Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
Watch our video report above, more to follow tomorrow
8.30pm - Live blog now closed
The live blog is now closing. Sussex Police say the protest is now fully dispersed. A brief video report will be posted here this evening, and many more video reports will be uploaded tomorrow.
See tomorrow's Argus for a five page special, including the best of our photographs and reports from the street.
Click here for a gallery of pictures from the day, both from our photographers and from readers.
Thanks to all who contributed, including James Devonport, Dan Garland and Lasthours on Twitter, Ben Collier for his photographs, Rob Gourdie for his YouTube report, and everyone who commented on the story.
Argus coverage was carried out by reporters Emily Walker, Richard Gurner, Andy Chiles and Ben Parsons, and photographers Simon Dack, Kate Howell, Terry Aplin and Eddie Mitchell.
7.50pm - Police condemn "unjustified acts of violence"
Brighton & Hove City Commander, Chief Supt Graham Bartlett, has released the following statement about today's protest:
“Once again, during a demonstration organised by Smash EDO, we have seen unjustified acts of violence aimed at premises and police officers, with some officers receiving minor injuries. Members of public including many visitors to the city have been clearly frightened and intimidated by a small minority of the group who have been verbally abusive, and throwing missiles at police.
"One member of public was struck in the face by a missile and had to be treated by a police medical team.
"Paint has been thrown at and daubed on a number of premises and a window at a boutique in Market Street was broken. There was also other reports of wanton criminal damage taking place.
"This is a tough time for businesses and this additional disruption, coupled with these criminal acts, only can only impact even more on vital commerce and tourism in the city.
"As at 7.40pm, there were three arrests - one man was arrested for assaulting a police officer, one for obstructing police and one for criminal damage. We will continue to investigate the other offences that have occurred and where possible bring those responsible to justice.
"Once again I urge those who wish to hold demonstrations in the city to abide by the law and notify the police of their intentions in advance so that jointly we can plan a safe but visible event which respects their right to protest and others rights to go about their business free from intimidation and violence.
"I would like to remind the people of Brighton & Hove and the rest of Sussex is that the officers involved in policing violent demonstrations such as we have seen today are the same officers who provide the local policing service you would expect from us. We would all rather see them helping to resolve local issues in their neighbourhoods than having to police such protests as this."
7.30pm - Police confirm two more arrests. Police say the total number of people arrested is now three.
One man was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage after graffiti was sprayed on the Beach House cafe at the Palace Pier after a number of protesters climbed on the roof.
Another man was arrested on suspicion of obstructing police at the roundabout in front of the pier.
One protester has been taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital after falling from the roof.
Police say a hardcore of about 15 people are still dancing in front of the Beach House Cafe.
7.20pm - Protest dies down
Most of the protest has now finished. Police say just one person has been arrested. Lasthours reports there are now just 50 people left at the Pier.
5.50pm - Protestors dance on pier roof as police back off.
Police have stepped back to avoid confrontation with protesters.
Around 40 people are on top of the roof of the Beach House Cafe, chanting "Who's streets? Our streets".
Some people are smashing lighbulbs on the pier chip shop, but agression and violence seems to be subsiding.
Kings Road and the Palace Pier roundabout are still closed to traffic, but the demonstration seems to be scaling down.
5.30pm - Protesters are marching along the seafront, throwing bottles and cans.
The 100-strong crowd is heading west along Kings Road.
The whole road has been cleared of traffic.
5.15pm - Protesters set off flares at pier
Smash EDO campaigners have been setting off bright red flares in the street, next to Brighton Pier.
The crowd at the pier roundabout has now swelled to around 400, as people make their way from the beach to watch.
Roads around the area, including St James's Street are believed to be completely blocked to traffic.
5pm - Protest heading back to pier.
Around 100 demonstrators have returned to the roundabout next the the Sealife Centre.
The bulk of the crowd had been congregating in Castle Square near the Pavillion.
Police officers are en route from John Street to the pier.
