General News Thread

[Foxdiamond]

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It's an offence against justice and free speech, as others have pointed out - and an absurdity. Such arrests should be limited to people inciting or engaging in violence (whatever their cause) or committing criminal damage or whatever - protesters accept that as a consequence if they commit such acts as part of a protest.

 

It's also enormously stupid at a time when the police are short of numbers and unable to deal with real crimes (minor crimes, but ones that really affect people - burglary etc.), when the courts are already unable to cope with a backlog of cases and when there's an ongoing prisons crisis.... 

It could be argued that the regular and repeated protests have diverted police from the real crimes you mentioned. 

[Robo61]

6 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

It could be argued that the regular and repeated protests have diverted police from the real crimes you mentioned. 

So you don't believe in the right to protest??

[Foxdiamond]

Just now, Robo61 said:

So you don't believe in the right to protest??

Nowhere have I even suggested that. 

[The Doctor]

4 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

It could be argued that the regular and repeated protests have diverted police from the real crimes you mentioned. 

kinda seems like 'don't send police to arrest people sitting in a public space with placards' is the solution here then

[Foxdiamond]

8 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

kinda seems like 'don't send police to arrest people sitting in a public space with placards' is the solution here then

More that protest by whoever have to policed and that is without arrests

[Robo61]

5 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

Nowhere have I even suggested that. 

Then explain what you meant by the comment I replied roo.

[st albans fox]

5 hours ago, Robo61 said:

So you don't believe in the right to protest??

No one is stopping the right to protest 

the police are arresting those who are breaking the law 

many tens of thousands protested entirely legally yesterday and made their point. 
why a group felt it was necessary to show support to a proscribed organisation is the question. 
 

 

32 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

kinda seems like 'don't send police to arrest people sitting in a public space with placards' is the solution here then

So we decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore ???

id say that’s a slippery slope 

 

 

[Foxdiamond]

1 minute ago, Robo61 said:

Then explain what you meant by the comment I replied roo.

Not that there are protests but repetition on the scale that has taken place has put tremendous strain on police resources particularly in London. A difficult balance between the right to protest and the gaps it leaves in other areas and cost to the public purse

[Robo61]

2 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Not that there are protests but repetition on the scale that has taken place has put tremendous strain on police resources particularly in London. A difficult balance between the right to protest and the gaps it leaves in other areas and cost to the public purse

The right to protest would be  completly worthless without the right to do so regularly and repeatingly.

[Foxdiamond]

6 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

The right to protest would be  completly worthless without the right to do so regularly and repeatingly.

Matter of opinion 

[Alf Bentley]

5 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

It could be argued that the regular and repeated protests have diverted police from the real crimes you mentioned. 

 

It could also be argued that regular and repeated football matches divert police from real crimes.

But football matches and protests are both valuable elements of a healthy society....so long as they're not happening every day and thereby taking up a ridiculous amount of resources.

 

It would be interesting to know how the decision was taken to arrest so many people merely for holding placards declaring support for Palestine Action. A decision by senior police or under pressure from the Home Office? Either way, the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies with the Govt for passing ridiculous legislation declaring PA to be a terrorist organisation. I've no problem with folk getting arrested if they commit violence, cause damage, obstruct the highway or incite hatred - that's always been the case. Protesters from Greenpeace, Just Stop Oil, CND, Countryside Alliance or whoever have all been arrested for such acts - but not for supporting a "terrorist organisation". You can think what you like of PA, but people supporting them are mainly concerned about mass killings and ethnic cleansing (almost declared as such by Netanyahu's intention to take 100% control by force) - or about free speech.

