Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I don't have much on this morning so if you quote what you disagree with me on and say why I'll be glad to respond petal. Not bad, you should have tried that tactic yesterday before you argued yourself into such a silly fascist hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I don't have much on this morning so if you quote what you disagree with me on and say why I'll be glad to respond petal. Not bad, you should have tried that tactic yesterday before you argued yourself into such a silly fascist hole. Fop falls short again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I don't have much on this morning so if you quote what you disagree with me on and say why I'll be glad to respond petal. Not bad, you should have tried that tactic yesterday before you argued yourself into such a silly fascist hole. Fop falls short again. There's plenty of questions unanswered by you, Chris, in this thread already. If you have got time free from planning to crush people under your boot this morning (even the CSA needs a break from that, Fop guesses ) you are welcome to answer any of those. If not then we can all just laugh at the strange extremist philosophical cul-de-sacs you find yourself in by desperately trying to disagree with Fop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) I don't have much on this morning so if you quote what you disagree with me on and say why I'll be glad to respond petal. Not bad, you should have tried that tactic yesterday before you argued yourself into such a silly fascist hole. Fop falls short again. There's plenty of questions unanswered by you, Chris, in this thread already. If you have got time free from planning to crush people under your boot this morning (even the CSA needs a break from that, Fop guesses ) you are welcome to answer any of those. If not then we can all just laugh at the strange extremist philosophical cul-de-sacs you find yourself in by desperately trying to disagree with Fop. OK 1. What did they do wrong in the first place? Is taking photos of police and asking for their ID number a crime? I don't know, given it's an edited video and I wasn't there. Given their stated aims, I would have a guess at... Section 89(2) makes it an offence to resist or wilfully obstruct a constable in the execution of his duty. 2. What did they do to need to be "choked out" (when pressure is put on the wind pipe until the victim basically collapses from lack of oxygen)? Very little it seems. 3. What did they do to need to be bound with straps at the ankles and knees (as well as already being handcuffed and on the ground with several police officers on them)? Seems excessive too. 4. Why were they immediately imprisoned without possibility of bail for 4 days? (especially given all charges were dropped?) Dunno. I'm not armed with all the information Now....you rashly stated they were... abused for doing nothing at all but holding the police to account. ...and answered someones question... When is force appropriate? 1. When someone is doing something illegal - that's always a good start - was what they were doing illegal? Since.... Section 89(2) makes it an offence to resist or wilfully obstruct a constable in the execution of his duty. and Fit Watch say We aim to act in solidarity with each other, supporting campaigns by being at meetings and protests, making it harder for the police to film and gather intelligence. Do you agree that arrest could possibly have been necessary and they could have been doing something wrong? Edited June 23, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Putting all this aside, it really does strike me that filming and gathering information on environmental protestors is a gargantuan waste of police time and resources. I appreciate the need for the police to be there but I'm not sure what the use in gathering the info, other than to perhaps hassle individuals who protest a lot further down the line, which is even more of a waste of police time and resources imo. A different issue to what is being discussed, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 Sorry Nicos not sure how you can carry on defending that video and the FACT that they weren't charged of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Putting all this aside, it really does strike me that filming and gathering information on environmental protestors is a gargantuan waste of police time and resources. I appreciate the need for the police to be there but I'm not sure what the use in gathering the info, other than to perhaps hassle individuals who protest a lot further down the line, which is even more of a waste of police time and resources imo. A different issue to what is being discussed, obviously. Since the Greenpeace protesters have gone on to cause criminal damage they'd probably see it as an effective use of police time. I see no difference with this and filming fans around the stadium as they do when policing the local derby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 Putting all this aside, it really does strike me that filming and gathering information on environmental protestors is a gargantuan waste of police time and resources. I appreciate the need for the police to be there but I'm not sure what the use in gathering the info, other than to perhaps hassle individuals who protest a lot further down the line, which is even more of a waste of police time and resources imo. A different issue to what is being discussed, obviously. It's basically to hassle people who inadvertently stick up for their rights etc...It's just not on in a democracy dontachaa know??! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Sorry Nicos not sure how you can carry on defending that video and the FACT that they weren't charged of anything. I've not defended the video. I've said Fit watch are bunch of fuckwits who I have less sympathy with than any peaceful protesters with a valid cause other than taunting police whenever possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 1. What did they do wrong in the first place? Is taking photos of police and asking for their ID number a crime?I don't know, given it's an edited video and I wasn't there, given their stated aims, I would have a guess at... The initial arrest is not edited, they are just grabbed (there is no warning even), do you agree with that? Section 89(2) makes it an offence to resist or wilfully obstruct a constable in the execution of his duty. And asking an officer to give his ID number and taking photographs is doing that? Fop agrees it may be obstructing an officer from doing something they SHOULD NOT be doing, but then that is the point. 2. What did they do to need to be "choked out" (when pressure is put on the wind pipe until the victim basically collapses from lack of oxygen)?Very little it seems. Indeed, and is that acceptable to you? 3. What did they do to need to be bound with straps at the ankles and knees (as well as already being handcuffed and on the ground with several police officers on them)?Seems excessive too. Given that enemy combatants can't be restrained in such a way, yes it does seem "excessive". 4. Why were they immediately imprisoned without possibility of bail for 4 days? (especially given all charges were dropped?)Dunno. I'm not armed with all the information Do you believe that asking about ID numbers and taking photos requires invocation of "anti-terror" law that was basically designed to stop attack that would cause 100's or 1000's of civilian deaths? (as that is about the only way they'd have been legally held like that) Do you agree that arrest could possibly have been necessary and they could have been doing something wrong? No there is no excuse for their initial treatment, at all. It was clearly (for anyone but yourself and Ming the Merciless) far beyond justified. What's more as all charges were dropped it seems they actually were doing nothing wrong at all, Ming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Putting all this aside, it really does strike me that filming and gathering information on environmental protestors is a gargantuan waste of police time and resources. I appreciate the need for the police to be there but I'm not sure what the use in gathering the info, other than to perhaps hassle individuals who protest a lot further down the line, which is even more of a waste of police time and resources imo. A different issue to what is being discussed, obviously. It's intimidation. Basically there's political pressure on them (and probably commercial pressure on the politicians). Like Fop said earlier the Dept of Transport used to run a spy network (and had some ridiculous draconian powers as well) that dwarfed the one operating in Northern Ireland at the time...... why? To nullify road protesters.... you couldn't make it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Putting all this aside, it really does strike me that filming and gathering information on environmental protestors is a gargantuan waste of police time and resources. I appreciate the need for the police to be there but I'm not sure what the use in gathering the info, other than to perhaps hassle individuals who protest a lot further down the line, which is even more of a waste of police time and resources imo. A different issue to what is being discussed, obviously. Since the Greenpeace protesters have gone on to cause criminal damage they'd probably see it as an effective use of police time. I see no difference with this and filming fans around the stadium as they do when policing the local derby. Well yes, they'd probably argue that, but since it didn't prevent the later criminal damage taking place, what purpose did it actually serve? Anyway, what I'm more on about is the way in which if you do something perfectly legal, which peaceful protest is, you're then seen (in the current climate under 'anti-terror' legislation and so on), as being a potential 'enemy of the state' or whatever, which doesn't really sit well with me. I'm making a general point and haven't been able to watch the video anyway yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) Sorry Nicos not sure how you can carry on defending that video and the FACT that they weren't charged of anything. I've not defended the video. I've said Fit watch are bunch of fuckwits who I have less sympathy with than any peaceful protesters with a valid cause other than taunting police whenever possible. Too late to try and back out of it now, anyone that reads this thread can clearly see you arguing yourself into a fascist corner, Chris the Merciless. Now you might not like being there (or it being pointed out), but then Fop suggest you just don't do it in future. And like Parky says, all charges were dropped, they (the women) did nothing wrong - the police however..... Edited June 23, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Having read a bit about it I quite like what Fit Watch stand for tbh and I'm pleased there are people who are still motivated enough to stand up for civil rights and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4023 