Jump to content

Pro Democracy Riot Bristol

Recommended Posts

Has any of you considered that the trouble makers may be right wing agents provocateurs ?  It wouldn't surprise me, they are certainly helping the Government's dubious case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AKAMD said:

Has any of you considered that the trouble makers may be right wing agents provocateurs ?  It wouldn't surprise me, they are certainly helping the Government's dubious case.

Yes, I've thought that too. It wouldn't be the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, 1980girl said:

 I think that there are a significant number of people who feel that protesters are wrong to gather at the moment because of a perceived risk of spreading infection or because of the regulations prohibiting gatherings (we await the courts decision on the lawfulness of the regulations themselves which were introduced without parliamentary scrutiny). Did you feel the same way about those who came out of their homes and workplaces into the road or the car park or forecourt outside their building to join together in clapping and cheering and banging pots and pans for the NHS? In my view, the government seemed to encourage those gatherings, I think to help build national pride.

Sorry, meant to quote West77 above.

disagree, a significant number of people feel that the "protesters" are wrong becuase they shouldnt be meeting in mass numbers anywhere at present under the current guidelines.

What makes it right for them to all meet up when for the last year

 

I cant go visit my parents indoors 

My children cant go indoors with their partners

In building education has not been allowed in classes/colleges/universities for many pupils

I cant go to an outdoor sports event

I cant watch my son play sport in a completely segregated indoor environment.

I cant work in my job because, even though it is more strictly controlled for covid spreading than ANY shop that is currently open

I cant meet with friends in a park

 

So what gives these people the right to all meet up together, many without masks, regardless of the potential additional risk of spreading Covid when its against the rules?

Shall we all just go to the pub and disregard those rules? 

Shall we storm the nursing homes just so we can see our loved ones?

Shall we refuse to wear masks everywhere in shops?

Shall we all meet up for a party at Weston Park near the bandstand?

 

Your example of people coming to the doorsteps of their own houses, in their own bubbles, to applaud for 1 minute once a week is nowhere near valid. The fact that you try to use this only devalues your argument. These people came out to show support for the people who are trying to stop others dying and did it within the rules and in a safe environment. 

 

The "protesters" just rabbled together, some with the deliberate intent to cause trouble.  Hardly the same as banging a pan outside your door isn't it?

Edited by sheffbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheffbag you do seem to be amongst those who think that the protesters are wrong to gather in breach of the covid regulations (and I have now seen the courts ruling confirming the lawfulness of the initial regulations). All of the activities you have suggested would breach the regulations. Standing on your doorstep wouldn't and I have not suggested that it would. Gathering in your street on the pavement or in the road with your neighbours to express solidarity, gratitude, or support for a particular cause or organisation does breach the regulations. Lots of people did gather outside of their homes on the public highway and outside the buildings they work in to show support for the NHS, in breach of the covid regulations. Such scenes were filmed and broadcast by BBC. It's interesting to me that people have a different attitude towards those who gathered for this reason and those who gather outside for other reasons which would under ordinary circumstances be perfectly lawful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought; why has the government introduced this legislation in the midst of a pandemic?  Many of you have argued that the protests breach the lockdown regulations.  Was the timing purely for that reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AKAMD said:

Another thought; why has the government introduced this legislation in the midst of a pandemic?  Many of you have argued that the protests breach the lockdown regulations.  Was the timing purely for that reason?

They seem to be coming in on the back of special covid regulations, but IMO that's just an excuse. 

If they were necessary at all, they were necessary at the start of the pandemic, not the end. The reason so many people are up in arms about the bill, is that so much is unnecessary at all, certainly nothing to do with the pandemic. Yet some people are almost running with open arms into a much more authoritarian state. They can't wait. They won't realise what freedoms they've lost until they fall foul of them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/03/2021 at 16:59, 1980girl said:

Sheffbag you do seem to be amongst those who think that the protesters are wrong to gather in breach of the covid regulations (and I have now seen the courts ruling confirming the lawfulness of the initial regulations). All of the activities you have suggested would breach the regulations. Standing on your doorstep wouldn't and I have not suggested that it would. Gathering in your street on the pavement or in the road with your neighbours to express solidarity, gratitude, or support for a particular cause or organisation does breach the regulations. Lots of people did gather outside of their homes on the public highway and outside the buildings they work in to show support for the NHS, in breach of the covid regulations. Such scenes were filmed and broadcast by BBC. It's interesting to me that people have a different attitude towards those who gathered for this reason and those who gather outside for other reasons which would under ordinary circumstances be perfectly lawful.

No, Sheffbag is amongst those who for the last year has abided by the rules,  not seen relatives, missed holding loved ones, seen friends have to cancel their weddings, tried to support people who have lost their partners to Covid but cant go to see them.

Sheffbag is amongst those who took the advice and stayed socially distanced and within their bubble when required.

