considering the previous methods used by these type of 'protestors', the police would be naive enough to trust any assurances these idiots may give.....??!! The occasion and the public support was far too important to risk the 'word' of such people. Again, I say the above is merely my own opinion on this subject. The police have admitted that they got it wrong
I know they have...!!
I suspect they knew all along they would have to admit to 'getting it wrong'
Again, my opinion.
Good afternoon."They didn't admit to getting it wrong. That's just his spin on it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. "Police arrested volunteers ahead of the coronation despite a direct partnership between their organisation and the Metropolitan Police, with the force’s logo displayed on their jackets." "Mr Smith was one of six Republic members who were the first people to be arrested under the sweeping Public Order Act, brought in days before the coronation. He told MPs that the arrests came despite Republic having written to the Met in January and held meetings about the details of their protests since February." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/met-police-police-diana-johnson-commons-home-affairs-committee-mps-b1081781.html So what do you have to do to not get arrested? Not protest at all, it seems. **************************************** And do you think that, considering the previous methods used by these type of 'protestors', the police would be naive enough to trust any assurances these idiots may give.....??!! The occasion and the public support was far too important to risk the 'word' of such people. Again, I say the above is merely my own opinion on this subject. The police have admitted that they got it wrong
I know they have...!!
I suspect they knew all along they would have to admit to 'getting it wrong'
Again, my opinion.
Good afternoon.
They didn't admit to getting it wrong. That's just his spin on it. "Yes, highly likely given his track record..! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. You could always have been arrested on 'suspicion of'. You know as well as I do that's how arrests work. You are arrested on 'suspicion of' pending investigation. When did anyone get arrested for simple standing with a placard? A couple of Saturdays ago, I believe 16 hours in custody then released without charge at 11.00 at night. Wrong True. This is wrong. They were actually arrested and held for 16 hours before they were able to stand anywhere with a placard. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65527007 Why were they arrested? For no good reason that would take 16 hours to resolve. They were arrested for "suspicion" of doing something that the Met was fully informed of. "Mr Smith added that, after months of discussions with the Met, the force had "repeatedly said, right up until Friday, that they had no concerns about our protest plans, that they were well aware of what we were going to do and they would engage with us and not disrupt us"." That is why: "The Met said a review found there was no proof the six protesters, who were detained when their vehicle was stopped near the procession route, were planning to "lock on", a protesting tactic which is now banned. But the force said it was "unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event"." "Mr Smith said a chief inspector and two other officers visited his Reading home on Monday evening to issue the apology." This was overreach due to deliberately loosely worded legislation." The police on the ground made a decision, they got it wrong. I would rather they made that decision and got it wrong than to have done nothing and the event been sabotaged. The majority of the protestors were left alone to protest, the protest was not stopped. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested?" They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests." As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. "Police arrested volunteers ahead of the coronation despite a direct partnership between their organisation and the Metropolitan Police, with the force’s logo displayed on their jackets." "Mr Smith was one of six Republic members who were the first people to be arrested under the sweeping Public Order Act, brought in days before the coronation. He told MPs that the arrests came despite Republic having written to the Met in January and held meetings about the details of their protests since February." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/met-police-police-diana-johnson-commons-home-affairs-committee-mps-b1081781.html So what do you have to do to not get arrested? Not protest at all, it seems. **************************************** And do you think that, considering the previous methods used by these type of 'protestors', the police would be naive enough to trust any assurances these idiots may give.....??!! The occasion and the public support was far too important to risk the 'word' of such people. Again, I say the above is merely my own opinion on this subject. The police have admitted that they got it wrong
I know they have...!!
I suspect they knew all along they would have to admit to 'getting it wrong'
Again, my opinion.
Good afternoon.
They didn't admit to getting it wrong. That's just his spin on it.
Yes, highly likely given his track record..!"They definitely admitted to getting it wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information." They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture. "Police arrested volunteers ahead of the coronation despite a direct partnership between their organisation and the Metropolitan Police, with the force’s logo displayed on their jackets." "Mr Smith was one of six Republic members who were the first people to be arrested under the sweeping Public Order Act, brought in days before the coronation. He told MPs that the arrests came despite Republic having written to the Met in January and held meetings about the details of their protests since February." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/met-police-police-diana-johnson-commons-home-affairs-committee-mps-b1081781.html So what do you have to do to not get arrested? Not protest at all, it seems. **************************************** And do you think that, considering the previous methods used by these type of 'protestors', the police would be naive enough to trust any assurances these idiots may give.....??!! The occasion and the public support was far too important to risk the 'word' of such people. Again, I say the above is merely my own opinion on this subject." You can read the two items that I noted. "So what do you have to do to not get arrested?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. It isn't possible. The police can't legally arrest you if they don't have good cause to believe that you've been involved in committing a crime. And why would you fear arrest? It would be inconvenient to be taken to the local station and questioned, but it won't affect your life in any significant manner. Are you really saying that the possible risk of having to spend a few hours at the police station outweighs your desire to protest against serious injustice? If you are saying that, I'd question whether you really need to protest, or if you're just looking to meet up with like-minded people to make a meaningless gesture." Absolute bollocks. The very point of the public order bill is to give police on the ground the ability to make a decision based on suspicion. If I go to peacefully protest about something I don’t expect to end up in police custody for 16hrs. I also do not expect to be handcuffed. Certainly not handcuffed in such a way as to leave bruising on my wrists. Then to be released without charge and for the police to subsequently visit me at home to apologise. The chance of this happening is a deterrent to me a law abiding citizen from protesting. Question all you want but I think you are just trying to downplay a very serious issue for...reasons! Have you ever been arrested? Ever been held in police custody? When in custody had to be in a room with actual criminals and law breakers? Man-handled by the police? I haven’t and I don’t want to be thanks yet you think that means I can’t be serious about an issue! Sorry but that is total crap! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. You could always have been arrested on 'suspicion of'. You know as well as I do that's how arrests work. You are arrested on 'suspicion of' pending investigation. When did anyone get arrested for simple standing with a placard? A couple of Saturdays ago, I believe 16 hours in custody then released without charge at 11.00 at night. Wrong True. This is wrong. They were actually arrested and held for 16 hours before they were able to stand anywhere with a placard. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65527007 Why were they arrested? For no good reason that would take 16 hours to resolve. They were arrested for "suspicion" of doing something that the Met was fully informed of. "Mr Smith added that, after months of discussions with the Met, the force had "repeatedly said, right up until Friday, that they had no concerns about our protest plans, that they were well aware of what we were going to do and they would engage with us and not disrupt us"." That is why: "The Met said a review found there was no proof the six protesters, who were detained when their vehicle was stopped near the procession route, were planning to "lock on", a protesting tactic which is now banned. But the force said it was "unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event"." "Mr Smith said a chief inspector and two other officers visited his Reading home on Monday evening to issue the apology." This was overreach due to deliberately loosely worded legislation. They were arrested on suspicion of intent to lock on. You forgot one of them was carrying a sharp object. That's not 'no good reason'. As I've already explained before, police arrest 'on suspicion' and then 'investigate', which they did. They found no proof and subsequently released them without charge. Release without charge is not the same as wrongful arrest." They knew who he was. They had been informed of his protest. There are multiple points before the day and on the day where any "suspicion" could have been allayed. It was not. There was a Police liaison officer whom they took 16 hours to contact, it seems. How do you protest if you are arrested "on suspicion" having informed the Police of every aspect of your activities in advance? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2023/may/17/senior-met-police-officer-and-republic-chief-clash-at-coronation-protests-hearing-video https://youtu.be/9iVvAWGilFA You arrest the main organiser who has identified himself to you in advance, then you disperse the organisation. Then you "express regret". At the very least it gives the perception of doing so which is every bit as bad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not missing the point, I understand the figures but I don’t trust them to be accurate So like voter ID. Make laws based on "belief" rather than the best available data But in this case the data isn't available. Since we don't know who was polled, or how, or what the question was, we don't know what the answers tell us. Yep to be fair I started this thread and had hoped Byline would publish the entire poll. So far they haven’t which is annoying as it undermines the point. I get the scepticism by some based in that. Anecdotally, and using myself as a sample of one, I too would have doubts about protesting now. The fact that I can be arrested/detained on suspicion regardless of any actual action committed by me is dystopian. I really question how that is possible in a democracy. You could always have been arrested on 'suspicion of'. You know as well as I do that's how arrests work. You are arrested on 'suspicion of' pending investigation. When did anyone get arrested for simple standing with a placard? A couple of Saturdays ago, I believe 16 hours in custody then released without charge at 11.00 at night. Wrong True. This is wrong. They were actually arrested and held for 16 hours before they were able to stand anywhere with a placard. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65527007 Why were they arrested? For no good reason that would take 16 hours to resolve. They were arrested for "suspicion" of doing something that the Met was fully informed of. "Mr Smith added that, after months of discussions with the Met, the force had "repeatedly said, right up until Friday, that they had no concerns about our protest plans, that they were well aware of what we were going to do and they would engage with us and not disrupt us"." That is why: "The Met said a review found there was no proof the six protesters, who were detained when their vehicle was stopped near the procession route, were planning to "lock on", a protesting tactic which is now banned. But the force said it was "unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event"." "Mr Smith said a chief inspector and two other officers visited his Reading home on Monday evening to issue the apology." This was overreach due to deliberately loosely worded legislation. They were arrested on suspicion of intent to lock on. You forgot one of them was carrying a sharp object. That's not 'no good reason'. As I've already explained before, police arrest 'on suspicion' and then 'investigate', which they did. They found no proof and subsequently released them without charge. Release without charge is not the same as wrongful arrest. They knew who he was. They had been informed of his protest. There are multiple points before the day and on the day where any "suspicion" could have been allayed. It was not. There was a Police liaison officer whom they took 16 hours to contact, it seems. How do you protest if you are arrested "on suspicion" having informed the Police of every aspect of your activities in advance?" We will agree to disagree on this one. Yes, the police took a long time to deal with it, I'm not disputing that. Apparently the police officer on the scene didn't know who he was, easy enough to check I'd assume. I don't agree that the arrest was unlawful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks!" Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to." That is rather the point. Arresting someone on the flimsiest of "suspicions" is no longer illegal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to." Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. That is rather the point. Arresting someone on the flimsiest of "suspicions" is no longer illegal." It never has been. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest." As I said already, I struggle with the OP because it's based on a survey no one has seen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest." Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok..." Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained " Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK." You have pinned everything on data you can’t see | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see" Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic." I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. " You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change." We can tell you no longer like the Tories 
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Question all you want but I think you are just trying to downplay a very serious issue for...reasons!" If you're talking about the monarchy protesters that were arrested, then I agree that it is a very serious incident. But it happened at a time when there was a massive police operation, just after new laws had been enacted, and thousands of officers had been drafted in and briefed to be extra vigilant. We aren't going to see a repeat of the circumstances again, and I don't think we'll see unjustified arrests again. But that doesn't change my opinion that those who give up their right to protest because they 'feel unsafe', do not deserve to have their voice heard. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?"It is interesting you see it that way. I think my anger and sheer disillusionment with the Tories goes back way further than 18mths. It came to a head early in Johnson’s tenure during the pandemic. Probably triggered by his defence of Cummings. After that I kept looking and kept seeing more and more that I did not like. As you know I am a proud centrist. I believe in moderate policies rather than extremism. I believe in taking the best from left and right, socialism and capitalism. I believe in balance. I also believe in democracy and that THEY are supposed to work for US. So with something like the POB I strongly believe that is an overstep. You also know I am a student of history. I see too many parallels with authoritarian regimes and it makes me uncomfortable. As for voting Labour. I have mixed feelings. I agree with some but not all of their policies currently but am disappointed with SKS. I guess that makes me the classic swing voter (pun certainly intended). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
It is interesting you see it that way. I think my anger and sheer disillusionment with the Tories goes back way further than 18mths. It came to a head early in Johnson’s tenure during the pandemic. Probably triggered by his defence of Cummings. After that I kept looking and kept seeing more and more that I did not like.
As you know I am a proud centrist. I believe in moderate policies rather than extremism. I believe in taking the best from left and right, socialism and capitalism. I believe in balance. I also believe in democracy and that THEY are supposed to work for US. So with something like the POB I strongly believe that is an overstep. You also know I am a student of history. I see too many parallels with authoritarian regimes and it makes me uncomfortable.
As for voting Labour. I have mixed feelings. I agree with some but not all of their policies currently but am disappointed with SKS. I guess that makes me the classic swing voter (pun certainly intended). "I know it's late and I'm glad you didn't take any offence to my observations. Maybe your disillusionment does go back further but it feels like for '18 months' (that's a guess) that it's increased 10 fold. Anyway, I'm actually looking forward to some real pledges in terms of manifestos in the not too distant future, that'll be a great debate or 5. You're probably already aware but Labour (currently) are looking to repeal the POB but let's see what happens nearer the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
It is interesting you see it that way. I think my anger and sheer disillusionment with the Tories goes back way further than 18mths. It came to a head early in Johnson’s tenure during the pandemic. Probably triggered by his defence of Cummings. After that I kept looking and kept seeing more and more that I did not like.
As you know I am a proud centrist. I believe in moderate policies rather than extremism. I believe in taking the best from left and right, socialism and capitalism. I believe in balance. I also believe in democracy and that THEY are supposed to work for US. So with something like the POB I strongly believe that is an overstep. You also know I am a student of history. I see too many parallels with authoritarian regimes and it makes me uncomfortable.
As for voting Labour. I have mixed feelings. I agree with some but not all of their policies currently but am disappointed with SKS. I guess that makes me the classic swing voter (pun certainly intended).
I know it's late and I'm glad you didn't take any offence to my observations.
Maybe your disillusionment does go back further but it feels like for '18 months' (that's a guess) that it's increased 10 fold.
Anyway, I'm actually looking forward to some real pledges in terms of manifestos in the not too distant future, that'll be a great debate or 5.
You're probably already aware but Labour (currently) are looking to repeal the POB but let's see what happens nearer the time."I rarely take offence (I have done at times but generally not). I value different opinions as long as it remains civil. There’s some on here who cannot manage that. It would be boring to all think the same! I thought Labour had said they would not repeal POB? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
It is interesting you see it that way. I think my anger and sheer disillusionment with the Tories goes back way further than 18mths. It came to a head early in Johnson’s tenure during the pandemic. Probably triggered by his defence of Cummings. After that I kept looking and kept seeing more and more that I did not like.
As you know I am a proud centrist. I believe in moderate policies rather than extremism. I believe in taking the best from left and right, socialism and capitalism. I believe in balance. I also believe in democracy and that THEY are supposed to work for US. So with something like the POB I strongly believe that is an overstep. You also know I am a student of history. I see too many parallels with authoritarian regimes and it makes me uncomfortable.
As for voting Labour. I have mixed feelings. I agree with some but not all of their policies currently but am disappointed with SKS. I guess that makes me the classic swing voter (pun certainly intended).
I know it's late and I'm glad you didn't take any offence to my observations.
Maybe your disillusionment does go back further but it feels like for '18 months' (that's a guess) that it's increased 10 fold.
Anyway, I'm actually looking forward to some real pledges in terms of manifestos in the not too distant future, that'll be a great debate or 5.
You're probably already aware but Labour (currently) are looking to repeal the POB but let's see what happens nearer the time.
I rarely take offence (I have done at times but generally not). I value different opinions as long as it remains civil. There’s some on here who cannot manage that. It would be boring to all think the same!
I thought Labour had said they would not repeal POB?"You are absolutely right, they're not (currently) looking to repeal. That's quite an important word to miss  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Question all you want but I think you are just trying to downplay a very serious issue for...reasons! If you're talking about the monarchy protesters that were arrested, then I agree that it is a very serious incident. But it happened at a time when there was a massive police operation, just after new laws had been enacted, and thousands of officers had been drafted in and briefed to be extra vigilant. We aren't going to see a repeat of the circumstances again, and I don't think we'll see unjustified arrests again. But that doesn't change my opinion that those who give up their right to protest because they 'feel unsafe', do not deserve to have their voice heard." You're saying that people should accept a higher risk of being arrested for legal protest than they did before and if they don't they "aren't committed enough". What would you risk arrest to do? Defending this law if it is repealed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?"Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE? Can't you stay on topic? This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE?
Can't you stay on topic?
This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment."Because it ties into Labout not (currently) looking to repeal this bill. So it's exactly on topic. Isn't it about time you realised your obsession? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE?
Can't you stay on topic?
This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment."You should be happy it restricts violent behavior at protests. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE?
Can't you stay on topic?
This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment.
Because it ties into Labout not (currently) looking to repeal this bill. So it's exactly on topic.
Isn't it about time you realised your obsession?"It's not in the OP. Can't talk about it. That's your rule, not mine  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE?
Can't you stay on topic?
This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment. You should be happy it restricts violent behavior at protests. "It doesn't. It restricts non-violent behaviour at protests. I suspect that you don't quite know what you're talking about. Perhaps read-up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE?
Can't you stay on topic?
This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment. You should be happy it restricts violent behavior at protests.
It doesn't.
It restricts non-violent behaviour at protests.
I suspect that you don't quite know what you're talking about. Perhaps read-up?"Is there a difference? Can anyone predict a riot? Nope. It's a necessary law for your society. Peaceful protests. If the government can prevent violence they act. So imagine if jan 6th was treated with the same laws. You would be agreeable. You just don't like the law because it doesn't fit your views. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE?