 

It would also be interesting to know why the Govt passed such draconian legislation. Maybe partly a paranoid fear of losing control of the streets after last summer's riots & the migrant hostel unrest, as others have suggested? Maybe also a little paranoia about being seen as anti-semitic, after they were lambasted for that under Corbyn? But perhaps mainly due to a strategic decision to try to stay close to the USA in the UK national interest, knowing how much more sympathetic the USA is to Israel and how unpredictable Trump is, with his tendency to impose tariffs or other punishments on nations that don't do what he wants? That would be bitterly ironic, after Blair eventually made a similar strategic choice to back Bush over WMDs in Iraq, having ultimately failed to keep him on board with UN-based decision making & weapons inspections...

[Super_horns]

11 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

If they break the law why not?

Not a better way to ask them to stop or explain why they shouldn't do it?

 

Presumably I guess it has to done like that as protocol etc. 

[Foxdiamond]

25 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Not a better way to ask them to stop or explain why they shouldn't do it?

 

Presumably I guess it has to done like that as protocol etc. 

It appears they wanted to get nicked?

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It could also be argued that regular and repeated football matches divert police from real crimes.

But football matches and protests are both valuable elements of a healthy society....so long as they're not happening every day and thereby taking up a ridiculous amount of resources.

 

It would be interesting to know how the decision was taken to arrest so many people merely for holding placards declaring support for Palestine Action. A decision by senior police or under pressure from the Home Office? Either way, the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies with the Govt for passing ridiculous legislation declaring PA to be a terrorist organisation. I've no problem with folk getting arrested if they commit violence, cause damage, obstruct the highway or incite hatred - that's always been the case. Protesters from Greenpeace, Just Stop Oil, CND, Countryside Alliance or whoever have all been arrested for such acts - but not for supporting a "terrorist organisation". You can think what you like of PA, but people supporting them are mainly concerned about mass killings and ethnic cleansing (almost declared as such by Netanyahu's intention to take 100% control by force) - or about free speech.

 

It would also be interesting to know why the Govt passed such draconian legislation. Maybe partly a paranoid fear of losing control of the streets after last summer's riots & the migrant hostel unrest, as others have suggested? Maybe also a little paranoia about being seen as anti-semitic, after they were lambasted for that under Corbyn? But perhaps mainly due to a strategic decision to try to stay close to the USA in the UK national interest, knowing how much more sympathetic the USA is to Israel and how unpredictable Trump is, with his tendency to impose tariffs or other punishments on nations that don't do what he wants? That would be bitterly ironic, after Blair eventually made a similar strategic choice to back Bush over WMDs in Iraq, having ultimately failed to keep him on board with UN-based decision making & weapons inspections...

Nobody here seems to question the motives of PA

[kenny]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It could also be argued that regular and repeated football matches divert police from real crimes.

But football matches and protests are both valuable elements of a healthy society....so long as they're not happening every day and thereby taking up a ridiculous amount of resources.

 

It would be interesting to know how the decision was taken to arrest so many people merely for holding placards declaring support for Palestine Action. A decision by senior police or under pressure from the Home Office? Either way, the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies with the Govt for passing ridiculous legislation declaring PA to be a terrorist organisation. I've no problem with folk getting arrested if they commit violence, cause damage, obstruct the highway or incite hatred - that's always been the case. Protesters from Greenpeace, Just Stop Oil, CND, Countryside Alliance or whoever have all been arrested for such acts - but not for supporting a "terrorist organisation". You can think what you like of PA, but people supporting them are mainly concerned about mass killings and ethnic cleansing (almost declared as such by Netanyahu's intention to take 100% control by force) - or about free speech.

 

It would also be interesting to know why the Govt passed such draconian legislation. Maybe partly a paranoid fear of losing control of the streets after last summer's riots & the migrant hostel unrest, as others have suggested? Maybe also a little paranoia about being seen as anti-semitic, after they were lambasted for that under Corbyn? But perhaps mainly due to a strategic decision to try to stay close to the USA in the UK national interest, knowing how much more sympathetic the USA is to Israel and how unpredictable Trump is, with his tendency to impose tariffs or other punishments on nations that don't do what he wants? That would be bitterly ironic, after Blair eventually made a similar strategic choice to back Bush over WMDs in Iraq, having ultimately failed to keep him on board with UN-based decision making & weapons inspections...

