Toonpack 6926 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 How are we all feeling about this? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ming-march.html There are plenty of threads about freedom of speech on here but nothing about those that abuse that right. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. There are however two major issues here: 1. Some of those banners are probably illegal (and action should have been taken about that). 2. People demonstrating against say a conservative muslim march would not be allowed to do so/would be arrested for doing so (which is wrong, hypocritical and illegal - yet it does happen). I'm not fishing here but genuinely interested. Do you have an example of this you can cite? You can actually see it in this demonstration, when the more general crowd verbally turned on these demonstrators the police's gloves came off very quickly. Two arrests were made, both have been confirmed as people who took exception to the "demonstration" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6926 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17852 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Quite a few in the London demo that proclaimed 'Death to those who insult Islam' and such bollocks were ultimately arrested were they not? For me this one is much more borderline and highlights the need to balance the right to free speech with the potential to incite public disorder. I'm not sure what the correct repsonse should have been tbh. I hear a lot about muslims being allowed to do X, Y, and Z whereas white people would get arrested for it, but I've not seen many clear cut examples cited. Just like the supposed banning of the St George cross but not other national flags etc. It all sounds a bit Daily Mail without any proof to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6926 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17852 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. I'm not standing up for what they protesting about for one minute btw, they're utter cunts to my mind. I'm challenging your assumption the police were in the wrong to not arrest the demonstrators whilst arresting the two other people. To use an abstract example, if I fill someone in because they're a prick, saying that they're a prick was the catalyst for the attack won't hold up in court, will it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. I'm not standing up for what they protesting about for one minute btw, they're utter cunts to my mind. I'm challenging your assumption the police were in the wrong to not arrest the demonstrators whilst arresting the two other people. To use an abstract example, if I fill someone in because they're a prick, saying that they're a prick was the catalyst for the attack won't hold up in court, will it? Remember that "peace" march video? I'd have thought some of their placards were probably illegal, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17852 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. I'm not standing up for what they protesting about for one minute btw, they're utter cunts to my mind. I'm challenging your assumption the police were in the wrong to not arrest the demonstrators whilst arresting the two other people. To use an abstract example, if I fill someone in because they're a prick, saying that they're a prick was the catalyst for the attack won't hold up in court, will it? Remember that "peace" march video? I'd have thought some of their placards were probably illegal, though. Which one, the one I've already alluded to where the perpetrators were later arrested? Anyway Fop, this is all a bit strange coming from you, I thought you held very strong beliefs about personal freedom and abuse from the police. Now you want to see people arrested for demonstrating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6926 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. What actually happened btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia 0 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I don't get the idea of being 'proud' of your country personally. I feel fortunate that I was born here and not some third world hovel but that's about it. I find it pretty bizarre that way people cling to this idea that was is inside lines drawn on a map hundreds of years ago is sacrosanct. In a way I can understand why people of Shinton's generation do, as he was probably born fairly close to the arse end of WW2 when there was something to be proud of and the world was a smaller place. For me though that whole idea is well, pretty foreign. I do however feel pride in the region so maybe i'm just a weird fucker. As an aside one of my locals had a bit of a St. George's Day knees up a few years back and by 9pm three quaters of the scraters in the bar had turned into obnoxious racists and were singing some fairly disgusting songs. Unfortunatly most of run ins with nationalistic sentiment seem to have a similar outcome - loads of people in this country, the younger ones mostly, seem to think being a flag waver and being a xenophobe are one and the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. I'm not standing up for what they protesting about for one minute btw, they're utter cunts to my mind. I'm challenging your assumption the police were in the wrong to not arrest the demonstrators whilst arresting the two other people. To use an abstract example, if I fill someone in because they're a prick, saying that they're a prick was the catalyst for the attack won't hold up in court, will