Can't you stay on topic?
This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment.
Because it ties into Labout not (currently) looking to repeal this bill. So it's exactly on topic.
Isn't it about time you realised your obsession?
It's not in the OP.
Can't talk about it. That's your rule, not mine "Why are you still obsessed by something I've said? It's not a rule, it's a preference. Threads move around, sometimes, somethings have nothing to do with the topic or are whataboutery, feel free to call them out. I've explained why I asked about Labour (there's a clear tie in), you just can't see it because your clouded by your obsession. Let it go, it's unhealthy and frankly quite troubling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE?
Can't you stay on topic?
This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment. You should be happy it restricts violent behavior at protests.
It doesn't.
It restricts non-violent behaviour at protests.
I suspect that you don't quite know what you're talking about. Perhaps read-up? Is there a difference? Can anyone predict a riot? Nope. It's a necessary law for your society. Peaceful protests. If the government can prevent violence they act. So imagine if jan 6th was treated with the same laws. You would be agreeable. You just don't like the law because it doesn't fit your views. "If there was a law that stated that people could be arrested for suspicion of locking-on or might be considering the possibility of attaching themselves to a structure to cause disruption it would not have prevented Jan 6th from happening. You don't actually know what the legislation bein discussed is about, do you? You, apparently, have access to weapons to prevent such laws being imposed upon you... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE?
Can't you stay on topic?
This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment.
Because it ties into Labout not (currently) looking to repeal this bill. So it's exactly on topic.
Isn't it about time you realised your obsession?
It's not in the OP.
Can't talk about it. That's your rule, not mine
Why are you still obsessed by something I've said? It's not a rule, it's a preference.
Threads move around, sometimes, somethings have nothing to do with the topic or are whataboutery, feel free to call them out.
I've explained why I asked about Labour (there's a clear tie in), you just can't see it because your clouded by your obsession.
Let it go, it's unhealthy and frankly quite troubling. "They aren't allowed to move. Oh wait, can they only move when you give them permission to? You really need to stop trying to control complete strangers and perhaps just stop posting when you're becoming obsessed. It's desperately unhealthy and a little sad to behave just like the people you criticise
I know when I'm spamming a thread, so apologies to all.
You don't, it seems... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE?
Can't you stay on topic?
This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment. You should be happy it restricts violent behavior at protests.
It doesn't.
It restricts non-violent behaviour at protests.
I suspect that you don't quite know what you're talking about. Perhaps read-up? Is there a difference? Can anyone predict a riot? Nope. It's a necessary law for your society. Peaceful protests. If the government can prevent violence they act. So imagine if jan 6th was treated with the same laws. You would be agreeable. You just don't like the law because it doesn't fit your views.
If there was a law that stated that people could be arrested for suspicion of locking-on or might be considering the possibility of attaching themselves to a structure to cause disruption it would not have prevented Jan 6th from happening.
You don't actually know what the legislation bein discussed is about, do you?
You, apparently, have access to weapons to prevent such laws being imposed upon you..."nice Deflection. Would you support a law if police deem the parties participating can cause problems? You would be cheering the proud boys being detained or the oath breakers. Yet you can't condemn the police if it doesn't fit your narrative. I do have weapons to prevent that. Thanks for agreeing to my values | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE?
Can't you stay on topic?
This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment. You should be happy it restricts violent behavior at protests.
It doesn't.
It restricts non-violent behaviour at protests.
I suspect that you don't quite know what you're talking about. Perhaps read-up? Is there a difference? Can anyone predict a riot? Nope. It's a necessary law for your society. Peaceful protests. If the government can prevent violence they act. So imagine if jan 6th was treated with the same laws. You would be agreeable. You just don't like the law because it doesn't fit your views.
If there was a law that stated that people could be arrested for suspicion of locking-on or might be considering the possibility of attaching themselves to a structure to cause disruption it would not have prevented Jan 6th from happening.
You don't actually know what the legislation bein discussed is about, do you?
You, apparently, have access to weapons to prevent such laws being imposed upon you... nice Deflection. Would you support a law if police deem the parties participating can cause problems? You would be cheering the proud boys being detained or the oath breakers. Yet you can't condemn the police if it doesn't fit your narrative. I do have weapons to prevent that. Thanks for agreeing to my values "I don't support your values in the case of untrained individuals, potentially with mental instability and violent intent having easy access to weapons. Do you actually know what is being discussed on this thread? If you think that the topic of "locking-on" is a "diversion" it would seem that you do not. Would you be able to summarise what you think the topic is so that we can confirm that we are discussing the same thing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE?
Can't you stay on topic?
This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment.
Because it ties into Labout not (currently) looking to repeal this bill. So it's exactly on topic.
Isn't it about time you realised your obsession?
It's not in the OP.
Can't talk about it. That's your rule, not mine
Why are you still obsessed by something I've said? It's not a rule, it's a preference.
Threads move around, sometimes, somethings have nothing to do with the topic or are whataboutery, feel free to call them out.
I've explained why I asked about Labour (there's a clear tie in), you just can't see it because your clouded by your obsession.
Let it go, it's unhealthy and frankly quite troubling.
They aren't allowed to move. Oh wait, can they only move when you give them permission to?
You really need to stop trying to control complete strangers and perhaps just stop posting when you're becoming obsessed.
It's desperately unhealthy and a little sad to behave just like the people you criticise
I know when I'm spamming a thread, so apologies to all.
You don't, it seems..."At what point during this thread have I tried to stop any conversation? This here needs a real good look at and probably best to take the advice... "You really need to stop trying to control complete strangers and perhaps just stop posting when you're becoming obsessed" That's enough on this now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're saying that people should accept a higher risk of being arrested for legal protest than they did before and if they don't they "aren't committed enough"." Yes Arrest is annoying, but nothing more than that. If you won't go on a protest because you might be mildly inconvenienced, you clearly don't have particularly strong feelings about the issue. "What would you risk arrest to do? Defending this law if it is repealed?" As someone else pointed out, we all run the risk of being arrested all the time. The police arrest on suspicion, then look for proof. Looking at it from the other side, if we see evidence that the police are arresting people on flimsy evidence and then releasing them without charge, we should crack down on this harshly. There's no excuse for the police taking away people's liberty without cause. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're saying that people should accept a higher risk of being arrested for legal protest than they did before and if they don't they "aren't committed enough". Yes Arrest is annoying, but nothing more than that. If you won't go on a protest because you might be mildly inconvenienced, you clearly don't have particularly strong feelings about the issue. What would you risk arrest to do? Defending this law if it is repealed? As someone else pointed out, we all run the risk of being arrested all the time. The police arrest on suspicion, then look for proof. Looking at it from the other side, if we see evidence that the police are arresting people on flimsy evidence and then releasing them without charge, we should crack down on this harshly. There's no excuse for the police taking away people's liberty without cause." Your first point is incredibly disingenuous. For a moderate law abiding citizen the idea of being arrested by the police, handcuffed (in some cases so tightly and for so long it leaves bruising), held in a police cell for 16hrs, probably in the company of actual criminals, is far more than “mildly inconvenienced”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're saying that people should accept a higher risk of being arrested for legal protest than they did before and if they don't they "aren't committed enough". Yes Arrest is annoying, but nothing more than that. If you won't go on a protest because you might be mildly inconvenienced, you clearly don't have particularly strong feelings about the issue. What would you risk arrest to do? Defending this law if it is repealed? As someone else pointed out, we all run the risk of being arrested all the time. The police arrest on suspicion, then look for proof. Looking at it from the other side, if we see evidence that the police are arresting people on flimsy evidence and then releasing them without charge, we should crack down on this harshly. There's no excuse for the police taking away people's liberty without cause." Being arrested is "annoying" and means that you are "mildly inconvenienced"? That's an absolutely flabbergasting thing to say! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE?
Can't you stay on topic?
This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment.
Because it ties into Labout not (currently) looking to repeal this bill. So it's exactly on topic.
Isn't it about time you realised your obsession?
It's not in the OP.
Can't talk about it. That's your rule, not mine
Why are you still obsessed by something I've said? It's not a rule, it's a preference.
Threads move around, sometimes, somethings have nothing to do with the topic or are whataboutery, feel free to call them out.
I've explained why I asked about Labour (there's a clear tie in), you just can't see it because your clouded by your obsession.
Let it go, it's unhealthy and frankly quite troubling.
They aren't allowed to move. Oh wait, can they only move when you give them permission to?
You really need to stop trying to control complete strangers and perhaps just stop posting when you're becoming obsessed.
It's desperately unhealthy and a little sad to behave just like the people you criticise
I know when I'm spamming a thread, so apologies to all.
You don't, it seems...
At what point during this thread have I tried to stop any conversation?
This here needs a real good look at and probably best to take the advice...