Worth noting that the clubs pay for the additional police required. Professional protestors get the privilege for free.

[st albans fox]

53 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Nobody here seems to question the motives of PA

Some of their actions have resulted in supporters being charged for assaulting police and security guards

 

i just don’t understand what you have to align yourself to a particular protest group ?   Surely you’re protesting against something.  Why the need to express support for the protest group ???   

 

@Alf Bentley are you comfortable with people marching in support of ISIS ?  

 

if you’re making the argument that PA shouldn’t have been proscribed then that’s fine but this is currently subject to a court case.  why can’t those who feel the need to express support for the group wait until that’s been heard ?  surely they’d be better served atm by protesting their cause rather than linking their protest to that group and the cause ?   As I understand it, PA attempted to make the law impotent by overwhelming the police with numbers.   The authorities decided that this wasn’t something they could allow given the precedent that it sets. 

Edited 10 August 2025 by st albans fox

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Foxdiamond said:

Nobody here seems to question the motives of PA

 

Feel free to do so. My understanding is their motives are opposition to Israeli action in Palestine and opposition to British arms sales to Israel. People have different opinions on that, but their stance on those issues is shared by a lot of people.

 

I'm sure their are some dodgy people involved, as there are in most groups. I also know they sometimes commit criminal acts like throwing paint on planes. That doesn't equate to terrorism.

 

45 minutes ago, kenny said:

Worth noting that the clubs pay for the additional police required. Professional protestors get the privilege for free.

 

A quick Google search suggests clubs only pay for police within the ground, not all around town - the rest is covered by the taxpayer (police resources diverted from other police activities, as they are for protests). There's still a disparity there, but maybe it's fair for organisations/clubs staging entertainment to contribute to policing - but for the basic right to express public opinions not to be subject to whether or not an individual/group can pay to express its views in public?

 

Do you see all protesters as "professional protestors" or just those you disagree with? Are the protesters outside migrant hotels also "professional protesters"?

 

 

14 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 

i just don’t understand what you have to align yourself to a particular protest group ?   Surely you’re protesting against something.  Why the need to express support for the protest group ???   

 

@Alf Bentley are you comfortable with people marching in support of ISIS ?  

 

if you’re making the argument that PA shouldn’t have been proscribed then that’s fine but this is currently subject to a court case.  why can’t those who feel the need to express support for the group wait until that’s been heard ?  surely they’d be better served atm by protesting their cause rather than linking their protest to that group and the cause ? 

 

The protests are indeed about the original issue of Israeli action in Palestine (mainly Gaza, but perhaps also the West Bank - I've not attended any). But they've also become about the issue of free speech and the right to protest, due to the group being proscribed as a terrorist organisation. Expressing support for the group is a protest against the curbing of those rights.

 

No, I'm not comfortable with people marching in support of ISIS. ISIS and its supporter have committed countless atrocities and massacred large number of its opponents - whereas Palestine Action has thrown some paint on a plane, broken into the offices of an arms company etc. I think it's reasonable to see one as a seriously dangerous terrorist organisation, but not the other - so marching in support of ISIS would be supporting terrorist violence - akin to inciting violence & hatred. Whether it would be worth arresting an 80-year-old woman in the hypothetical eventuality that she sat on the pavement with an "I support ISIS" placard, I don't know....

 

In some cases, where time is not a factor, there might be a case for protesters awaiting the outcome of a court case. But legal remedy doesn't preclude protest alongside it - and time certainly is a factor in Gaza (as I've said, the protests are clearly still about Palestine/Gaza, not just PA) as people are starving or being shot there every day and the Israeli govt has just announced plans to use military means to take complete control of the Gaza Strip. Events in Palestine won't wait for the outcome of a UK court case...

[Lionator]

I see we’ve moved onto the murdering journalists part of the events in the place that shall not be named on here. If I were Jeremy Bowen I’d be very afraid, they’ve already shown they have no qualms in murdering British citizens as there’s no consequences of it. 