4.50pm - Police "preparing for riot" at police station
Police have closed the road and set up a wall of riot sheilds outside the police station in John Street.
The area has been cordonned off and blocked by police riot vans.
A witness said: "There are no protesters around, but the police look like they are expecting a riot."
4.30pm - Police officers are guarding EDO's factory, but protesters have not taken their campaign to the site.
Around a dozen police officers are guarding the site, but none of the protesters demonstrating in the city centre have yet broken away to the factory.
Officers were expecting the Moulsecoomb company to be the target of today's demonstration.
4.15pm - A mass of protesters are now on the land around St Peter's Church.
Lasthours reports on Twitter: "There are two soundsystems here. One playing king prawn, the other bad techno."
There seems to be a lull in the protest, possibly because of the rain which has just started.
3.45pm - Police have confirmed a woman was injured after being hit in the face with a missile.
A Sussex Police spokeswoman said: "In Priory Street at about 3pm a woman was injured after she was hit in the face by a missile."
Three police offficers are said to have been injured in total, described by the police spokeswoman as "push and shove" injuries.
Police estimate that 500 people were still involved in the protests at 2.30pm.
Around 200 protesters are still in Trafalgar Street.
A splinter group are thought to be heading towards Middle Street and the beach.
3.30pm - Protesters are using wheelie bins as battering rams to try and break down the police line.
As the stand-off in Trafalgar Street escalates, police have sealed off side streets and are trying to direct the march towards St Peter's Church.
Witnesses have reported tensions rising and a lot of pushing and shoving between police and protesters.
March organisers have hailed it a great success.
A spokesman for Smash EDO declared the demonstration the most successful in the campaign's history.
He said: "It was better than expected, I reckon at least 2,000 people at its height. It must be the best ever Smash EDO protest."
Jody Mcintyre, an 18-year-old student, said: "I think it's wrong that our country sells arms to other countries that you know are going to use them. "It's very distressing to see factories here in Brighton in the UK." Not everyone shared the thoughts of the protesters though. Rachel Newton, a 37-year-old architect technician, told The Argus: "Why don't they have a bath and get a life."
3.20pm - The standoff in Trafalgar Street continues.
Witnessing the action, James Devonport says: "There are massive confrontations happening. It's on verge of getting very violent. Very scary."
James posted this video of the standoff on YouTube:
3.15pm - Standoff between police and protesters in Trafalgar Street.
Demonstrators who have been turned back round by police, have thrown missiles, including cans and stones at police.
Protesters now seem to be changing direction and finding another route.
3pm-A man has been arrested during the Mayday march.
A spokesman for campaign group Smash EDO said he had been arrested on suspicion of assault.
The man, in his 20s was detained following a clash at the junction of Stanford Avenue and Cleveland Road.
The main body of protesters have now returned to Preston Circus, causing traffic chaos at the busy junction.
Police are still blocking demonstrators from accessing Ditchling Road from Stanley Road.
A small group of five or six cyclists, wearing the red and black Smash EDO uniform, have been spotted heading towards arms-manufacturer EDO MBM
Police have been coralling protesters into London Road.
The march has been directed up Anne Street to the New England Qurarter and onlookers reported the march becoming "a bit heated".
2.50pm - Unconfirmed reports an arrest has been made.
On Twitter, lasthours reports someone has been "nicked"
Meanwhile, former councillor and leading protester Marina Pepper has tweeted: "Sitting in Preston Park. Reclaim the Park? It's turned into a peace picnic! We'll regroup and head off soon."
2.45pm - Further violence between protesters and police as march heads through Preston Park.
One protester, wearing a black mask coverting his face was being restrained by police in Chester Terrace.
A female protestor was being held by police officers.
Confusion seems to be setting in amongst the crowd, with people shouting different directions.
Factions of the group seem to have split off, and shouted and conflicting destinations are being bandied around the group of around 300 people near Preston Park.
2.30pm - There are unconfirmed reports white paint has been thrown at a CCTV van in Preston Park.