"You really need to stop trying to control complete strangers and perhaps just stop posting when you're becoming obsessed"
That's enough on this now.
"The irony of your lack of self-awareness is hilarious. You are well aware that you have on multiple occasions tried to tell me and others to stop posting what you, personally, considered to be off topic. I have merely pointed out you behaving the same way. Even now, you still can't help yourself and try to tell me what to do | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE?
Can't you stay on topic?
This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment.
Because it ties into Labout not (currently) looking to repeal this bill. So it's exactly on topic.
Isn't it about time you realised your obsession?
It's not in the OP.
Can't talk about it. That's your rule, not mine
Why are you still obsessed by something I've said? It's not a rule, it's a preference.
Threads move around, sometimes, somethings have nothing to do with the topic or are whataboutery, feel free to call them out.
I've explained why I asked about Labour (there's a clear tie in), you just can't see it because your clouded by your obsession.
Let it go, it's unhealthy and frankly quite troubling.
They aren't allowed to move. Oh wait, can they only move when you give them permission to?
You really need to stop trying to control complete strangers and perhaps just stop posting when you're becoming obsessed.
It's desperately unhealthy and a little sad to behave just like the people you criticise
I know when I'm spamming a thread, so apologies to all.
You don't, it seems...
At what point during this thread have I tried to stop any conversation?
This here needs a real good look at and probably best to take the advice...
"You really need to stop trying to control complete strangers and perhaps just stop posting when you're becoming obsessed"
That's enough on this now.
The irony of your lack of self-awareness is hilarious.
You are well aware that you have on multiple occasions tried to tell me and others to stop posting what you, personally, considered to be off topic. I have merely pointed out you behaving the same way. Even now, you still can't help yourself and try to tell me what to do "Even now I'm trying to tell you to stop personally attacking me. Now give it a rest. Its a new day, try to start it right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why were they arrested? They were arrested because an over-zealous officer thought that he'd found "locking on" devices, after all the officers on duty were told to be on the look out for them. The officer was mistaken, and the protestors were released. The people arrested probably have a good claim for wrongful arrest, but we can't see this as police overreach to silence protest. They arrested 6 protestors in that instance, and left alone several dozen that were in the immediate vicinity. The protest continued, despite the arrests. As far as I'm aware there was 'locking on equipment', the officer wasn't mistaken. However, the arrested claimed they would be used to secure placards and the police couldn't prove differently. Unless there's updated information. They had cable ties! Not chains and padlocks or glue. Cable ties. Took the Police 16hrs to “investigate”. Bollocks! Bollocks if you wish, I still don't think the arrests were unlawful. That's what this is going to boil down to. Don’t think I have used the term “unlawful” in any of my posts? My OP is the real issue here. It appears that the POB is a deterrent to law abiding citizens from protesting who don’t want to find themselves detained for 16hrs in police custody, handcuffed, for wanting to peacefully protest. Having told the Police that you will be protesting, where and exactly what you will have written on the placards. Still nobody able to explain if this is adequate "suspicion" to arrest and detain then what do you have to do to be able to protest? Although, apparently, the fact that other people could makes it ok... Do you want robots policing the public? I think not as you can’t deal with ID for voting. People get things wrong the police on the day in the moment got it wrong, the protests continued and a few people were detained Nothing to see here, only a few people (it always starts with only a few people). But if normally moderate law abiding citizens no longer feel safe to protest, then it effectively kills protesting in the UK. You have pinned everything on data you can’t see Ha ha touche Although it does underpin my own feelings on the topic. I understand that and it is probably the core of the argument, is there trust or not in our system. I have trust, I know it’s not perfect but I trust our government to do what is right and I also trust the population to know when it is time to change. You see I do not trust our Govt. I used to even if I did not agree with the politics/policies. But my trust in the UK Govt has been eroded over the last few years under Johnson then Truss. For me the jury remains out on Sunak. Regardless of the colour of the tie, I think the current Tory party is a busted flush and we need change. We can tell you no longer like the Tories
Your posts in the last 18 months or so make it clear, honestly, and it's just my opinion, you've swung along way from where you were before. That's not a criticism btw, just that I've noticed a huge swing in your posts.
Would you consider voting for Labour in the next GE?
Why are you talking about voting for Labour in the next GE?
Can't you stay on topic?
This is about a law brought in to restrict the right to protest based on arbitrary assessment.
Because it ties into Labout not (currently) looking to repeal this bill. So it's exactly on topic.
Isn't it about time you realised your obsession?
It's not in the OP.
Can't talk about it. That's your rule, not mine
Why are you still obsessed by something I've said? It's not a rule, it's a preference.
Threads move around, sometimes, somethings have nothing to do with the topic or are whataboutery, feel free to call them out.
I've explained why I asked about Labour (there's a clear tie in), you just can't see it because your clouded by your obsession.
Let it go, it's unhealthy and frankly quite troubling.
They aren't allowed to move. Oh wait, can they only move when you give them permission to?
You really need to stop trying to control complete strangers and perhaps just stop posting when you're becoming obsessed.
It's desperately unhealthy and a little sad to behave just like the people you criticise
I know when I'm spamming a thread, so apologies to all.
You don't, it seems...
At what point during this thread have I tried to stop any conversation?
This here needs a real good look at and probably best to take the advice...
"You really need to stop trying to control complete strangers and perhaps just stop posting when you're becoming obsessed"
That's enough on this now.
The irony of your lack of self-awareness is hilarious.
You are well aware that you have on multiple occasions tried to tell me and others to stop posting what you, personally, considered to be off topic. I have merely pointed out you behaving the same way. Even now, you still can't help yourself and try to tell me what to do
Even now I'm trying to tell you to stop personally attacking me. Now give it a rest. Its a new day, try to start it right "It is a lovely new day. Why are you behaving in the same terrible way that I am? Aren't you better than that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your first point is incredibly disingenuous. For a moderate law abiding citizen the idea of being arrested by the police, handcuffed (in some cases so tightly and for so long it leaves bruising), held in a police cell for 16hrs, probably in the company of actual criminals, is far more than “mildly inconvenienced”." But that's not what happens in most cases. The police are not entitled to handcuff you unless you are a danger to them. More people need to refuse to accept cuffs, and to prosecute when they are used unnecessarily. Most arrests happen on the street, and last for a few minutes while the officer asks questions. You then get de-arrested and allowed to go on your way. The only time they take you in and put you in a cell is when they believe they have sufficient evidence to charge you. The Public Order Act does not give the police powers to arrest people willy nilly, they have to have a reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offence. If you're too scared to protest because you might get arrested, that's because you've fallen for the hype, not because the act has increased the likelihood of being arrested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your first point is incredibly disingenuous. For a moderate law abiding citizen the idea of being arrested by the police, handcuffed (in some cases so tightly and for so long it leaves bruising), held in a police cell for 16hrs, probably in the company of actual criminals, is far more than “mildly inconvenienced”. But that's not what happens in most cases. The police are not entitled to handcuff you unless you are a danger to them. More people need to refuse to accept cuffs, and to prosecute when they are used unnecessarily. Most arrests happen on the street, and last for a few minutes while the officer asks questions. You then get de-arrested and allowed to go on your way. The only time they take you in and put you in a cell is when they believe they have sufficient evidence to charge you. The Public Order Act does not give the police powers to arrest people willy nilly, they have to have a reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offence. If you're too scared to protest because you might get arrested, that's because you've fallen for the hype, not because the act has increased the likelihood of being arrested." How many times does this have to be said. The PBO is effectively a deterrent that will stop moderate people from protesting. The reality and legal nuance is not something the vast majority of people will look into or understand. They will just say “no I won’t protest as might get arrested”. So the PBO achieves Govt aims to suppress or diminish public protest. No amount of pedantry can change that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your first point is incredibly disingenuous. For a moderate law abiding citizen the idea of being arrested by the police, handcuffed (in some cases so tightly and for so long it leaves bruising), held in a police cell for 16hrs, probably in the company of actual criminals, is far more than “mildly inconvenienced”. But that's not what happens in most cases. The police are not entitled to handcuff you unless you are a danger to them. More people need to refuse to accept cuffs, and to prosecute when they are used unnecessarily. Most arrests happen on the street, and last for a few minutes while the officer asks questions. You then get de-arrested and allowed to go on your way. The only time they take you in and put you in a cell is when they believe they have sufficient evidence to charge you. The Public Order Act does not give the police powers to arrest people willy nilly, they have to have a reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offence. If you're too scared to protest because you might get arrested, that's because you've fallen for the hype, not because the act has increased the likelihood of being arrested. How many times does this have to be said. The PBO is effectively a deterrent that will stop moderate people from protesting. The reality and legal nuance is not something the vast majority of people will look into or understand. They will just say “no I won’t protest as might get arrested”. So the PBO achieves Govt aims to suppress or diminish public protest. No amount of pedantry can change that." It could be argued that most moderates don't protest, I know I have never been bothered. However, if there was something that I felt strongly enough about, then the POB wouldn't deter me nor anyone else I know I'd imagine. Maybe that's indicative of the type of people I surround myself with though, rather than society as a whole. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your first point is incredibly disingenuous. For a moderate law abiding citizen the idea of being arrested by the police, handcuffed (in some cases so tightly and for so long it leaves bruising), held in a police cell for 16hrs, probably in the company of actual criminals, is far more than “mildly inconvenienced”. But that's not what happens in most cases. The police are not entitled to handcuff you unless you are a danger to them. More people need to refuse to accept cuffs, and to prosecute when they are used unnecessarily. Most arrests happen on the street, and last for a few minutes while the officer asks questions. You then get de-arrested and allowed to go on your way. The only time they take you in and put you in a cell is when they believe they have sufficient evidence to charge you. The Public Order Act does not give the police powers to arrest people willy nilly, they have to have a reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offence. If you're too scared to protest because you might get arrested, that's because you've fallen for the hype, not because the act has increased the likelihood of being arrested. How many times does this have to be said. The PBO is effectively a deterrent that will stop moderate people from protesting. The reality and legal nuance is not something the vast majority of people will look into or understand. They will just say “no I won’t protest as might get arrested”. So the PBO achieves Govt aims to suppress or diminish public protest. No amount of pedantry can change that. It could be argued that most moderates don't protest, I know I have never been bothered. However, if there was something that I felt strongly enough about, then the POB wouldn't deter me nor anyone else I know I'd imagine. Maybe that's indicative of the type of people I surround myself with though, rather than society as a whole." Hmmm so because most moderates don’t protest (certainly not often) then it is ok that they are further dissuaded from doing so? I applaud you and your friends. I wonder what issue would be sufficiently motivating for you to go protest? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your first point is incredibly disingenuous. For a moderate law abiding citizen the idea of being arrested by the police, handcuffed (in some cases so tightly and for so long it leaves bruising), held in a police cell for 16hrs, probably in the company of actual criminals, is far more than “mildly inconvenienced”. But that's not what happens in most cases. The police are not entitled to handcuff you unless you are a danger to them. More people need to refuse to accept cuffs, and to prosecute when they are used unnecessarily. Most arrests happen on the street, and last for a few minutes while the officer asks questions. You then get de-arrested and allowed to go on your way. The only time they take you in and put you in a cell is when they believe they have sufficient evidence to charge you. The Public Order Act does not give the police powers to arrest people willy nilly, they have to have a reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offence. If you're too scared to protest because you might get arrested, that's because you've fallen for the hype, not because the act has increased the likelihood of being arrested. How many times does this have to be said. The PBO is effectively a deterrent that will stop moderate people from protesting. The reality and legal nuance is not something the vast majority of people will look into or understand. They will just say “no I won’t protest as might get arrested”. So the PBO achieves Govt aims to suppress or diminish public protest. No amount of pedantry can change that. It could be argued that most moderates don't protest, I know I have never been bothered. However, if there was something that I felt strongly enough about, then the POB wouldn't deter me nor anyone else I know I'd imagine. Maybe that's indicative of the type of people I surround myself with though, rather than society as a whole. Hmmm so because most moderates don’t protest (certainly not often) then it is ok that they are further dissuaded from doing so? I applaud you and your friends. I wonder what issue would be sufficiently motivating for you to go protest? " Well I think it's ok anyway, so it matters not that most moderates don't protest. I'm not going to choose some pie into he sky thing that would make me feel I should protest, I have never protested thus far. However, if one day I felt there was something, then I'd protest. If I get banged up for 24hrs, so be it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're going out to protest and are worried about arrest, just organise better. No police will touch you if your group is too big. Look at the London riots a back in 2010 or the BLM protests during Covid in London. No need to get violent, just surround the cops and politely tell them, nah you aren't taking anyone kiddo. Why do you think the police fear going into traveller settlements?" That is using intimidation but from a different direction. That shouldn't be the basis of democracy or protest. "Just organising better" sounds easy, but it really isn't to organise at scale. Also, many protests are small and local. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're going out to protest and are worried about arrest, just organise better. No police will touch you if your group is too big. Look at the London riots a back in 2010 or the BLM protests during Covid in London. No need to get violent, just surround the cops and politely tell them, nah you aren't taking anyone kiddo. Why do you think the police fear going into traveller settlements? That is using intimidation but from a different direction. That shouldn't be the basis of democracy or protest. "Just organising better" sounds easy, but it really isn't to organise at scale. Also, many protests are small and local." And I believe (but I am sure someone who knows the bill inside out can correct me) that the POB also gives the police the power to monitor social media and the internet regarding those trying to organise protests. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. " I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And I believe (but I am sure someone who knows the bill inside out can correct me) that the POB also gives the police the power to monitor social media and the internet regarding those trying to organise protests." There's nothing in the Public Order Act 2023 that gives the police any extra powers to examine social media accounts or internet presences. However the police already have the power to investigate a person if they suspect them of a crime, and that includes searching all publicly accessible information, such as social media posts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. " This sounds like you, also, coming to your own conclusions based on some assumptions about what other people think. Were there any submissions to any committees and Parliamentary debates that align with your position? Everything that I have seen about the protest legislation aligns with the OP other than the Government's position. Have you seen otherwise? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. This sounds like you, also, coming to your own conclusions based on some assumptions about what other people think. Were there any submissions to any committees and Parliamentary debates that align with your position? Everything that I have seen about the protest legislation aligns with the OP other than the Government's position. Have you seen otherwise?" The poll had "NO SOURCE DATA" assumptions have been made that people are worried about protesting because of the bill, well I'm saying it could be that they are worried because they see the disruption and tactics of these protestors, Which I think is a the wrong term, more vandals than protestors. Hence my post, and now you want submissions to parliament as evidence of my position
It gave me a chuckle on such lovely evening thank you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. This sounds like you, also, coming to your own conclusions based on some assumptions about what other people think. Were there any submissions to any committees and Parliamentary debates that align with your position? Everything that I have seen about the protest legislation aligns with the OP other than the Government's position. Have you seen otherwise? The poll had "NO SOURCE DATA" assumptions have been made that people are worried about protesting because of the bill, well I'm saying it could be that they are worried because they see the disruption and tactics of these protestors, Which I think is a the wrong term, more vandals than protestors. Hence my post, and now you want submissions to parliament as evidence of my position
It gave me a chuckle on such lovely evening thank you. "I've said this about the data from the very start of the thread. No one has seen the poll. Whilst it could've been a decent debate, it's actually been a waste of time (time I'm happy to waste before any says "yet, here you are"). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. This sounds like you, also, coming to your own conclusions based on some assumptions about what other people think. Were there any submissions to any committees and Parliamentary debates that align with your position? Everything that I have seen about the protest legislation aligns with the OP other than the Government's position. Have you seen otherwise? The poll had "NO SOURCE DATA" assumptions have been made that people are worried about protesting because of the bill, well I'm saying it could be that they are worried because they see the disruption and tactics of these protestors, Which I think is a the wrong term, more vandals than protestors. Hence my post, and now you want submissions to parliament as evidence of my position
It gave me a chuckle on such lovely evening thank you.
I've said this about the data from the very start of the thread. No one has seen the poll.
Whilst it could've been a decent debate, it's actually been a waste of time (time I'm happy to waste before any says "yet, here you are")."I wouldn't say a total waste, it has made me think how people place their focus towards the thing they disagree with and pin everything that is wrong on that. I would not go anywhere near a protest that could attract protesting vandals so I would have been a good fit for the stat of worried about protesting, it goes both ways. It also made me think that we are consistently asking for, or being asked for raw data, links etc when a lot of the time the way we think or what we believe in is the greatest barometer of mood and right from wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. " I agree with that. These extreme protestors have played directly into the hands of the govt and provided them with the excuse needed. I wonder if the words Agent Provocateur are at all relevant? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. This sounds like you, also, coming to your own conclusions based on some assumptions about what other people think. Were there any submissions to any committees and Parliamentary debates that align with your position? Everything that I have seen about the protest legislation aligns with the OP other than the Government's position. Have you seen otherwise? The poll had "NO SOURCE DATA" assumptions have been made that people are worried about protesting because of the bill, well I'm saying it could be that they are worried because they see the disruption and tactics of these protestors, Which I think is a the wrong term, more vandals than protestors. Hence my post, and now you want submissions to parliament as evidence of my position
It gave me a chuckle on such lovely evening thank you.
I've said this about the data from the very start of the thread. No one has seen the poll.
Whilst it could've been a decent debate, it's actually been a waste of time (time I'm happy to waste before any says "yet, here you are").
