Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 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. Again is asking for a police officer ID number (when it is not displayed) illegal? Is taking a police officers picture illegal? Is assaulting someone for no reason illegal (whether you're a police officer, a postman or the Prime Minister [not Deputy of course ])? Pre-crime may be fine under "Holt's Law" and with Ming the Merciless, but in the UK (presently) it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9234 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 It was just a stream of conciousness really. I just think the Police have a nigh impossible job. I blame the police, Britains obsession with damning anything and everything (look at the NHS, it's a wonderful instituion, but you'll never hear the majority of folk speak well of it.) and the media for the lack of respect for the police. The NHS is a huge organisation with troubles of it's own, it's staff are under-appreciated and at times not good enough. However, there is an underlynig affection for Doctors and nurses, but an underlying contempt and distrust of the police. basically I'm trying to stick up for the police but as their successes aren't published to anywhere near the degree that their failings are, it's rather difficult to back up my argument with any paper articles. I do think they're out of line in this case, but the volume of mistakes is disproportionate to the volume of outcry, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 One of the women has already been harassed and her house searched for a year or so. It's a tactic they use, nothing to do with the law really, it's much more like bailiff intimidation and such. 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. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?/Who watches the watchmen? indeed. 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. Yup, its well known why they do it, and is exactly why people that do this are doing the country a service (and is why many police would bury them in a shallow grave if they thought they could get away with it). Today's sloppy legislation is tomorrows tranny. (although Fop suspect Labour knew exactly what they were doing when they pushed it though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Do they state how they would hinder the police ? It just may mean they will use the law to stop the police surveilance breaching the law or used for strengthening the case about anti-terror law being abused by the police. It is fairly amusing that you aren't "allowed" (even though you're perfectly legally entitled to) film the police filming you. "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" - Ming the Holtiless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Fop, why do you live in a world of absolutes? Fop would like to live in a world were you can NOT be arrested, choked into semi0unconciousness, beaten, then bound at the wrists, knees and ankles, before being carried off and imprisoned without legal recourse for 4 days, for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Or is that a grey area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9234 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 see with this ridiculous "don't photo the coppers" law, it makes the police look insane for enforcing it, but then they really have little choice, if the order comes down they should obey. They must feel ridiculous telling people to stop photographing them, they're not Jo Absolom, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 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. Again is asking for a police officer ID number (when it is not displayed) illegal? Is taking a police officers picture illegal? Is assaulting someone for no reason illegal (whether you're a police officer, a postman or the Prime Minister [not Deputy of course ])? I'm still struggling with the assertion these women didn't break any law on the basis that it wasn't in the video and they weren't charged. As if an abundance of charges aren't dropped every day against guilty people due to lack of evidence. Especially when their own website accepts arrest (not violently of course) as par for the course in what they set out to do. I don't have the information to say either way whether they'd gone that far in this case, but it is their raison d'etre to cause disruption, be arrested and encourage others to do so. They've been going for ages, and are over the moon that this once some coppers went too far on film and they can hammer them for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 A rare sighting of Fop?? http://www.allmusicals.com/lyrics/scarletp...seekhimhere.htm It will be funnier watching Nicos/Chris/Ming/The harbinger of death execute his backtrack. It is quite amazing the hole he has argued himself into in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 A rare sighting of Fop?? http://www.allmusicals.com/lyrics/scarletp...seekhimhere.htm It will be funnier watching Nicos/Chris/Ming/The harbinger of death execute his backtrack. It is quite amazing the hole he has argued himself into in this thread. Which hole is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9234 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Fop, why do you live in a world of absolutes? Fop would like to live in a world were you can NOT be arrested, choked into semi0unconciousness, beaten, then bound at the wrists, knees and ankles, before being carried off and imprisoned without legal recourse for 4 days, for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Or is that a grey area? Unsurprisingly you deliberately choose to ignore a pretty obvious and agreeable question to "score points". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I don't condone the violence.I think police should not be anonymous. The police (officially) don't think that either. Unofficially, of course, it's a different thing - as the video shows. I wonder if these women had not made demands, would there have been violence... simply put, if they hadn't worked themselves up in a righteous stance, would there have been violence? Given that it was the police that used all the violence no probably not, but then that just makes the whole thing worse. see with this ridiculous "don't photo the coppers" law, it makes the police look insane for enforcing it, but then they really have little choice, if the order comes down they should obey. They must feel ridiculous telling people to stop photographing them, they're not Jo Absolom, after all. There's no such law. There an iffy bit of anti-terror legislation that can stop you photographing areas if it can reasonably be assumed it could be for terrorist acts. But that has bog all to do with photographing police, the police may not like being photographed, but that has nothing to do with anything (other than the identification for wrong doing thing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 It will be funnier watching Nicos/Chris/Ming/The harbinger of death execute his backtrack. It is quite amazing the hole he has argued himself into in this thread. Which hole is that? Ming the Merciless's lovehole? Fop guess you could explain why you've take up with the ultra-fascist philosophy in thread best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 It will be funnier watching Nicos/Chris/Ming/The harbinger of death execute his backtrack. It is quite amazing the hole he has argued himself into in this thread. Which hole is that? Ming the Merciless's lovehole? Fop guess you could explain why you've take up with the ultra-fascist philosophy in thread best. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9234 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 There's no such law. There an iffy bit of anti-terror legislation that can stop you photographing areas if it can reasonably be assumed it could be for terrorist acts. But that has bog all to do with photographing police, the police may not like being photographed, but that has nothing to do with anything (other than the identification for wrong doing thing). I'm sure I saw a peaceful protest outside NSY the day before some legislation banning filming or photographing police officers, Mark Thomas was there and everything!... was that the meeja deliberately obfuscating the facts to fabricate an injustice to get the militant arm of S.W.I.F.T. or whomever up in arms? again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) I'm still struggling with the assertion these women didn't break any law on the basis that it wasn't in the video and they weren't charged. As if an abundance of charges aren't dropped every day against guilty people due to lack of evidence. Well surely it was all on "unedited" () video tape? What more could you (or Darth Vader, or a judge or the CPS) want? They've been going for ages, and are over the moon that this once some coppers went too far on film and they can hammer them for it. Too far? So if a group of people came up to you and for no reason and choked you into semi-unconsciousness, beat you a little for good measure, hog-tied you at the wrists, knees and ankles and then carried you off and kept you imprisoned for 4 days........ Is it fair to say your only reaction would be to say "By George I think you fellas went a tad too far!" and good naturedly leave it at that? :lol:s Edited June 23, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I'm sure I saw a peaceful protest outside NSY the day before some legislation banning filming or photographing police officers, Mark Thomas was there and everything!... was that the meeja deliberately obfuscating the facts to fabricate an injustice to get the militant arm of S.W.I.F.T. or whomever up in arms? again. Aye, possibly, but it'll be the "law" Fop mentioned. It is being used in many, many ways, not only in ways it is not intended for, but completely wrongly and illegal as in the example you mention. Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer. The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'. The new laws are now in place and they allow for the arrest – and imprisonment - of anyone who takes pictures of officers 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'. But it is NOT illegal to photograph or film a police officer, no matter how much they'd like it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 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. Again is asking for a police officer ID number (when it is not displayed) illegal? Is taking a police officers picture illegal? Is assaulting someone for no reason illegal (whether you're a police officer, a postman or the Prime Minister [not Deputy of course ])? I'm still struggling with the assertion these women didn't break any law on the basis that it wasn't in the video and they weren't charged. As if an abundance of charges aren't dropped every day against guilty people due to lack of evidence. Especially when their own website accepts arrest (not violently of course) as par for the course in what they set out to do. I don't have the information to say either way whether they'd gone that far in this case, but it is their raison d'etre to cause disruption, be arrested and encourage others to do so. They've been going for ages, and are over the moon that this once some coppers went too far on film and they can hammer them for it. I think it's safe to say in this instance they didn't break the law because charges weren't brought against them, given the circumstances and the amount of witnesses (including police witnesses, which are still very useful in terms of gaining convictions and considered reliable in a court of law), not to mention the (presumably abundant) video evidence which could have been used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I'm still struggling with the assertion these women didn't break any law on the basis that it wasn't in the video and they weren't charged. As if an abundance of charges aren't dropped every day against guilty people due to lack of evidence. Well surely it was all on "unedited" () video tape? What more could you (or Darth Vader, or a judge or the CPS) want? They've been going for ages, and are over the moon that this once some coppers went too far on film and they can hammer them for it. Too far? So if a group of people came up to you and for no reason and choked you into semi-unconsciousness, beat you a little for good measure, hog-tied you at the wrists, knees and ankles and then carried you off and kept you imprisoned for 4 days........ Is it fair to say your only reaction would be to say "By George I think you fellas went a tad too far!" and good naturedly leave it at that? :lol:s No. Not sure what that's got to do with the women encouraging people to disrupt police to such an extent arrest is possible....as they freely admit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Too far? So if a group of people came up to you and for no reason and choked you into semi-unconsciousness, beat you a little for good measure, hog-tied you at the wrists, knees and ankles and then carried you off and kept you imprisoned for 4 days........ Is it fair to say your only reaction would be to say "By George I think you fellas went a tad too far!" and good naturedly leave it at that? :lol:s No. Not sure what that's got to do with the women encouraging people to disrupt police to such an extent arrest is possible....as they freely admit. Not so much Chris the Merciless as Chris the Hypocrite then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Too far? So if a group of people came up to you and for no reason and choked you into semi-unconsciousness, beat you a little for good measure, hog-tied you at the wrists, knees and ankles and then carried you off and kept you imprisoned for 4 days........ Is it fair to say your only reaction would be to say "By George I think you fellas went a tad too far!" and good naturedly leave it at that? :lol:s No. Not sure what that's got to do with the women encouraging people to disrupt police to such an extent arrest is possible....as they freely admit. Not so much Chris the Merciless as Chris the Hypocrite then. Please highlight the contradiction, keeping in mind I've consistently said I don't think anyone not resisting arrest should be subject to any physical harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9234 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I'm sure I saw a peaceful protest outside NSY the day before some legislation banning filming or photographing police officers, Mark Thomas was there and everything!... was that the meeja deliberately obfuscating the facts to fabricate an injustice to get the militant arm of S.W.I.F.T. or whomever up in arms? again. Aye, possibly, but it'll be the "law" Fop mentioned. It is being used in many, many ways, not only in ways it is not intended for, but completely wrongly and illegal as in the example you mention. Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer. The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'. The new laws are now in place and they allow for the arrest – and imprisonment - of anyone who takes pictures of officers 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'. But it is NOT illegal to photograph or film a police officer, no matter how much they'd like it to be. I just don't buy that the police are in favour of a lot of the rights-compromising laws they have to enforce Strikes me, they're the scapegoat for ministers. The self same ministers who hide away as much of their information as possible. Essentially, it's coming across that you either don't appreciate or don't care how difficult the police's job is, fwiw I don't think it's the former. If I were truly angry about the erosion of civil liberty I'd be focussing my anger at the law makers, not those entrusted with enforcing the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I think the biggest problem is people think 1984 is fact rather than fiction. Stupid fuckers complain about being filmed as an erosion of their civil liberties then go on to do 24 hours of media interviews and personal promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I'm sure I saw a peaceful protest outside NSY the day before some legislation banning filming or photographing police officers, Mark Thomas was there and everything!... was that the meeja deliberately obfuscating the facts to fabricate an injustice to get the militant arm of S.W.I.F.T. or whomever up in arms? again. Aye, possibly, but it'll be the "law" Fop mentioned. It is being used in many, many ways, not only in ways it is not intended for, but completely wrongly and illegal as in the example you mention. Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer. The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'. The new laws are now in place and they allow for the arrest – and imprisonment - of anyone who takes pictures of officers 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'. But it is NOT illegal to photograph or film a police officer, no matter how much they'd like it to be. I just don't buy that the police are in favour of a lot of the rights-compromising laws they have to enforce Strikes me, they're the scapegoat for ministers. The self same ministers who hide away as much of their information as possible. Essentially, it's coming across that you either don't appreciate or don't care how difficult the police's job is, fwiw I don't think it's the former. If I were truly angry about the erosion of civil liberty I'd be focussing my anger at the law makers, not those entrusted with enforcing the law. I think you're correct in the main but I think you're probably wrong re: the bit in bold. And I knew a lass I used to work with who started reading '1984' because she liked Big Brother btw. I don't think she finished it like. This country. [/Partridge] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Too far? So if a group of people came up to you and for no reason and choked you into semi-unconsciousness, beat you a little for good measure, hog-tied you at the wrists, knees and ankles and then carried you off and kept you imprisoned for 4 days........ Is it fair to say your only reaction would be to say "By George I think you fellas went a tad too far!" and good naturedly leave it at that? :lol:s No. Not sure what that's got to do with the women encouraging people to disrupt police to such an extent arrest is possible....as they freely admit. Not so much Chris the Merciless as Chris the Hypocrite then. Please highlight the contradiction, keeping in mind I've consistently said I don't think anyone not resisting arrest should be subject to any physical harm. Aye in fairness you've only said people should be arrested without cause and then choked you into semi-unconsciousness, beaten a little for good measure, hog-tied at the wrists, knees and ankles and then carried off and kept you imprisoned without legal recourse for 4 days. And then not complain about it of course. A fascist with a heart, you're one of a kinda Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Too far? So if a group of people came up to you and for no reason and choked you into semi-unconsciousness, beat you a little for good measure, hog-tied you at the wrists, knees and ankles and then carried you off and kept you imprisoned for 4 days........ Is it fair to say your only reaction would be to say "By George I think you fellas went a tad too far!" and good naturedly leave it at that? :lol:s No. Not sure what that's got to do with the women encouraging people to disrupt police to such an extent arrest is possible....as they freely admit. Not so much Chris the Merciless as Chris the Hypocrite then. Please highlight the contradiction, keeping in mind I've consistently said I don't think anyone not resisting arrest should be subject to any physical harm. Aye in fairness you've only said people should be arrested without cause and then choked you into semi-unconsciousness, beaten a little for good measure, hog-tied at the wrists, knees and ankles and then carried off and kept you imprisoned without legal recourse for 4 days. And then not complain about it of course. A fascist with a heart, you're one of a kinda Chris. I'll repeat..."keeping in mind I've consistently said I don't think anyone not resisting arrest should be subject to any physical harm." 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