On Twitter, anti-authoritarian zine lasthours also reports people are running out of the park to escape the police. It says people are forming a line, and police sirens are blazing.
It added: "People are singing the Darth Vader theme tune."
2.20pm - A crowd of around 300 protesters have gathered at Preston Park.
2.10pm - Angry clashes between police and protesters in Ditchling Road area.
Police officers drew their batons to keep protesters at bay in Ditchling Road.
A police line, keeping demonstrators in order, broke down after numerous missiles were thrown at officers.
Police resorted to using their batons to keep protesters at bay.
Rob Gourdie posted this video of riot police preparing for confrontation in nearby Fiveways:
At least one police officer was injured by a flying object, but injuries were not thought to be serious.
On Twitter, Lasthours reporter: "Just kicked off near Bromley Road. Some bricks thrown."
Traffic has been brought to a standstill at Preston Circus.
1.50pm - Police have lost control of the crowd in London Road and have tried to regain control using horses in Ditchling Road.
Two dozen officers up against a crowd of at least 200 have been forced to retreat under a hail of missiles.
At least one officer has been seen knocked to the ground.
Reporter Ben Parsons said: "The police seem to have lost all control of the crowd."
1.45pm - Protesters have been rocking a police van outside McDonald's.
A line of police with batons drawn are defending the restaurant. A group of protesters have peeled off down a side street and set off up Ditchling Road.
1.40pm - There are now clashes between police and protesters outside McDonald's in London Road.
Police have sealed off the road and some of the protesters appear to be trying to make their way to The Level.
On Twitter, Dan Garland reports that missiles have been thrown at the fast food chain, and police officers have moved in with riot shields to protect the building. He said: "The temperature's rising."
1.20pm - Turner prizewinner, Anish Kapoor, famous for his use of red paint, has been spotted watching the Mayday march.
The artist, currently artistic director of this year's Brighton festival was spotted watching the procession of around 500 people in Queen's Road.
Despite his love of red paint, the artist did not join in spraying red graffiti and throwing paint bombs at shops.
Protesters are now heading down Trafalgar Street.
Video by James Devonport. To see the footage in widescreen, click here
As the parade passed the heavy police pressence at the train station, more paint was sprayed onto a police CCTV van.
Crowds trying to get through the tunnel at the top of Trafalgar Street were crushed together from the sheer weight of the crowd.
1.05pm - Paintbombs thrown at campaign targets
DEMONSTRATORS have thrown bombs of red paint at capitalist and military targets.
Barlcays Bank in North Street was splattered in paint after one of the paint bombs was hurled from the increasingly aggressive crowd.
Now a second paint bomb has been thrown at the Army Surplus store in Queen's Road.
Lines of red graffiti have also been sprayed on shop fronts, as the march heads back towards Brighton train station.
1pm - Protesters climb scaffolding at bank
ANTI-CAPITALIST campaigners have climbed scaffolding on a bank.
Three men climbed the scaffolding to try and hang a banner on the North Street branch.
Police appear to have arrested some of the men trying to climb the scaffolding. Then men are believed to have tried to drag the officers back into the crowd with a scuffle ensuing.
Officers are now forming a protective barrier around the bank.
12:50pm - Police officers are preparing for clashes with protesters outside the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The Mayday demonstrators are now heading from the pier towards the city centre via the Old Steine and North Street.
Officers on horseback are stood guard against possible trouble at the bank, tipped as one of the capitalist targets by march organisers Smash EDO last week.
Half a dozen police officers are guarding the entrance and windows to the bank, but so far anti-capitalist campaigners are funnelling past peacefully.
Around 400 people have joined the march.
12:35pm - Protest moves tiowards Old Steine
BRIGHTON seafront has been closed off by police as protesters fill the area.
Protesters were starting to move towards the Old Steine, but are being kept near the pier by police.
Motorists are being diverted through the city centre as Kings Road has been closed to traffic at the pier.