it? Remember that "peace" march video? I'd have thought some of their placards were probably illegal, though. Which one, the one I've already alluded to where the perpetrators were later arrested? Anyway Fop, this is all a bit strange coming from you, I thought you held very strong beliefs about personal freedom and abuse from the police. Now you want to see people arrested for demonstrating? The one on youtube, it's in another thread here (whether anyone was ever arrested I don't know, they were vastly softly policed however, even compared to football fans - no one was ever arrested for that sikh riot where they smashed up a theatre though - the only where a play by a sikh writer was going to be shown). As always my point is hypocrisy and that equality is being treated equally. People are stopped from preaching Christian values by the police because they may offend someone (even though they perfectly legally entitled to do so), other groups with placard and causes equally as offensive (or less offensive in some cases) as this are stopped and banned. I've no problem with this demonstration legally (morally I have), but I do have a problem with unequal enforcement of the law (just like you have a problem in arguing with Fop ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I don't get the idea of being 'proud' of your country personally. I feel fortunate that I was born here and not some third world hovel but that's about it. I find it pretty bizarre that way people cling to this idea that was is inside lines drawn on a map hundreds of years ago is sacrosanct. In a way I can understand why people of Shinton's generation do, as he was probably born fairly close to the arse end of WW2 when there was something to be proud of and the world was a smaller place. For me though that whole idea is well, pretty foreign. I do however feel pride in the region so maybe i'm just a weird fucker. As an aside one of my locals had a bit of a St. George's Day knees up a few years back and by 9pm three quaters of the scraters in the bar had turned into obnoxious racists and were singing some fairly disgusting songs. Unfortunatly most of run ins with nationalistic sentiment seem to have a similar outcome - loads of people in this country, the younger ones mostly, seem to think being a flag waver and being a xenophobe are one and the same. The thing is most of the people pushing minority agenda's (including the muppets in this demonstration) in the UK would be BNP activists if they had been born with slightly less melanin. Unfortunately apathy and appeasement never works with people like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6926 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. The right to demonstarte is not illegal, but the method/words was highly provokative, I suppose a group of football supporters holding up such signs near rival area wouldn't be moved on/arrested either With respect to "over the top measures" taken after 9/11, I woudl suggest the yanks were pretty restrained tbh, at the time on many of the US message boards I frequent the sentiment was one of nuke the whole middle east, shame they didn't tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 What a pillock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. Free the people bro....Even the ones in here who haven't the first clue about freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. The right to demonstarte is not illegal, but the method/words was highly provokative, I suppose a group of football supporters holding up such signs near rival area wouldn't be moved on/arrested either With respect to "over the top measures" taken after 9/11, I woudl suggest the yanks were pretty restrained tbh, at the time on many of the US message boards I frequent the sentiment was one of nuke the whole middle east, shame they didn't tbh Americans must be some of the dumbest people on the planet tbf. Probaby nuke Greece instead of Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. The right to demonstarte is not illegal, but the method/words was highly provokative, I suppose a group of football supporters holding up such signs near rival area wouldn't be moved on/arrested either With respect to "over the top measures" taken after 9/11, I woudl suggest the yanks were pretty restrained tbh, at the time on many of the US message boards I frequent the sentiment was one of nuke the whole middle east, shame they didn't tbh From Wikipedia's Patriot Act page.... Title II established three very controversial provisions: "sneak and peek" warrants, roving wiretaps and the ability of the FBI to gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens. The so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants. The period before which the FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act — the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard"[49] — and it may be extended at the court's discretion.