Sheffbag did support the NHS by clapping outside their house, socially distant away from others and respecting the rules. A bit like the people on here 

 

what Sheffbag DIDNT do was to meet up with a large group of other people intent on causing trouble disregarding the rules in place and trying to disrupt society and draining police resources after been told not meet up. a bit like these people here

 

For you to try and put the two of them together and say they are both the same is incredible.

You want to know why people have different attitudes to the 2 things? how about this

A is peaceful

A is observing the rules with regard to socially distancing from people outside your bubble

A is supporting people who are trying to save others from dying

 

B is a mob of people meeting up close together, many without masks stood side by side

B is draining public resources both with police time and the NHS time required to treat injuries caused by the "protesters" 

B is destroying properties including buildings and vehicles.

 

I'll let you figure out which is which

 

 

Edited by sheffbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sheffbag said:

No, Sheffbag is amongst those who for the last year has abided by the rules,  not seen relatives, missed holding loved ones, seen friends have to cancel their weddings, tried to support people who have lost their partners to Covid but cant go to see them.

Sheffbag is amongst those who took the advice and stayed socially distanced and within their bubble when required.

Sheffbag did support the NHS by clapping outside their house, socially distant away from others and respecting the rules. A bit like the people on here 

 

what Sheffbag DIDNT do was to meet up with a large group of other people intent on causing trouble disregarding the rules in place and trying to disrupt society and draining police resources after been told not meet up. a bit like these people here

 

For you to try and put the two of them together and say they are both the same is incredible.

You want to know why people have different attitudes to the 2 things? how about this

A is peaceful

A is observing the rules with regard to socially distancing from people outside your bubble

A is supporting people who are trying to save others from dying

 

B is a mob of people meeting up close together, many without masks stood side by side

B is draining public resources both with police time and the NHS time required to treat injuries caused by the "protesters" 

B is destroying properties including buildings and vehicles.

 

I'll let you figure out which is which

 

 

A gets totally ignored and no mention in the media so no one knows there are other people feeling exactly like them. 

B gets lurid headlines with front page headlines and pictures, is universally condemned by all, and the original cause is irredeemably tarnished.

 

Let's hope the media start reporting peaceful demonstrations fairly and factually.

 

 

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why did the government choose the middle of a pandemic to introduce legislation that would obviously arouse protest?  Doesn't take much working out does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AKAMD said:

So why did the government choose the middle of a pandemic to introduce legislation that would obviously arouse protest?  Doesn't take much working out does it?

They introduced the bill which is not the same as introducing legislation as to become law it needs Royal Assent. IIRC it was first put forward in 2019? It had is second reading in Parliament, which was done on an agreed timeline, and this reading passed with a vote of 359 to 263 in favour of the legislation. It will now go on to be scrutinised by legislators and then on to its next stage with another vote in the Commons. Once that is done then it will be passed to the Lords for their votes and any proposed amendments and bounced back to the Commons, so it's far from being law just yet.

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, apelike said:

They introduced the bill which is not the same as introducing legislation as to become law it needs Royal Assent. IIRC it was first put forward in 2019? It had is second reading in Parliament, which was done on an agreed timeline, and this reading passed with a vote of 359 to 263 in favour of the legislation. It will now go on to be scrutinised by legislators and then on to its next stage with another vote in the Commons. Once that is done then it will be passed to the Lords for their votes and any proposed amendments and bounced back to the Commons, so it's far from being law just yet.

This bill would have passed almost unnoticed and unscrutinised by the people it affects most if it hadn't been for the protests.

Of course it has been introduced while so much else is going on, in the same manner as 'Good day for bad news' means unpalatable stuff can slip through under the radar.

Wake up people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Anna B said:

This bill would have passed almost unnoticed and unscrutinised by the people it affects most if it hadn't been for the protests.

Of course it has been introduced while so much else is going on, in the same manner as 'Good day for bad news' means unpalatable stuff can slip through under the radar.

I think many posters on here of recent seem to be suffering a touch of paranoia recently, maybe it's because so much else is going on that they don't realise it. The bill was already known about by those who are in charge and that includes the opposition and Labour. Labour were just going to abstain from voting because they were unhappy with some aspects of it and that was it. It has only come to the fore because of the very people you are always complaining about and that is the media as they like a good bit of bad news to sell their rags. Because of the troubles at the Sarah Everard vigil and the action of the police there Labour then decided to vote against it because of the media publicity surrounding it as it was a good bit of bad news for them. The bill itself still has many stages to go through and as explained its reading was known about in advance as the timetable for reading bills is set by the speaker and parliament.

 

What is happening does not bode well for those who want to cause disruption and riot as all it does is strengthen the minds of those who make these laws to believe the bill is justifiable. If it does get passed unamended in the future then they also have helped it go through and get what they deserve. The trouble is they are either too thick to realise that or don't care and just want to cause problems because they can and I suspect it to be a mix of both.

 

BTW the people that it affects are by and large a minority and just like the majority of us they never have any say in this political system we have. Those decisions are up to our MP's and parliament as a whole as that is why we vote for them in the first place.

 

Edited by apelike

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.