Jump to content


Pro Democracy Riot Bristol

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

I'm not going to go around in circles to justify a sensible new law which will hopefully prevent rioting on our streets. I've never suggested water cannons should be used against law abiding protestors. At the moment due to covid-19 restrictions all protestors are not law abiding. Regarding foxhunting a vote in Parliament hasn't taken place during the time of all the recent Tory Governments because a bill to reinstate it again would be defeated even with an eighty seat Tory majority. For that reason I wouldn't support any protests to reinstate foxhunting .

Its not sensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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?

Literally self-evidently not, since people were arrested using existing legislation.

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

I'm not going to go around in circles to justify a sensible new law which will hopefully prevent rioting on our streets. I've never suggested water cannons should be used against law abiding protestors. At the moment due to covid-19 restrictions all protestors are not law abiding. Regarding foxhunting a vote in Parliament hasn't taken place during the time of all the recent Tory Governments because a bill to reinstate it again would be defeated even with an eighty seat Tory majority. For that reason I wouldn't support any protests to reinstate foxhunting .

Christ alive, this is total unreason. The proposed law does nothing to prevent rioting - if it does, you can use your next post to quote the section of the Bill that would do this. Secondly, the Bill would, as many people have pointed out, allow the Home Secretary and a police officer to declare any protestor to be not 'law abiding'. This is exactly the problem with it! I can't work out if some people are just defending their chosen political party because that's what they always do, or if they're just too dense to see the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Delbow said:

I can't work out if some people are just defending their chosen political party because that's what they always do, or if they're just too dense to see the problem.

But that is exactly what you are doing and you are also using emotive language to justify your position. It's a bit like the brexit debate trying to make out that those who didn't agree with them and voted for brexit were thick uneducated racists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, apelike said:

But that is exactly what you are doing and you are also using emotive language to justify your position. It's a bit like the brexit debate trying to make out that those who didn't agree with them and voted for brexit were thick uneducated racists.

"We need to stop violent protests"

"We already can"

"Then we need a bill to stop protests we don't like" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, apelike said:

But that is exactly what you are doing and you are also using emotive language to justify your position. It's a bit like the brexit debate trying to make out that those who didn't agree with them and voted for brexit were thick uneducated racists.

I don't have a chosen political party. And I gave a well-reasoned argument with reference to the Bill, as you requested, which you then just ignored because it suited you to do so. I think it's your turn to be set a task:

 

Scenario: the UK government declares war on another country in the first six months of a new parliament, so people can't vote them out for about another 5 years. About 80% people in the UK oppose the war, and a protest is organised in central London. It looks like it is going to be big. The government don't want the protest to go ahead, because they want to be able to do what they want and not what the majority of the population want. Several members of the government stand to personally gain hugely financially if the war goes ahead. The Home Secretary declares that the protest is likely to cause serious disruption and therefore uses this legislation to outlaw the protest. Some people turn up anyway and are fined thousands of pounds for doing so. 

 

What in the Bill as it is now would prevent this scenario from happening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a hypothetical scenario just like the hypothetical scenario about the new bill and what the Home Secretary could do and nothing more. So no, I won't bite. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, apelike said:

It's a hypothetical scenario just like the hypothetical scenario about the new bill and what the Home Secretary could do and nothing more. So no, I won't bite. ;)

That is a cowardly response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, apelike said:

Already mentioned this before but read article 15 on Derogation.

 

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

 

At times of war a country can basically do as it likes including suspending many of your human rights, so bill or no bill makes no difference.

Weird that you would want to stick so literally to a hypothetical. Ok, the protest is not about a war, it's about restricting voting rights - they want to set the mimimum age for voting to 42.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still don't get it. In a hypothetical situation there is no right or wrong answer so the outcomes become limitless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there would be nothing to stop the government making that protest unlawful by using the Bill as it's currently written. Which we all know anyway.

Edited by Delbow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2003 there were huge demonstrations when the Labour Government took us to war in Iraq; not hypothetical.  Had such a law been on the statute book then what do you think the outcome would have been?  I suggest more rioting and violent clashes between protesters and police!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.