Spots of rain are beginning to fall but they don't seem to bother the protesters at the Palace Pier. Spots of rain are beginning to fall but they don't seem to bother the protesters at the Palace Pier.
Members of the public do not seem too bothered with the distruption along the seafront.
Pub shift manager Jake Tyler, 23, from Kemp Town, said: "We're taking it all in our stride.
"It's not giving Brighton a bad name, this is what Brighton is all about."
Another bystander Helen Williams, a 33-year-old credit controller, said: "I think good on them. They're exercising their right to protest.
12:12pm - Traffic chaos up as protest grows
QUEUES are building up along Madeira Drive and Grand Parade as Smash EDO protesters block the pier roundabout.
Around 40 people are currently in the centre of the roundabout dancing.
A further 200 people have gathered near the entrance to Brighton Pier.
Cyclists are slowly pedalling along the seafront between the piers in a bid to further disrupt traffic.
Police are currently taking a hands-off approach and only intervening when vehicles become trapped on the aquarium roundabout.
12.00 - Cycling protesters halt traffic
Protesters have brought traffic to a standstill by riding continuously around the Palace Pier roundabout.
They left Brighton train station at about 11.10am.
Severe disruption is expected throughout the city as they head west towards the West Pier along the seafront.
11.50am Protesters heading to Brighton Pier
ANTI-ARMS and capitalism campaigners are heading for Brighton seafront for today's Mayday protest.
Protesters are expected to start congregating opposite Brighton Pier in the next hour.
There are about 50 to 60 cyclists heading from Brighton station towards the pier, and said they were intent on a peaceful protest.
Former Lewes councillor Marina Pepper cycled to Brighton train station from Saltdean for today's "street party".
She said: "I'm sure today will be a lovely tourist attraction." Asked whether criticism of the protesters was justified, she replied: "It's ridiculous.It's everybody's Bank Holiday and if people want to go to the garden centre they can go to the garden centre. "If people want to go to the beach they can but if people want to protest against the war machine then very much good for them."
11.30am Protesters start cycle ride around city
PROTESTERS on bicycles are starting to make their way onto the city centre streets.
Cyclists have just left Brighton train station on an secret route to disrupt traffic. There are about 40 to 50 cyclists on their way between the station and the city centre.
A protester who would only give his name as Tom, said: "I'm here today because people are dying everywhere as victims of the state and it's not right.
"I've travelled from Bristol today and there were a fair few of us on the train. "Hopefully it's going to be peaceful today. The police have been told to keep themselves in check."
11.15am Protesters gathering at Brighton station
PROTESTERS are beginning to gather at Brighton train station for today’s May Day protests.
One protester, Steven Sayer, 46, of Brighton said: “Of course today is going to be peaceful, we’ve got music, young people, it’s a carnival.
“I don’t want, on my conscience, in my town, equipment that has been used to kill children in Palestine.
“That’s not me saying something out of the air. That’s fact.”
The city is preparing for the biggest demonstration Brighton and Hove has ever seen with thousands expected to attend the Mayday march organised by peace campaign group Smash EDO.
The demonstrations are aimed at the Brighton-based defence manufacturer EDO MBM/ITT.
There are currently more police officers than demonstrators at the train station, including some riot officers on horseback.
Police teams started assuming positions around the city earlier this morning.
Sussex Police have set up a road block in Home Farm Road, blocking access to the site of the arms components factory which has been the focus of Smash EDO's activism.
8.25am Police prepare for protests
Police have begun preparing for a day of protest which threatens to bring Brighton's bank holiday to a standstill.
Smash EDO, the group organising the May Day demonstrations, has refused to co-operate with police or release details of the "Mass Street Party Against War and Greed" until just before the event begins.
Police units from across Sussex and the south east poured into Brighton and gathered at the Territorial Army centre in Dyke Road this morning.
About 40 vans were seen to arrive, some bearing the insignia of Thames Valley Police and Kent Police.
Dog units and police horses were seen as police gathered to plan their response to the day's protests.