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 The charges may have been dropped but I'll bet the coppers were well pleased with the outcome - a chance to act tough and especially the 4 days inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Well yes, they'd probably argue that, but since it didn't prevent the later criminal damage taking place, what purpose did it actually serve? Anyway, what I'm more on about is the way in which if you do something perfectly legal, which peaceful protest is, you're then seen (in the current climate under 'anti-terror' legislation and so on), as being a potential 'enemy of the state' or whatever, which doesn't really sit well with me. I'm making a general point and haven't been able to watch the video anyway yet. Indeed, it's frightening really. You (in a general sense) might not want to (quite legitimately and legally) protest about something today, but maybe one day you will, and even if you don't without others right to do so there's a lot of things that will disappear. The video is appalling (ok no one dies or is beaten to a blood pulp, but no one acting in a perfectly legal manner should be treated like that in the UK), but is basically the symptom of the underlying disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4023 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Well yes, they'd probably argue that, but since it didn't prevent the later criminal damage taking place, what purpose did it actually serve? Anyway, what I'm more on about is the way in which if you do something perfectly legal, which peaceful protest is, you're then seen (in the current climate under 'anti-terror' legislation and so on), as being a potential 'enemy of the state' or whatever, which doesn't really sit well with me. I'm making a general point and haven't been able to watch the video anyway yet. That's what I was getting at above about how they want to classify as many people as possible by anything "anti-authority" they may subscribe to and keep it in a DB. Football matches were an obvious starting point and as you say the anti-terror BS has allowed it to be extended to all protests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Having read a bit about it I quite like what Fit Watch stand for tbh and I'm pleased there are people who are still motivated enough to stand up for civil rights and so on. It's sad that it's necessary, but judging by the video it is quite clearly necessary. The charges may have been dropped but I'll bet the coppers were well pleased with the outcome - a chance to act tough and especially the 4 days inside. The got what they wanted, so yes. Fop will be surprised if anything comes of the investigation though (given a copper can change his notes and lie about it in court and still get away with it al la the John Charles Mendes case). But in the end if they thought they had anything on those women they'd have pursued it, but as they did nothing wrong they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 That's what I was getting at above about how they want to classify as many people as possible by anything "anti-authority" they may subscribe to and keep it in a DB. Football matches were an obvious starting point and as you say the anti-terror BS has allowed it to be extended to all protests. Unfortunately there's plenty of people (like Fish, Chris "Ming" Holt and Ewok) that will agree with them and support them on such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Putting all this aside, it really does strike me that filming and gathering information on environmental protestors is a gargantuan waste of police time and resources. I appreciate the need for the police to be there but I'm not sure what the use in gathering the info, other than to perhaps hassle individuals who protest a lot further down the line, which is even more of a waste of police time and resources imo. A different issue to what is being discussed, obviously. Since the Greenpeace protesters have gone on to cause criminal damage they'd probably see it as an effective use of police time. I see no difference with this and filming fans around the stadium as they do when policing the local derby. Well yes, they'd probably argue that, but since it didn't prevent the later criminal damage taking place, what purpose did it actually serve? Anyway, what I'm more on about is the way in which if you do something perfectly legal, which peaceful protest is, you're then seen (in the current climate under 'anti-terror' legislation and so on), as being a potential 'enemy of the state' or whatever, which doesn't really sit well with me. I'm making a general point and haven't been able to watch the video anyway yet. Peaceful protest is legal. Pestering the police who are trying to do a job and taunting them into action is less clear cut. If PC plod was filming the daftees who rush each other up and down Barack Road, I wouldn't start pestering the copper for his number...even though the arseholes aren't actually involved in violence...yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 Having read a bit about it I quite like what Fit Watch stand for tbh and I'm pleased there are people who are still motivated enough to stand up for civil rights and so on. It's sad that it's necessary, but judging by the video it is quite clearly necessary. The charges may have been dropped but I'll bet the coppers were well pleased with the outcome - a chance to act tough and especially the 4 days inside. The got what they wanted, so yes. Fop will be surprised