Edited 11 August 2025 by Lionator

[Torquay Gunner]

41 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I see we’ve moved onto the murdering journalists part of the events in the place that shall not be named on here. If I were Jeremy Bowen I’d be very afraid, they’ve already shown they have no qualms in murdering British citizens as there’s no consequences of it. 

I think killing BBC journalists will be a ‘no no’ for the IDF, not morally of course as they clearly have no limits, but for the sheer added condemnation it will bring. 

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, Lionator said:

I see we’ve moved onto the murdering journalists part of the events in the place that shall not be named on here. If I were Jeremy Bowen I’d be very afraid, they’ve already shown they have no qualms in murdering British citizens as there’s no consequences of it. 

again, people are killed for the company they keep.  It’s morally very questionable but it’s legal in war if the killing can be militarily justified.  The specific journalist you are referring to is, with written evidence provided to the media yesterday (Bowen not convinced ), a member of Hams - and not just a foot soldier. This is also a failure of intel because he had previously been detained in the early stages of the war and released.   Bowen is safe whilst he isn’t in a war zone - any journalist who enters a war zone will be in danger.  

Edited 11 August 2025 by st albans fox

[kenny]

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Feel free to do so. My understanding is their motives are opposition to Israeli action in Palestine and opposition to British arms sales to Israel. People have different opinions on that, but their stance on those issues is shared by a lot of people.

 

I'm sure their are some dodgy people involved, as there are in most groups. I also know they sometimes commit criminal acts like throwing paint on planes. That doesn't equate to terrorism.

 

 

A quick Google search suggests clubs only pay for police within the ground, not all around town - the rest is covered by the taxpayer (police resources diverted from other police activities, as they are for protests). There's still a disparity there, but maybe it's fair for organisations/clubs staging entertainment to contribute to policing - but for the basic right to express public opinions not to be subject to whether or not an individual/group can pay to express its views in public?

 

Do you see all protesters as "professional protestors" or just those you disagree with? Are the protesters outside migrant hotels also "professional protesters"?

 

 

 

The protests are indeed about the original issue of Israeli action in Palestine (mainly Gaza, but perhaps also the West Bank - I've not attended any). But they've also become about the issue of free speech and the right to protest, due to the group being proscribed as a terrorist organisation. Expressing support for the group is a protest against the curbing of those rights.

 

No, I'm not comfortable with people marching in support of ISIS. ISIS and its supporter have committed countless atrocities and massacred large number of its opponents - whereas Palestine Action has thrown some paint on a plane, broken into the offices of an arms company etc. I think it's reasonable to see one as a seriously dangerous terrorist organisation, but not the other - so marching in support of ISIS would be supporting terrorist violence - akin to inciting violence & hatred. Whether it would be worth arresting an 80-year-old woman in the hypothetical eventuality that she sat on the pavement with an "I support ISIS" placard, I don't know....

 

In some cases, where time is not a factor, there might be a case for protesters awaiting the outcome of a court case. But legal remedy doesn't preclude protest alongside it - and time certainly is a factor in Gaza (as I've said, the protests are clearly still about Palestine/Gaza, not just PA) as people are starving or being shot there every day and the Israeli govt has just announced plans to use military means to take complete control of the Gaza Strip. Events in Palestine won't wait for the outcome of a UK court case...

To answer your question, those that arrive from other areas to protest outside every migrant hotel they have read about on X then yes, they as professional protesters are as much of a waste of space as those rent-a-protestors at other marches.

 

We should provide a remote Scottish island, not for migrants, but for protests. They can crack on in a safe environment away from the rest of the population and live stream it wherever they like. The government could provide mock hotels or Israeli flags, even build a stretch of motorway with beeping cars on to allow safe gluing of hands.

[Zear0]

18 minutes ago, kenny said:

To answer your question, those that arrive from other areas to protest outside every migrant hotel they have read about on X then yes, they as professional protesters are as much of a waste of space as those rent-a-protestors at other marches.