Officers also stood guard in Home Farm Road, the site of the arms components factory EDO MBM Technology which has been the focus of Smash EDO's activism.
Demonstrations are expected to begin with a mass bicycle ride from Brighton railway station at 11am.
* For all the latest news from the demonstrations in Brighton visit www.theargus.co.uk throughout the day.
* Send us your pictures by emailing pix@theargus.co.uk or text them to 80360, starting your message with SUPIC.
* Let us know how you have been affected, or tell us your stories if you have taken part. Email news@theargus.co.uk. or add your comments to our coverage.
Comments(550)
TheInsider
says...
9:02am Mon 4 May 09
william of orange
says...
9:11am Mon 4 May 09
TheInsider wrote:
People of Brighton and Hove, carry on your business. Do not let out of towners ruin your hard earned holiday.
Osama bin there
says...
9:14am Mon 4 May 09
PETE OF QUEENS PARK
says...
9:20am Mon 4 May 09
steeleysmith
says...
9:22am Mon 4 May 09
Fercri Sakes
says...
9:37am Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
10:00am Mon 4 May 09
Fercri Sakes wrote:They don't make bombs, and the bombs used by the Israelis, USA, UK are not fired by EDO.
To Steeleysmith: I'm not going to be one of these protesters but it's bit ironic to talk about the peaceful Children's Parade when just down the road they are making waepon systems that will be blowing innocent kids up in other parts of the world. When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it. So next time you off-handedly judge these people as wasters just think if they are successful in achieving their goals that one day from now some child won't be pulling a shard of metal out of their parent's head with "Made In Brighton" written on it.
Tye
says...
10:07am Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:Well Done that man.
Fercri Sakes wrote: To Steeleysmith: I'm not going to be one of these protesters but it's bit ironic to talk about the peaceful Children's Parade when just down the road they are making waepon systems that will be blowing innocent kids up in other parts of the world. When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it. So next time you off-handedly judge these people as wasters just think if they are successful in achieving their goals that one day from now some child won't be pulling a shard of metal out of their parent's head with "Made In Brighton" written on it.They don't make bombs, and the bombs used by the Israelis, USA, UK are not fired by EDO. It's like attacking BMW because lots of people lose their lives in accidents as result of young people driving these cars. How many times do you people have to be told?
Tye
says...
10:11am Mon 4 May 09
steeleysmith
says...
10:14am Mon 4 May 09
Acheron
says...
10:16am Mon 4 May 09
steeleysmith
says...
10:23am Mon 4 May 09
S.T. Rewth
says...
10:23am Mon 4 May 09
S.T. Rewth
says...
10:23am Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
10:26am Mon 4 May 09
Tye wrote:I don't know why we don't use it. It's an easy way of dispersing a crowd without causing major injury.
My only other question is why oh why do British Police NOT use water cannon in the same way as the rest of Europe would a **** good wash infringe the uman rites of these scum - funny how we brits are about the only followers of this damned stupid EU regulation
Hugh Rinall
says...
10:31am Mon 4 May 09
TheInsider
says...
10:32am Mon 4 May 09
steeleysmith
says...
10:40am Mon 4 May 09
Fight Back
says...
10:44am Mon 4 May 09
auby
says...
10:47am Mon 4 May 09
Spx
says...
10:53am Mon 4 May 09
Fercri Sakes wrote:Classic!
To Steeleysmith: I'm not going to be one of these protesters but it's bit ironic to talk about the peaceful Children's Parade when just down the road they are making waepon systems that will be blowing innocent kids up in other parts of the world. When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it. So next time you off-handedly judge these people as wasters just think if they are successful in achieving their goals that one day from now some child won't be pulling a shard of metal out of their parent's head with "Made In Brighton" written on it.
Osama bin there
says...
10:57am Mon 4 May 09
auby wrote:I can't be bothered to go through it all again.