I wouldn't say a total waste, it has made me think how people place their focus towards the thing they disagree with and pin everything that is wrong on that.
I would not go anywhere near a protest that could attract protesting vandals so I would have been a good fit for the stat of worried about protesting, it goes both ways.
It also made me think that we are consistently asking for, or being asked for raw data, links etc when a lot of the time the way we think or what we believe in is the greatest barometer of mood and right from wrong. "Fair comment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. I agree with that. These extreme protestors have played directly into the hands of the govt and provided them with the excuse needed. I wonder if the words Agent Provocateur are at all relevant? " There will always be that malarky going on, on both sides too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. This sounds like you, also, coming to your own conclusions based on some assumptions about what other people think. Were there any submissions to any committees and Parliamentary debates that align with your position? Everything that I have seen about the protest legislation aligns with the OP other than the Government's position. Have you seen otherwise? The poll had "NO SOURCE DATA" assumptions have been made that people are worried about protesting because of the bill, well I'm saying it could be that they are worried because they see the disruption and tactics of these protestors, Which I think is a the wrong term, more vandals than protestors. Hence my post, and now you want submissions to parliament as evidence of my position
It gave me a chuckle on such lovely evening thank you. "No, I didn't ask for evidence. You gave your opinion which is just that. Based on nothing more. The poll does not seem to be on the Omnisis website yet. If it's private polling, then there may be a delay. It may or may not be reliable. TBC However, the point that I was making was not with reference to the poll not demanding "evidence" from you. All that I said was that the evidence that was provided that I have seen seemed to support the fact that the protest legislation would curtail the freedom and inclination to protest which supports the OPs position. I take it that there was no evidence to support your opinion based on your reply. You could have just said that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. This sounds like you, also, coming to your own conclusions based on some assumptions about what other people think. Were there any submissions to any committees and Parliamentary debates that align with your position? Everything that I have seen about the protest legislation aligns with the OP other than the Government's position. Have you seen otherwise? The poll had "NO SOURCE DATA" assumptions have been made that people are worried about protesting because of the bill, well I'm saying it could be that they are worried because they see the disruption and tactics of these protestors, Which I think is a the wrong term, more vandals than protestors. Hence my post, and now you want submissions to parliament as evidence of my position
It gave me a chuckle on such lovely evening thank you.
I've said this about the data from the very start of the thread. No one has seen the poll.
Whilst it could've been a decent debate, it's actually been a waste of time (time I'm happy to waste before any says "yet, here you are").
I wouldn't say a total waste, it has made me think how people place their focus towards the thing they disagree with and pin everything that is wrong on that.
I would not go anywhere near a protest that could attract protesting vandals so I would have been a good fit for the stat of worried about protesting, it goes both ways.
It also made me think that we are consistently asking for, or being asked for raw data, links etc when a lot of the time the way we think or what we believe in is the greatest barometer of mood and right from wrong. "Your own belief is not a barometer of anyone's mood except your own. Which is fine, but is not representative. That's why polling exists, right? To have a better representation. Still not "correct", of course. We will never see any representation of the population's mood here. Trying to use some measure of a larger group would seem to be a better way to go, but nobody has to do anything other than say whatever they feel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. This sounds like you, also, coming to your own conclusions based on some assumptions about what other people think. Were there any submissions to any committees and Parliamentary debates that align with your position? Everything that I have seen about the protest legislation aligns with the OP other than the Government's position. Have you seen otherwise? The poll had "NO SOURCE DATA" assumptions have been made that people are worried about protesting because of the bill, well I'm saying it could be that they are worried because they see the disruption and tactics of these protestors, Which I think is a the wrong term, more vandals than protestors. Hence my post, and now you want submissions to parliament as evidence of my position
It gave me a chuckle on such lovely evening thank you.
No, I didn't ask for evidence.
You gave your opinion which is just that. Based on nothing more.
The poll does not seem to be on the Omnisis website yet. If it's private polling, then there may be a delay. It may or may not be reliable. TBC
However, the point that I was making was not with reference to the poll not demanding "evidence" from you.
All that I said was that the evidence that was provided that I have seen seemed to support the fact that the protest legislation would curtail the freedom and inclination to protest which supports the OPs position. I take it that there was no evidence to support your opinion based on your reply.
You could have just said that."All the evidence I need, how I think and feel. You have still ignored the point of protesting vandals will have put people off protesting for fear of being caught up in their nonsense, fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. This sounds like you, also, coming to your own conclusions based on some assumptions about what other people think. Were there any submissions to any committees and Parliamentary debates that align with your position? Everything that I have seen about the protest legislation aligns with the OP other than the Government's position. Have you seen otherwise? The poll had "NO SOURCE DATA" assumptions have been made that people are worried about protesting because of the bill, well I'm saying it could be that they are worried because they see the disruption and tactics of these protestors, Which I think is a the wrong term, more vandals than protestors. Hence my post, and now you want submissions to parliament as evidence of my position
It gave me a chuckle on such lovely evening thank you.
I've said this about the data from the very start of the thread. No one has seen the poll.
Whilst it could've been a decent debate, it's actually been a waste of time (time I'm happy to waste before any says "yet, here you are").
I wouldn't say a total waste, it has made me think how people place their focus towards the thing they disagree with and pin everything that is wrong on that.
I would not go anywhere near a protest that could attract protesting vandals so I would have been a good fit for the stat of worried about protesting, it goes both ways.
It also made me think that we are consistently asking for, or being asked for raw data, links etc when a lot of the time the way we think or what we believe in is the greatest barometer of mood and right from wrong.
Your own belief is not a barometer of anyone's mood except your own. Which is fine, but is not representative.
That's why polling exists, right? To have a better representation. Still not "correct", of course.
We will never see any representation of the population's mood here. Trying to use some measure of a larger group would seem to be a better way to go, but nobody has to do anything other than say whatever they feel."A poll on this subject is more or less worthless. The subjective nature, the numbers of people who actually protest against the majority who will never, the list goes on, too complex for a simple poll. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. This sounds like you, also, coming to your own conclusions based on some assumptions about what other people think. Were there any submissions to any committees and Parliamentary debates that align with your position? Everything that I have seen about the protest legislation aligns with the OP other than the Government's position. Have you seen otherwise? The poll had "NO SOURCE DATA" assumptions have been made that people are worried about protesting because of the bill, well I'm saying it could be that they are worried because they see the disruption and tactics of these protestors, Which I think is a the wrong term, more vandals than protestors. Hence my post, and now you want submissions to parliament as evidence of my position
It gave me a chuckle on such lovely evening thank you.
I've said this about the data from the very start of the thread. No one has seen the poll.
Whilst it could've been a decent debate, it's actually been a waste of time (time I'm happy to waste before any says "yet, here you are").
I wouldn't say a total waste, it has made me think how people place their focus towards the thing they disagree with and pin everything that is wrong on that.
I would not go anywhere near a protest that could attract protesting vandals so I would have been a good fit for the stat of worried about protesting, it goes both ways.
It also made me think that we are consistently asking for, or being asked for raw data, links etc when a lot of the time the way we think or what we believe in is the greatest barometer of mood and right from wrong.
Your own belief is not a barometer of anyone's mood except your own. Which is fine, but is not representative.
That's why polling exists, right? To have a better representation. Still not "correct", of course.
We will never see any representation of the population's mood here. Trying to use some measure of a larger group would seem to be a better way to go, but nobody has to do anything other than say whatever they feel.
A poll on this subject is more or less worthless. The subjective nature, the numbers of people who actually protest against the majority who will never, the list goes on, too complex for a simple poll.
"*actually* that is not true. I have already said it is frustrating THIS poll has not yet been published (especially as I posted the OP in good faith but still await it having thought it was imminent) but polls can and are statistically relevant if the sample size exceeds 1000 people. That is a normal requirement when the Govt carries out polls and an accepted (expected) methodology for statisticians. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. This sounds like you, also, coming to your own conclusions based on some assumptions about what other people think. Were there any submissions to any committees and Parliamentary debates that align with your position? Everything that I have seen about the protest legislation aligns with the OP other than the Government's position. Have you seen otherwise? The poll had "NO SOURCE DATA" assumptions have been made that people are worried about protesting because of the bill, well I'm saying it could be that they are worried because they see the disruption and tactics of these protestors, Which I think is a the wrong term, more vandals than protestors. Hence my post, and now you want submissions to parliament as evidence of my position
It gave me a chuckle on such lovely evening thank you.
No, I didn't ask for evidence.
You gave your opinion which is just that. Based on nothing more.
The poll does not seem to be on the Omnisis website yet. If it's private polling, then there may be a delay. It may or may not be reliable. TBC
However, the point that I was making was not with reference to the poll not demanding "evidence" from you.