 

We should provide a remote Scottish island, not for migrants, but for protests. They can crack on in a safe environment away from the rest of the population and live stream it wherever they like. The government could provide mock hotels or Israeli flags, even build a stretch of motorway with beeping cars on to allow safe gluing of hands.

Space for the farmers too? 

[st albans fox]

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Feel free to do so. My understanding is their motives are opposition to Israeli action in Palestine and opposition to British arms sales to Israel. People have different opinions on that, but their stance on those issues is shared by a lot of people.

 

I'm sure their are some dodgy people involved, as there are in most groups. I also know they sometimes commit criminal acts like throwing paint on planes. That doesn't equate to terrorism.

 

 

A quick Google search suggests clubs only pay for police within the ground, not all around town - the rest is covered by the taxpayer (police resources diverted from other police activities, as they are for protests). There's still a disparity there, but maybe it's fair for organisations/clubs staging entertainment to contribute to policing - but for the basic right to express public opinions not to be subject to whether or not an individual/group can pay to express its views in public?

 

Do you see all protesters as "professional protestors" or just those you disagree with? Are the protesters outside migrant hotels also "professional protesters"?

 

 

 

The protests are indeed about the original issue of Israeli action in Palestine (mainly Gaza, but perhaps also the West Bank - I've not attended any). But they've also become about the issue of free speech and the right to protest, due to the group being proscribed as a terrorist organisation. Expressing support for the group is a protest against the curbing of those rights.

 

No, I'm not comfortable with people marching in support of ISIS. ISIS and its supporter have committed countless atrocities and massacred large number of its opponents - whereas Palestine Action has thrown some paint on a plane, broken into the offices of an arms company etc. I think it's reasonable to see one as a seriously dangerous terrorist organisation, but not the other - so marching in support of ISIS would be supporting terrorist violence - akin to inciting violence & hatred. Whether it would be worth arresting an 80-year-old woman in the hypothetical eventuality that she sat on the pavement with an "I support ISIS" placard, I don't know....

 

In some cases, where time is not a factor, there might be a case for protesters awaiting the outcome of a court case. But legal remedy doesn't preclude protest alongside it - and time certainly is a factor in Gaza (as I've said, the protests are clearly still about Palestine/Gaza, not just PA) as people are starving or being shot there every day and the Israeli govt has just announced plans to use military means to take complete control of the Gaza Strip. Events in Palestine won't wait for the outcome of a UK court case...

Two reports on the same incident in 2024 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y7z8ye154o?app-referrer=deep-link and https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/palestine-action-protest-israel-elbit-old-bailey-b1198510.html

 

PA may look like their approach is compliant protest as per the scene in parliament square on Saturday but the violent attacks on security guards and policemen just doing their jobs and the more recent RAF base incident shows a different side.  My question was also why people have to align to a particular group that’s currently proscribed when there are other groups available under which to make their protest and who are protesting every weekend??  You’re saying that this is now also a protest about free speech.  I understand that but this is now in the courts and will be adjudicated on within a couple months.  It’s not like anyone is being denied the right to protest support for Ptine or against some govt policy - just under that particular banner.  
 

my ISIS question was, I agree,  skewed.  My point being that are you able to decide which proscribed organisations are acceptable and which aren’t? that’s not how the law works. I’d also point out that govt will have more access to information about these organisations than we do. 

 

 

 

[kenny]

31 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Space for the farmers too? 

If it's done correctly then yes. They could share the motorway on a rota, possibly even glue their tractors.

 

I might write to Rayner, she loves paving over the countryside.

[st albans fox]

18 minutes ago, kenny said:

If it's done correctly then yes. They could share the motorway on a rota, possibly even glue their tractors.

 

I might write to Rayner, she loves paving over the countryside.

If you suggest 50% social housing as part of the project then I can guarantee it will go through 

Edited 11 August 2025 by st albans fox