if anything comes of the investigation though (given a copper can change his notes and lie about it in court and still get away with it al la the John Charles Mendes case). But in the end if they thought they had anything on those women they'd have pursued it, but as they did nothing wrong they didn't. One of the women has already been harassed and her house searched for a year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Putting all this aside, it really does strike me that filming and gathering information on environmental protestors is a gargantuan waste of police time and resources. I appreciate the need for the police to be there but I'm not sure what the use in gathering the info, other than to perhaps hassle individuals who protest a lot further down the line, which is even more of a waste of police time and resources imo. A different issue to what is being discussed, obviously. Since the Greenpeace protesters have gone on to cause criminal damage they'd probably see it as an effective use of police time. I see no difference with this and filming fans around the stadium as they do when policing the local derby. Well yes, they'd probably argue that, but since it didn't prevent the later criminal damage taking place, what purpose did it actually serve? Anyway, what I'm more on about is the way in which if you do something perfectly legal, which peaceful protest is, you're then seen (in the current climate under 'anti-terror' legislation and so on), as being a potential 'enemy of the state' or whatever, which doesn't really sit well with me. I'm making a general point and haven't been able to watch the video anyway yet. Peaceful protest is legal. Pestering the police who are trying to do a job and taunting them into action is less clear cut. If PC plod was filming the daftees who rush each other up and down Barack Road, I wouldn't start pestering the copper for his number...even though the arseholes aren't actually involved in violence...yet. Which is totally different to peaceful protest as was your previous analogy about a bag-snatcher. I don't see the need for the analogy in either case. These lot are about something entirely different, i.e. the right to privacy and peaceful protest. What they're doing is 'asking for it' but I see that as making them pretty brave rather than troublesome arseholes. The police need to be kept in check and pressure groups like this are what this is all about and they're useful in society even if you don't agree with them entirely imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakermaker 0 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Ask any policeman why they sometimes turn up without their numbers on and they'll usually be honest. It's so if they go well over the top with violence it's hard for the person assaulted to get a conviction as the identification is difficuilt. On a side note, when the anti-terror laws were going through a lot of people wanted safeguards built in so that the legislation wouldn't be misused in more civil areas. We were told it wouldn't be so there was no need. Another big fat steaming lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) Which is totally different to peaceful protest as was your previous analogy about a bag-snatcher. I don't see the need for the analogy in either case. These lot are about something entirely different, i.e. the right to privacy and peaceful protest. What they're doing is 'asking for it' but I see that as making them pretty brave rather than troublesome arseholes. The police need to be kept in check and pressure groups like this are what this is all about and they're useful in society even if you don't agree with them entirely imo. I have no problem with anyone filming the police and keeping them honest. My problem comes with their stated aim of taking action to hinder police surveilence, which I see as an effective tool rather than an infringement of anyone's rights. I don't see how you can distinguish a peaceful protest from one that escalates and say that there should be no police presence at any protests. Back in August this protest was peaceful. This week it's ended in crime.....could that have been a result of reduced policing after the negative press? Edited June 23, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Which is totally different to peaceful protest as was your previous analogy about a bag-snatcher. I don't see the need for the analogy in either case. These lot are about something entirely different, i.e. the right to privacy and peaceful protest. What they're doing is 'asking for it' but I see that as making them pretty brave rather than troublesome arseholes. The police need to be kept in check and pressure groups like this are what this is all about and they're useful in society even if you don't agree with them entirely imo. I have no problem with anyone filming the police and keeping them honest. My problem comes with their stated aim of taking action to hinder police surveilence, which I see as an effective tool rather than an infringement of anyone's rights. I don't see how you can distinguish a peaceful protest from one that escalates and say that there should be no police presence at any protests. Back in August this protest was peaceful. This week it's resulted in crime.....could that have been a result of reduced policing after the negative press? Where did I say that? I said the opposite if anything. The bit after that is pure speculation which I can't really comment on either way. 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