All that I said was that the evidence that was provided that I have seen seemed to support the fact that the protest legislation would curtail the freedom and inclination to protest which supports the OPs position. I take it that there was no evidence to support your opinion based on your reply.
You could have just said that.
All the evidence I need, how I think and feel. You have still ignored the point of protesting vandals will have put people off protesting for fear of being caught up in their nonsense, fact.""Fact" for you, clearly. "Fact" for who else? Your "facts" don't represent mine nor, necessarily anyone else's. True? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More extremists... https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/animal-rights-activists-storm-high-30034274 This is the reason for the POB. Absolute bellends." Yes. Idiots. The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor that will punish it any more harshly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More extremists... https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/animal-rights-activists-storm-high-30034274 This is the reason for the POB. Absolute bellends. Yes. Idiots. The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor that will punish it any more harshly." The legislation isn't going to stop protests, I thought that was part of the argument against said legislation? Honestly, the second sentence, I'm struggling. I think it says 'nor will it help punish them any more harshly'? If so, I agree. However, these are the types of anarchists who have made the government push this legislation through. As I said before, without these people, the bill would never have been a thought. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. This sounds like you, also, coming to your own conclusions based on some assumptions about what other people think. Were there any submissions to any committees and Parliamentary debates that align with your position? Everything that I have seen about the protest legislation aligns with the OP other than the Government's position. Have you seen otherwise? The poll had "NO SOURCE DATA" assumptions have been made that people are worried about protesting because of the bill, well I'm saying it could be that they are worried because they see the disruption and tactics of these protestors, Which I think is a the wrong term, more vandals than protestors. Hence my post, and now you want submissions to parliament as evidence of my position
It gave me a chuckle on such lovely evening thank you.
No, I didn't ask for evidence.
You gave your opinion which is just that. Based on nothing more.
The poll does not seem to be on the Omnisis website yet. If it's private polling, then there may be a delay. It may or may not be reliable. TBC
However, the point that I was making was not with reference to the poll not demanding "evidence" from you.
All that I said was that the evidence that was provided that I have seen seemed to support the fact that the protest legislation would curtail the freedom and inclination to protest which supports the OPs position. I take it that there was no evidence to support your opinion based on your reply.
You could have just said that.
All the evidence I need, how I think and feel. You have still ignored the point of protesting vandals will have put people off protesting for fear of being caught up in their nonsense, fact.
"Fact" for you, clearly.
"Fact" for who else?
Your "facts" don't represent mine nor, necessarily anyone else's. True?""Fact"- If you believe in something enough you will not cower or bow. You are fully aware of the consequences. Maybe that's just my thought process. I will defend my values if it is worthy of my defense. I will do it alone if necessary. So go get arrested or detained you proved your point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So one of the ways I see it is... the coronation protest was the first test of the new rules for the police. It did not go great and in hindsight they could have handled it better though given the occasion I understand their caution. It seems the rest of the protesters managed to protest ok. What interests me now is since that occasion has there been any protests happen and if there has, have they had the same problems. If there have not been any then I guess we need to wait. Basically is this a reoccurring problem or an isolated incident" Agreed. See what happens next, but the publicity adds to the OP's point. You go and protest in an innocent way and you can still be arrested. It doesn't have to happen again to have a chilling effect. It did prevent people jumping on the stage at the National Conservatism conference. More legislation to come? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So one of the ways I see it is... the coronation protest was the first test of the new rules for the police. It did not go great and in hindsight they could have handled it better though given the occasion I understand their caution. It seems the rest of the protesters managed to protest ok. What interests me now is since that occasion has there been any protests happen and if there has, have they had the same problems. If there have not been any then I guess we need to wait. Basically is this a reoccurring problem or an isolated incident Agreed. See what happens next, but the publicity adds to the OP's point. You go and protest in an innocent way and you can still be arrested. It doesn't have to happen again to have a chilling effect. It did prevent people jumping on the stage at the National Conservatism conference. More legislation to come?" So you are saying there is nothing in your values that warrants you getting arrested for? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More extremists... https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/animal-rights-activists-storm-high-30034274 This is the reason for the POB. Absolute bellends. Yes. Idiots. The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor that will punish it any more harshly. The legislation isn't going to stop protests, I thought that was part of the argument against said legislation? Honestly, the second sentence, I'm struggling. I think it says 'nor will it help punish them any more harshly'? If so, I agree. However, these are the types of anarchists who have made the government push this legislation through. As I said before, without these people, the bill would never have been a thought. " Yep, badly written. "The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor will punish it any more harshly." "Anarchists"? Little melodramatic. I don't believe that they are just rebelling against those in power because they don't want any governance. It doesn't really matter who may have caused it. What matters is that the legislation appears to have been poorly drafted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More extremists... https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/animal-rights-activists-storm-high-30034274 This is the reason for the POB. Absolute bellends. Yes. Idiots. The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor that will punish it any more harshly. The legislation isn't going to stop protests, I thought that was part of the argument against said legislation? Honestly, the second sentence, I'm struggling. I think it says 'nor will it help punish them any more harshly'? If so, I agree. However, these are the types of anarchists who have made the government push this legislation through. As I said before, without these people, the bill would never have been a thought. Yep, badly written. "The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor will punish it any more harshly." "Anarchists"? Little melodramatic. I don't believe that they are just rebelling against those in power because they don't want any governance. It doesn't really matter who may have caused it. What matters is that the legislation appears to have been poorly drafted." When people fear the government there is tyranny. When government fear the people it is liberty Guess my forefathers were right . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"44% of people say they would not feel safe from arrest if they joined a peaceful protest, with just 32% saying they would. Rises to 49% of women saying they wouldn't feel safe protesting, according to Omnisis poll. You see for me THIS is the real reason behind the Govt’s Public Order Bill. They used tackling extremist behaviour as the Trojan Horse to get some level of public backing, but the real reason was suppression of protest by the majority. If reasonable (non extremist) people do not feel safe protesting then guess what? Less people will protest. This is not democracy. I have given this some thought, those figures and the lack of data behind them is a problem and is simply allowing people to come to their own conclusions. I think people are now less likely to protest due to the protest being overrun by people intent on causing mass disruption, and vandalism by throwing paint on works of art and private buildings, human excrement on statues, climbing bridges, glueing themselves to roads and all manner of disruptive tactics that are now common place. I would go nowhere near those who had those intentions, because there could be a chance of being arrested. The tactics of the protestors have scared away those who would protest peacefully, that is an issue and is suppressing the democratic rights of the public. This sounds like you, also, coming to your own conclusions based on some assumptions about what other people think. Were there any submissions to any committees and Parliamentary debates that align with your position? Everything that I have seen about the protest legislation aligns with the OP other than the Government's position. Have you seen otherwise? The poll had "NO SOURCE DATA" assumptions have been made that people are worried about protesting because of the bill, well I'm saying it could be that they are worried because they see the disruption and tactics of these protestors, Which I think is a the wrong term, more vandals than protestors. Hence my post, and now you want submissions to parliament as evidence of my position
It gave me a chuckle on such lovely evening thank you.
No, I didn't ask for evidence.
You gave your opinion which is just that. Based on nothing more.
The poll does not seem to be on the Omnisis website yet. If it's private polling, then there may be a delay. It may or may not be reliable. TBC
However, the point that I was making was not with reference to the poll not demanding "evidence" from you.
All that I said was that the evidence that was provided that I have seen seemed to support the fact that the protest legislation would curtail the freedom and inclination to protest which supports the OPs position. I take it that there was no evidence to support your opinion based on your reply.
You could have just said that.
All the evidence I need, how I think and feel. You have still ignored the point of protesting vandals will have put people off protesting for fear of being caught up in their nonsense, fact.
"Fact" for you, clearly.
"Fact" for who else?
Your "facts" don't represent mine nor, necessarily anyone else's. True?