I do have a job thanks and so do many others that will be attending the protest...Also edo do make parts that ignite bombs.Does it matter which country are firing them? Surely this is wrong as many innocent people and children are affected.I suppose you all listen and believe what you are reading in the press.Dont you think that they tell you want they want you to know.Oh and i also shower daily thanks! Try some independent sources please..............
....................
.....
steeleysmith
says...
10:58am Mon 4 May 09
Fight Back
says...
11:03am Mon 4 May 09
auby wrote:The parts not ignite the bombs ( this isn't a cartoon - they don't strike a match ! ). The parts prevent accidental release - comething completely different.
I do have a job thanks and so do many others that will be attending the protest...Also edo do make parts that ignite bombs.Does it matter which country are firing them? Surely this is wrong as many innocent people and children are affected.I suppose you all listen and believe what you are reading in the press.Dont you think that they tell you want they want you to know.Oh and i also shower daily thanks! Try some independent sources please..............
....................
.....
AJPrince
says...
11:03am Mon 4 May 09
TheInsider
says...
11:05am Mon 4 May 09
Brunswicker
says...
11:16am Mon 4 May 09
Tye
says...
11:18am Mon 4 May 09
sugarhorse
says...
11:18am Mon 4 May 09
AJPrince wrote:You are right, they gave us the right to peaceful protest.
I think the right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech is one of the many things soldiers died for in the world wars to give us. I'm proud of people who bother to get off their backsides and try and make a difference, even if the cause at times may be misguided. I just hope the protestors have brought their cameras to keep an eye on how the police 'control' them.
Tye
says...
11:21am Mon 4 May 09
Brunswicker wrote:Community based?
I pay enough tax in one year to pay for the entire police for this protest. I employ over 30 people and yes I do wash. My business is community based and NOT making components to kill people. It is my perfect right to protest and so I will be there (just leaving now).
auby
says...
11:21am Mon 4 May 09
steeleysmith
says...
11:23am Mon 4 May 09
AJPrince wrote:I agree with freedom of speech and peaceful protest-let's just keep the objects of protest legitimate and peaceful
I think the right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech is one of the many things soldiers died for in the world wars to give us. I'm proud of people who bother to get off their backsides and try and make a difference, even if the cause at times may be misguided. I just hope the protestors have brought their cameras to keep an eye on how the police 'control' them.
steeleysmith
says...
11:31am Mon 4 May 09
Bennn
says...
11:32am Mon 4 May 09
Andy R
says...
11:40am Mon 4 May 09
TheInsider wrote:You've got a very romantic view of the Suffragettes. They used a variety of tactics, including smashing up property and physically attacking politicians. They did what they needed to do at various times. I suspect that, by the end of day, we'll be wondering what all the fuss was about today, though no doubt the Argus will be doing its best to turn any minor scuffle into a full-blown riot.
Suffragettes lobbied parliament and many of them were from the upper echelons of society so were able to engage with those with the power to effect change. They did not achieve their aim with violence. And what has a fast food burger chain have in common with EDO and banks? It's utterly bizarre and most people are utterly confused by this campaign. Did McD give away bomb making kits with every Happy Meal? It's all a bit of a disorganised mess.
steeleysmith
says...
11:42am Mon 4 May 09
paulbton
says...
11:45am Mon 4 May 09
Fercri Sakes wrote:"when just down the road they are making waepon systems that will be blowing innocent kids up in other parts of the world." is this what you think they do? make weapons to kill children ? you can spin anything to make it sound bad or the way you want it to. I myself think they help build weapons to protect or country and to help others YES I know innocent people and children get killed in wars, in some African countries they cut off the hands of children so they can't fight when they grow up, we still make knifes! Children have a better chance of surviving a car accident if the car is travelling at 30mph, but all cars are not limited to 30mph. War is evil but if we don't have the weapons to defend country who will ? You...
To Steeleysmith: I'm not going to be one of these protesters but it's bit ironic to talk about the peaceful Children's Parade when just down the road they are making waepon systems that will be blowing innocent kids up in other parts of the world.
