Also in the news

[Parafox]

38 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

If you are not saying it as a politician, then you are either complicit or a coward.
The right to protest is critical, we must condemn the violence in such scenarios without damning the protestors.

The problem is, as far as I can see, that so many reasonable and possibly justified protests get infiltrated by mob minded, angry groups getting together on FB to organise violence and anarchy and attack the "Establishment". Most often the violence comes from people who have no affiliation with, or care about, the reasons for the actual protest.

The police have an incredibly difficult job in such circumstances.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

 

 

Labour MPs voted against the bill en masse but it passed 2nd reading as almost all Tories supported it.

So how come this great voice of the people is picking on Labour and not the Tories? And who is this great man, Tom Harwood, who I'd never heard of?

 

Oh...... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harwood

 

"Thomas Hedley Fairfax Harwood (born 26 August 1996) is a British journalist, activist, and political commentator. He is the senior reporter for the right-wing political news website Guido Fawkes, and has been a columnist for The Daily Telegraph since 2019. Harwood was born and grew up in Cambridge. His father is a director at a property consultancy. Harwood attended an independent school in Cambridge. He was a Conservative Party candidate in the Cambridge Council election. He was listed in talk radio station LBC's list of top 100 most influential Conservatives of 2019. Harwood was briefly a member of Turning Point UK, an offshoot of the US right-wing student organisation Turning Point USA distancing himself from the group days after it launched, saying that he did not realise Turning Point UK's political positions would be aligned with those of the US organisation".

 

Sounds like someone who'd offer a balanced view of the issue, without party political bias..... 

[Scotch]

49 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Priti Patels actions have far more far reaching power than any of those protesters last night. I don’t think you realise how dangerous this person is. 

Your talking like I don't agree with you. I do. I understand our right to voice our opinion is being restricted. 

 

....I still don't think that condones trying to set fire to an innocent, living person.

Thats not protesting. Thats attempted murder.

[Parafox]

5 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

As a broad spectrum, I have no doubt there are those on the left wing who want to see right wing protests shut down, but as you pointed out, the majority seem far more happy to counter protest, a much more healthier expression of voicing opposition (as long as they stay non-violent, as the majority of protestors tend to be). Authoritarians of any stripe should be fought, and authoritarian measures like the ones being passed by government should be objected to by anyone who wants to live in a free, liberal democracy. 

Change that to "challenged" and I'd agree with you.

[Dahnsouff]

10 minutes ago, Parafox said:

The problem is, as far as I can see, that so many reasonable and possibly justified protests get infiltrated by mob minded, angry groups getting together on FB to organise violence and anarchy and attack the "Establishment". Most often the violence comes from people who have no affiliation with, or care about, the reasons for the actual protest.

The police have an incredibly difficult job in such circumstances.

I wholeheartedly agree, and hope nothing I said gave an opposing view!

[Parafox]

Nicola Sturgeon has not breached the ministerial code in the conflict with Alex Salmond...

 

   

[Scotch]

16 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Nicola Sturgeon has not breached the ministerial code in the conflict with Alex Salmond...

 

   

O was just saying in another thread, I'm a full on SNP supporter and even I don't buy that BS. 

[Parafox]

7 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

O was just saying in another thread, I'm a full on SNP supporter and even I don't buy that BS. 

Yes I saw that after I had posted 

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

The problem is, as far as I can see, that so many reasonable and possibly justified protests get infiltrated by mob minded, angry groups getting together on FB to organise violence and anarchy and attack the "Establishment". Most often the violence comes from people who have no affiliation with, or care about, the reasons for the actual protest.

The police have an incredibly difficult job in such circumstances.

And yet all they succeed in doing is strengthening the establishment and reinforcing the status quo. Violence seldom endears the public to a particular cause - usually it does the opposite by making it look like the people who believe in that cause are thuggish extremists. The fact that there may be very many reasonable-minded, non-violent folk who also believe in the same cause gets lost in the noise. Job done for the government.

 

You see it time and time again: perfectly valid protests hijacked by activists who create such an unpleasant image that they destroy any possibility of that protest gaining traction among the wider public. And they'll never learn because they don't want to - it's far more important to them to have their skirmishes with the police so they can boast about it afterwards than it is to actually change anything.