[50] These sneak and peek provisions were struck down by judge Ann Aiken on September 26, 2007 after a Portland attorney, Brandon Mayfield was wrongly jailed because of the searches. The court found the searches to violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[51][52] hardly what I'd call restrained, subverting someones rights in the name of protecting them.....see Alex's post on Phillip Pullman's article As a civil society we cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into a cycle of violence otherwise we are not a civil society. What separates us from those that would plant bombs in the underground and kill innocent people if we react by "nuking" them? Look as was stated before by another poster, I do not agree with what the protestors are saying, quite the opposite, but I do not condone assault for no other reason than not agreeing with them, violence causes violence, and we could do with a whole lot less of it IMO Edited March 13, 2009 by tooner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. The right to demonstarte is not illegal, but the method/words was highly provokative, I suppose a group of football supporters holding up such signs near rival area wouldn't be moved on/arrested either With respect to "over the top measures" taken after 9/11, I woudl suggest the yanks were pretty restrained tbh, at the time on many of the US message boards I frequent the sentiment was one of nuke the whole middle east, shame they didn't tbh FORT PIERCE — Told McDonald’s was out of Chicken McNuggets after paying for a 10-piece meal, a local woman called 911. Three times. “This is an emergency, If I would have known they didn’t have McNuggets, I wouldn’t have given my money, and now she wants to give me a McDouble, but I don’t want one,” Latreasa L. Goodman told police. “This is an emergency.” The McNugget meltdown happened last week at a McDonald’s in the 600 block of North U.S. 1 and ended with Goodman, 27, getting a notice to appear in court on a misuse of 911 charge, according to a recently released police report. Goodman told investigators she tried to get a refund for the 10-piece McNuggets, but the cashier told her all sales are final. “I called 911 because I couldn’t get a refund, and I wanted my McNuggets,” Goodman told police." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrossthepond 707 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. The right to demonstarte is not illegal, but the method/words was highly provokative, I suppose a group of football supporters holding up such signs near rival area wouldn't be moved on/arrested either With respect to "over the top measures" taken after 9/11, I woudl suggest the yanks were pretty restrained tbh, at the time on many of the US message boards I frequent the sentiment was one of nuke the whole middle east, shame they didn't tbh Really doesn't get much dumber than this post. Getting back on topic, these people are the same as the Westboro Baptist Church. I have had the truly unpleasant experience of dealing with the WBC and believe me when I say that they are the lowest form of life. However, the American Constitution protects their right to do what they do and say what they say. Same with these nuts. If the WBC want to say the soldiers are burning in hell because they fight for a "fag-loving" nation, regrettably they are allowed to say that. If these extremists want to say the soldiers should burn because they're fighting for a "corrupt dictatorship" with no Sharia law, regrettably they are allowed to say that. If some morons want to get together and say the US should nuke the whole middle east, they are allowed to say that, and if some skinheads want to get together and wave St George's flags and chant about how all the <insert slurs here> should be shipped out of the country...you get what I'm saying. I do agree that the enforcement is definitely not equal in many cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. The right to demonstarte is not illegal, but the method/words was highly provokative, I suppose a group of football supporters holding up such signs near rival area wouldn't be moved on/arrested either With respect to "over the top measures" taken after 9/11, I woudl suggest the yanks were pretty restrained tbh, at the time on many of the US message boards I frequent the sentiment was one of nuke the whole middle east, shame they didn't tbh Really doesn't get much dumber than this post. Getting back on topic, these people are the same as the Westboro Baptist Church. I have had the truly unpleasant experience of dealing with the WBC and believe me when I say that they are the lowest form of life. However, the American Constitution protects their right to do what they do and say what they say. Same with these nuts. If the WBC want to say the soldiers are burning in hell because they fight for a "fag-loving" nation, regrettably they are allowed to say that. If these extremists want to say the soldiers should burn because they're fighting for a "corrupt dictatorship" with no Sharia law, regrettably they are allowed to say that. If some morons want to get together and say the US should nuke the whole middle east, they are allowed to say that, and if some skinheads want to get together and wave St George's flags and chant about how all the <insert slurs here> should be shipped out of the country...you get what I'm saying. I do agree that the enforcement is definitely not equal in many cases. It was Anglicanphobic though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stevie Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Depends what they did tbf. Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. The right to demonstarte is not illegal, but the method/words was highly provokative, I suppose a group of football supporters holding up such signs near rival area wouldn't be moved on/arrested either With respect to "over the top measures" taken after 9/11, I woudl suggest the yanks were pretty restrained tbh, at the time on many of the US message boards I frequent the sentiment was one of nuke the whole middle east, shame they didn't tbh Yep. India to Lebanon, with a stray one hitting Algeria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now