Pro Democracy Riot Bristol

[apelike 10]

13 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

....In future, if Priti Patel or one of her successors decides that a protest was legal but they still wanted rid of it, they could simply unilaterally change the law.

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/03/16/anti-protest-bill-freedom-dies-in-silence/?cmpredirect

The upside is that if enough people vote Labour at the next GE and Labour get in then they could then repeal that law. 

[RollingJ 1,988]

1 minute ago, apelike said:

The upside is that if enough people vote Labour at the next GE and Labour get in then they could then repeal that law. 

See the pigs, @apelike?🤣

Edited March 23, 2021 by RollingJ

[banjodeano 28]

7 minutes ago, apelike said:

The upside is that if enough people vote Labour at the next GE and Labour get in then they could then repeal that law. 

If  indeed labour get in ....then very  little will change, Starmer is now part of the club

[AKAMD 0]

Why is it politicians fail to learn from history?  This legislation, if successful, will have the opposite effect of its intensions.  It will engender more protests, demonstrations and inevitably more riots.  They really should learn a bit more about the history of the country they are trying to govern, especially in Bristol, which saw the worst rioting of the 19th century in 1831.  Protest is, and always has been, the last resort to effect change.  What we do need urgently is a change of Government but that ain't going to happen any time soon.

 

I was listening to Radio Sheffield the other day when Toby Foster was interviewing an elderly lady tree protester who was arrested for tooting a horn.  She was cleared of any wrong-doing but it does highlight the potential of this bill in giving the police too much power.  The notion of 'policing by consent' will be sorely tested.

[alchresearch 212]

The worst thing about all this is the hand wringing from MPs being interviewed with the way their opening statement is

 

"the best way to democratically protest is at the ballot box"

 

Yeah, right, like that's gonna work.

 

[tinfoilhat 11]

2 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Doesn't the fact that arrests were made again yesterday in Bristol justify why the authorities  need more powers to prevent or breakup these protests?  It wasn't right that the save the planet mob were allowed to cause chaos in London for weeks or the EDL mob were allowed to make Rotherham town centre a no go area for several Saturdays a few years ago.

The laws are already there to shift and arrest violent protests. Sadly the numbers of police aren't as the Tories cut them back by 20k.

[tinfoilhat 11]

7 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Surely it's better to have news laws to prevent violence on the streets rather than having more numbers of police to arrest those doing the violence. Your logic is the same as increasing the size of the fire service rather than having safety legislation to reduce the number of fires caused.

I think youre making things up now. These laws prevent protest, not violence. You have had plenty of big, noisy, peaceful demonstrations - across the political spectrum. They can now be stopped because the home Secretary or police commander on the ground doesn't like it. 

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

The laws are already there to shift and arrest violent protests. Sadly the numbers of police aren't as the Tories cut them back by 20k.

Sadly that's just another bit of media spin as they didnt cut them back. What has happened was that over the period of austerity there was 20k lost due to "natural wastage", a term full fact org uses to explain those that have left due to retirement etc. However the numbers have not increased enough over time to make up for that loss so in comparative terms the numbers are down.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Just now, West 77 said:

I'm not making anything up. Far too often so called peaceful protests lead to violence putting the Police into extremely difficult situations which leave them open to allegations of acting too heavy handed.  I don't have a problem with the home secretary or police commander using their own judgement to prevent a protest taking place.  The fact protests will be able to be stopped with the new legislation doesn't mean all protests will be stopped. In my opinion a protest such as what happened in Bristol last night should have been prevented from taking place only hours after a previous protest in the same city led to the police and property being attacked by a lawless mob.

You're arguing for laws that are already in place. The riot in Bristol followed several hours of peaceful protest until to usual suspects turned up and started rioting.

 

The new laws allow protests to be cut short without any violence whatsoever.

 

But put it another way, as and when theres a march to reinstate fox hunting, youd be the first to advocate the use of water cannons to dosperse protestors before any violence starts - because they will be noisy. Right?

14 minutes ago, apelike said:

Sadly that's just another bit of media spin as they didnt cut them back. What has happened was that over the period of austerity there was 20k lost due to "natural wastage", a term full fact org uses to explain those that have left due to retirement etc. However the numbers have not increased enough over time to make up for that loss so in comparative terms the numbers are down.

So they didnt replace those officers, leavung the police numbers down by 20k.

 

Thanks for confirming.

[RollingJ 1,988]

8 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

You're arguing for laws that are already in place. The riot in Bristol followed several hours of peaceful protest until to usual suspects turned up and started rioting.

 

The new laws allow protests to be cut short without any violence whatsoever.

 

But put it another way, as and when theres a march to reinstate fox hunting, youd be the first to advocate the use of water cannons to dosperse protestors before any violence starts - because they will be noisy. Right?

So they didnt replace those officers, leavung the police numbers down by 20k.

 

Thanks for confirming.

My bold above - and does that mean, irrespective of the fact that the demonstration, even prior to that, was illegal under the CV19 regulations, was allowed to continue?

Sorry, I have to ask, as I don't bother following the 'news' as it is reported, these days.

Edited March 24, 2021 by RollingJ

[apelike 10]

9 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

So they didnt replace those officers, leavung the police numbers down by 20k.

 

Thanks for confirming.

No problems. Just pointing out the Conservative did not actually cut the numbers by 20,000.

 

But to be exact the numbers are down around 40,000.

Edited March 24, 2021 by apelike

[tinfoilhat 11]

Just now, apelike said:

No problems. Just pointing out the Conservative did not actually cut the numbers by 20,000.

But due to austerity measures the conservatives implemented whilst in power for a decade they failed to replace them. Tory policy.

 

Again, thanks for confirming Tory policy led to a shortfall of 20k police officers.

3 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

My bold above - and does that mean, irrespective of the fact that the demonstration, even prior to that, was illegal under the CV19 regulations, was allowed to continue?

I don't know. Probably? They didn't stop it in the afternoon. The police happily strolled through Glasgow with a few thousand maskless rangers supporters so who knows.