[Parafox]

30 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

And yet all they succeed in doing is strengthening the establishment and reinforcing the status quo. Violence seldom endears the public to a particular cause - usually it does the opposite by making it look like the people who believe in that cause are thuggish extremists. The fact that there may be very many reasonable-minded, non-violent folk who also believe in the same cause gets lost in the noise. Job done for the government.

 

You see it time and time again: perfectly valid protests hijacked by activists who create such an unpleasant image that they destroy any possibility of that protest gaining traction among the wider public. And they'll never learn because they don't want to - it's far more important to them to have their skirmishes with the police so they can boast about it afterwards than it is to actually change anything.

Absolutely agree with all you say.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

7 hours ago, Lionator said:

 I’m sure if an elected left wing Home Secretary took away some of your rights, you’d be equally as frustrated.

I’d be interested if you share that opinion on people who experience trauma and abuse from others who then go on and be disruptive in their own later life. Or is it always the victims fault?? 

Point 1. I'd be frustrated but I wouldn't become violent.

Point 2. That's quite a leap from people annoyed at Govt legislation to someone who has been abused.

 

7 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Sounds like someone who'd offer a balanced view of the issue, without party political bias..... 

I'm sure you read the tweet, Alf - he criticised parts of the Govt bill AND condemned the violence. Sounded fairly balanced to me.

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

And yet all they succeed in doing is strengthening the establishment and reinforcing the status quo. Violence seldom endears the public to a particular cause - usually it does the opposite by making it look like the people who believe in that cause are thuggish extremists. The fact that there may be very many reasonable-minded, non-violent folk who also believe in the same cause gets lost in the noise. Job done for the government.

 

You see it time and time again: perfectly valid protests hijacked by activists who create such an unpleasant image that they destroy any possibility of that protest gaining traction among the wider public. And they'll never learn because they don't want to - it's far more important to them to have their skirmishes with the police so they can boast about it afterwards than it is to actually change anything.

Putting on my tinfoil hat here, it happens so often that one wonders if that isn't the idea all along; planted agent provocateurs to discredit a cause that might disrupt the status quo.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56492541

 

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1846494525

 

Sigh.

[Carl the Llama]

You've got to hand it to the powers that be, they knew what they wanted to do and executed the plan flawlessly.

Step 1: Make a bill which European leaders of the 30s and 40s would have been proud of.

Step 2: Wait for the non-fascist element of your population to stage a peaceful protest.

Step 3: Instigate violence on sitting protestors using a police force who appear to be instructed to escalate at every opportunity, tell everybody about the police that got hurt but not how it started.

Step 4: Sit back and let the Tory FC lot take the bait and argue against democracy and fairness on your behalf.

Step 5: Profit and dystopia.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

You've got to hand it to the powers that be, they knew what they wanted to do and executed the plan flawlessly.

Step 1: Make a bill which European leaders of the 30s and 40s would have been proud of.

Step 2: Wait for the non-fascist element of your population to stage a peaceful protest.

Step 3: Instigate violence on sitting protestors using a police force who appear to be instructed to escalate at every opportunity, tell everybody about the police that got hurt but not how it started.

Step 4: Sit back and let the Tory FC lot take the bait and argue against democracy and fairness on your behalf.

Step 5: Profit and dystopia.

I’d normally just comment Godwin’s law here to undermine your argument but actually I’ve been drawing similar comparisons myself.

Its appalling the way this has played out, too many coincidences for it not to have been something malicious at play.

[Aus Fox]

For someone who hasn’t seen to much about the new crime bill in the UK that has caused these riots. Could someone please explain if they can the problem with the bill that has upset so many people and the positives to the bill - if there are any, or the rationale behind it?

Thanks I’ve read a bit, but it’s hard to find anything balanced.

[Alf Bentley]

7 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

 

I'm sure you read the tweet, Alf - he criticised parts of the Govt bill AND condemned the violence. Sounded fairly balanced to me.

 

He condemned parts of the Govt bill, condemned the violence - and then implicitly criticised the response of "Labour MPs" to these issues.

 

- Labour MPs voted en masse against the bill he criticises and many of them, including Starmer and the Mayor of Bristol, have condemned the Bristol violence.

- Tory MPs voted en masse, with a few exceptions, to pass the bill he criticises and many have condemned the violence.