"Fact"- If you believe in something enough you will not cower or bow. You are fully aware of the consequences. Maybe that's just my thought process. I will defend my values if it is worthy of my defense. I will do it alone if necessary. So go get arrested or detained you proved your point. "You watch too many movies. Protest shouldn't require bravery. If there is no threat of violence, protesting peacefully against anything should be perfectly acceptable. Particularly if you have already arranged it with the Police. The entire point is that it should not have to come at some great risk or sacrifice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More extremists... https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/animal-rights-activists-storm-high-30034274 This is the reason for the POB. Absolute bellends. Yes. Idiots. The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor that will punish it any more harshly. The legislation isn't going to stop protests, I thought that was part of the argument against said legislation? Honestly, the second sentence, I'm struggling. I think it says 'nor will it help punish them any more harshly'? If so, I agree. However, these are the types of anarchists who have made the government push this legislation through. As I said before, without these people, the bill would never have been a thought. Yep, badly written. "The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor will punish it any more harshly." "Anarchists"? Little melodramatic. I don't believe that they are just rebelling against those in power because they don't want any governance. It doesn't really matter who may have caused it. What matters is that the legislation appears to have been poorly drafted. When people fear the government there is tyranny. When government fear the people it is liberty Guess my forefathers were right . "Apparently when government fear the people it's "anarchy" and that's why we have this legislation... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More extremists... https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/animal-rights-activists-storm-high-30034274 This is the reason for the POB. Absolute bellends. Yes. Idiots. The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor that will punish it any more harshly. The legislation isn't going to stop protests, I thought that was part of the argument against said legislation? Honestly, the second sentence, I'm struggling. I think it says 'nor will it help punish them any more harshly'? If so, I agree. However, these are the types of anarchists who have made the government push this legislation through. As I said before, without these people, the bill would never have been a thought. Yep, badly written. "The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor will punish it any more harshly." "Anarchists"? Little melodramatic. I don't believe that they are just rebelling against those in power because they don't want any governance. It doesn't really matter who may have caused it. What matters is that the legislation appears to have been poorly drafted. When people fear the government there is tyranny. When government fear the people it is liberty Guess my forefathers were right .
Apparently when government fear the people it's "anarchy" and that's why we have this legislation..."Do you think it would change if labour was in charge? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More extremists... https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/animal-rights-activists-storm-high-30034274 This is the reason for the POB. Absolute bellends. Yes. Idiots. The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor that will punish it any more harshly. The legislation isn't going to stop protests, I thought that was part of the argument against said legislation? Honestly, the second sentence, I'm struggling. I think it says 'nor will it help punish them any more harshly'? If so, I agree. However, these are the types of anarchists who have made the government push this legislation through. As I said before, without these people, the bill would never have been a thought. Yep, badly written. "The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor will punish it any more harshly." "Anarchists"? Little melodramatic. I don't believe that they are just rebelling against those in power because they don't want any governance. It doesn't really matter who may have caused it. What matters is that the legislation appears to have been poorly drafted. When people fear the government there is tyranny. When government fear the people it is liberty Guess my forefathers were right .
Apparently when government fear the people it's "anarchy" and that's why we have this legislation... Do you think it would change if labour was in charge? "No idea. They have indicated that they won't repeal the bill but may amend it. We will see. Do you know what the protest legislation in this bill covers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More extremists... https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/animal-rights-activists-storm-high-30034274 This is the reason for the POB. Absolute bellends. Yes. Idiots. The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor that will punish it any more harshly. The legislation isn't going to stop protests, I thought that was part of the argument against said legislation? Honestly, the second sentence, I'm struggling. I think it says 'nor will it help punish them any more harshly'? If so, I agree. However, these are the types of anarchists who have made the government push this legislation through. As I said before, without these people, the bill would never have been a thought. Yep, badly written. "The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor will punish it any more harshly." "Anarchists"? Little melodramatic. I don't believe that they are just rebelling against those in power because they don't want any governance. It doesn't really matter who may have caused it. What matters is that the legislation appears to have been poorly drafted." I'm happy to rephrase anarchists to extremists. Tbf, that's the word I started with. It does of course matter who has caused this because without them it wouldn't be a thing. Poorly drafted or poorly executed? Could it be a case of new legislation being taken far too literally? Or do we expect everything to work exactly as intended from the get go? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More extremists... https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/animal-rights-activists-storm-high-30034274 This is the reason for the POB. Absolute bellends. Yes. Idiots. The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor that will punish it any more harshly. The legislation isn't going to stop protests, I thought that was part of the argument against said legislation? Honestly, the second sentence, I'm struggling. I think it says 'nor will it help punish them any more harshly'? If so, I agree. However, these are the types of anarchists who have made the government push this legislation through. As I said before, without these people, the bill would never have been a thought. Yep, badly written. "The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor will punish it any more harshly." "Anarchists"? Little melodramatic. I don't believe that they are just rebelling against those in power because they don't want any governance. It doesn't really matter who may have caused it. What matters is that the legislation appears to have been poorly drafted. I'm happy to rephrase anarchists to extremists. Tbf, that's the word I started with. It does of course matter who has caused this because without them it wouldn't be a thing. Poorly drafted or poorly executed? Could it be a case of new legislation being taken far too literally? Or do we expect everything to work exactly as intended from the get go?" That's giving crap Government policy a free pass. Perfectly fine to bring in legislation to resolve a problem. Not alright for it to be sloppily drafted to allow overreach, especially since it was sent back for reconsideration multiple times by the Lords for good reason. It can work better if Government listens rather than calling their civil service the blob and and everyone who opposes them woke. They were told. They didn't listen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More extremists... https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/animal-rights-activists-storm-high-30034274 This is the reason for the POB. Absolute bellends. Yes. Idiots. The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor that will punish it any more harshly. The legislation isn't going to stop protests, I thought that was part of the argument against said legislation? Honestly, the second sentence, I'm struggling. I think it says 'nor will it help punish them any more harshly'? If so, I agree. However, these are the types of anarchists who have made the government push this legislation through. As I said before, without these people, the bill would never have been a thought. Yep, badly written. "The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor will punish it any more harshly." "Anarchists"? Little melodramatic. I don't believe that they are just rebelling against those in power because they don't want any governance. It doesn't really matter who may have caused it. What matters is that the legislation appears to have been poorly drafted. I'm happy to rephrase anarchists to extremists. Tbf, that's the word I started with. It does of course matter who has caused this because without them it wouldn't be a thing. Poorly drafted or poorly executed? Could it be a case of new legislation being taken far too literally? Or do we expect everything to work exactly as intended from the get go? That's giving crap Government policy a free pass. Perfectly fine to bring in legislation to resolve a problem. Not alright for it to be sloppily drafted to allow overreach, especially since it was sent back for reconsideration multiple times by the Lords for good reason. It can work better if Government listens rather than calling their civil service the blob and and everyone who opposes them woke. They were told. They didn't listen." Do you really believe the entire bill is 'sloppily drafted' or is it just the parts you don't agree with? Do you agree with any of the bill at all? BTW, they did listen, there were plenty of amendments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More extremists... https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/animal-rights-activists-storm-high-30034274 This is the reason for the POB. Absolute bellends. Yes. Idiots. The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor that will punish it any more harshly. The legislation isn't going to stop protests, I thought that was part of the argument against said legislation? Honestly, the second sentence, I'm struggling. I think it says 'nor will it help punish them any more harshly'? If so, I agree. However, these are the types of anarchists who have made the government push this legislation through. As I said before, without these people, the bill would never have been a thought. Yep, badly written. "The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor will punish it any more harshly." "Anarchists"? Little melodramatic. I don't believe that they are just rebelling against those in power because they don't want any governance. It doesn't really matter who may have caused it. What matters is that the legislation appears to have been poorly drafted. When people fear the government there is tyranny. When government fear the people it is liberty Guess my forefathers were right .
Apparently when government fear the people it's "anarchy" and that's why we have this legislation... Do you think it would change if labour was in charge?
No idea. They have indicated that they won't repeal the bill but may amend it. We will see.
Do you know what the protest legislation in this bill covers?"Let me get down to the basics of the bill. It restricts violent behavior when it is supposed to be a peaceful protest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More extremists... https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/animal-rights-activists-storm-high-30034274 This is the reason for the POB. Absolute bellends. Yes. Idiots. The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor that will punish it any more harshly. The legislation isn't going to stop protests, I thought that was part of the argument against said legislation? Honestly, the second sentence, I'm struggling. I think it says 'nor will it help punish them any more harshly'? If so, I agree. However, these are the types of anarchists who have made the government push this legislation through. As I said before, without these people, the bill would never have been a thought. Yep, badly written. "The new legislation didn't prevent it, nor will punish it any more harshly." "Anarchists"? Little melodramatic. I don't believe that they are just rebelling against those in power because they don't want any governance. It doesn't really matter who may have caused it. What matters is that the legislation appears to have been poorly drafted. I'm happy to rephrase anarchists to extremists. Tbf, that's the word I started with. It does of course matter who has caused this because without them it wouldn't be a thing. Poorly drafted or poorly executed? Could it be a case of new legislation being taken far too literally? Or do we expect everything to work exactly as intended from the get go? That's giving crap Government policy a free pass. Perfectly fine to bring in legislation to resolve a problem. Not alright for it to be sloppily drafted to allow overreach, especially since it was sent back for reconsideration multiple times by the Lords for good reason. It can work better if Government listens rather than calling their civil service the blob and and everyone who opposes them woke. They were told. They didn't listen. Do you really believe the entire bill is 'sloppily drafted' or is it just the parts you don't agree with? Do you agree with any of the bill at all? BTW, they did listen, there were plenty of amendments." The bill was quite wide ranging. Some parts were good. Others not. We're discussing the protest part which was the big publicity piece. They chose not to make a number of recommended amendments. The Government's choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