.....and he criticises the response of "Labour MPs"

 

If he'd made the point against that idiot Nadia Whittome, he'd have a point. If he'd even criticised "certain Labour MPs", he'd maybe have a point. But why even mention the bill if its mass approval by Tory MPs apparently doesn't matter?

 

He's a Tory activist/ex-candidate & right-wing journalist seeking to use the idiocy of Whittome to smear all "Labour MPs", while ignoring Tory mass approval of the bill he criticises.

 

You'd made your fair points about Whittome and culpability for the violence - on which I agreed with you.

You then spammed the forum with inaccurate right-wing propaganda. It's the equivalent of me spamming the forum with some Tweet by Owen Jones using the idiocy of a particular Tory MP to smear all "Tory MPs".

 

 

 

[nnfox]

31 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

For someone who hasn’t seen to much about the new crime bill in the UK that has caused these riots. Could someone please explain if they can the problem with the bill that has upset so many people and the positives to the bill - if there are any, or the rationale behind it?

Thanks I’ve read a bit, but it’s hard to find anything balanced.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a 307 page document that looks to clarify some laws, introduce some new ones and amend some others.  Most of it is pretty meaningless to the man on the street and contains things like clarifying the standards of police drivers and increasing penalties of those found guilty of assaulting emergency service workers.

 

It's quite complex in parts and requires lots of cross-referencing with existing legislation.  I will bow to the better knowledge of some more informed members of this forum, but this is my understanding.

 

The thrust of the issue that is getting people upset is the proposed amendments to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.  It seeks to address a number of points that essentially allow police to trigger certain powers.  Amongst this is the addition of taking into consideration noise levels.

 

At the moment, the legislation allows certain police action if they believe that the "public assembly or procession" (aka the protesters) may result in serious public disorder, damage to property or disruption to the life of the community.  They want to change it by adding another option relating to noise levels insomuch as the noise would be intimidating to a person in the area who wasn't a protester or has an impact on an organisation in the vicinity.

 

So, the potential triggers to start enforcing the end of the protest have increased.  Also, there is a subtle change in wording relating to offences.  At the moment you can be found guilty of offences if it is proved that you "knew" the police were trying to shut it down and you didn't comply.  A classic defence to this was that the "offender" could easily claim they didn't hear the instruction to leave or whatever.  Now they want to change the wording to "ought to have known" which goes a distance towards nullifying that defence.

 

On top of all that, the maximum sentences are being increased, from 3 months in prison to 12 months in most cases.

 

They are also abolishing the common law offence of "Causing a Public Nuisance", which was a bit of a woolly fall back offence, and writing it into legislation that properly defines it.

 

Ultimately, I guess it makes it a bit easier for police to end a protest, protesters who are arrested are more likely to get prosecuted and the sentences they receive are likely to be harsher.

 

 

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56492541

 

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1846494525

 

Sigh.

More on this; suspect killed a cop but was still taken alive, with a leg injury.

 

Sounds about white.

 

(Though I guess we'll find out soon enough.)

[Bellend Sebastian]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

More on this; suspect killed a cop but was still taken alive, with a leg injury.

 

Sounds about white.

 

(Though I guess we'll find out soon enough.)

I'm not the first internet twat to say that, after the upheaval, it's great to see the US getting back to normal

[TiffToff88]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56492541

 

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1846494525

 

Sigh.

Eagerly awaiting the Media's description of the attacker

[Leicester_Loyal]

 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

More on this; suspect killed a cop but was still taken alive, with a leg injury.

 

Sounds about white.

 

(Though I guess we'll find out soon enough.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/23/us/boulder-shooting-suspect-charged.html

 

Ha, apparently not, then. I applaud the local PD in this case for their restraint - not something one sees very often!

 

Guess we will see how various media outlets choose to use labels here, then.

[Innovindil]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/23/us/boulder-shooting-suspect-charged.html

 

Ha, apparently not, then. I applaud the local PD in this case for their restraint - not something one sees very often!

 

Guess we will see how various media outlets choose to use labels here, then.

More interested in seeing how Biden reacts to this latest tradegy tbh. 

 

I'll leave the label watching to the people who care about such things. 

[Jattdogg]

Greatest cuntry in the world they say....