When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it.
So next time you off-handedly judge these people as wasters just think if they are successful in achieving their goals that one day from now some child won't be pulling a shard of metal out of their parent's head with "Made In Brighton" written on it.
Acheron
says...
11:59am Mon 4 May 09
william of orange
says...
12:00pm Mon 4 May 09
BN1
says...
12:02pm Mon 4 May 09
Number Cruncher
says...
12:14pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
12:25pm Mon 4 May 09
BN1
says...
12:25pm Mon 4 May 09
brightongirl1
says...
12:31pm Mon 4 May 09
BN1
says...
12:35pm Mon 4 May 09
getreal1
says...
1:05pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:Osama - those moments were priceless and I never spoke to anyone who thought that these people had had their rights infringed .... just as I doubt I'd speak to anyone who would oppose the use of water cannon save for those who are afraid of it being used against them.
Tye wrote: My only other question is why oh why do British Police NOT use water cannon in the same way as the rest of Europe would a **** good wash infringe the uman rites of these scum - funny how we brits are about the only followers of this damned stupid EU regulationI don't know why we don't use it. It's an easy way of dispersing a crowd without causing major injury. I'll never forget the tv pictures of the Belgian police using water cannon against english football hooligans, after they had done their best to wreck a beautiful medieval town centre. The look of pure bewilderment on some fat, lagered up skinhead as he was swept across a plaza on his ar5e by the water cannon was a joy to behold.. And then the big babies accused the belgian police of overreacting! Yep - bring on the water cannon!
getreal1
says...
1:06pm Mon 4 May 09
getreal1 wrote:spoken - sorry
Osama bin there wrote:Osama - those moments were priceless and I never spoke to anyone who thought that these people had had their rights infringed .... just as I doubt I'd speak to anyone who would oppose the use of water cannon save for those who are afraid of it being used against them.Tye wrote: My only other question is why oh why do British Police NOT use water cannon in the same way as the rest of Europe would a **** good wash infringe the uman rites of these scum - funny how we brits are about the only followers of this damned stupid EU regulationI don't know why we don't use it. It's an easy way of dispersing a crowd without causing major injury. I'll never forget the tv pictures of the Belgian police using water cannon against english football hooligans, after they had done their best to wreck a beautiful medieval town centre. The look of pure bewilderment on some fat, lagered up skinhead as he was swept across a plaza on his ar5e by the water cannon was a joy to behold.. And then the big babies accused the belgian police of overreacting! Yep - bring on the water cannon!
Osama bin there
says...
1:06pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
1:08pm Mon 4 May 09
AJPrince
says...
1:12pm Mon 4 May 09
sugarhorse wrote:Indeed, unfortunately you'll often get some protestors getting violent, rather like some police do. Still, it's good to see that not all Brighton residents are content to just contemplate their lattes and plasmas TVs but actually stand up for something.
AJPrince wrote:You are right, they gave us the right to peaceful protest.
I think the right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech is one of the many things soldiers died for in the world wars to give us. I'm proud of people who bother to get off their backsides and try and make a difference, even if the cause at times may be misguided. I just hope the protestors have brought their cameras to keep an eye on how the police 'control' them.
The key word there is peaceful.
These demonstrations are not peaceful at all. Every time they include damage, humiliation, violence and then these buffoons wonder why they are met with force.
Hopefully the police will be able to push them all up the A23 and let me carry on with what I needed to do today, but now can't.
Tye
says...
1:15pm Mon 4 May 09
Number Cruncher wrote:but "smash EDO" ?
They have just passed our office in the Old Steine, must have lost a few on their way. Only 10 or so cyclists ringing their bells - hardly a threat to civilisation!
Tye
says...
1:15pm Mon 4 May 09
Number Cruncher wrote:but "smash EDO" ?
They have just passed our office in the Old Steine, must have lost a few on their way. Only 10 or so cyclists ringing their bells - hardly a threat to civilisation!
fergus96
says...
1:18pm Mon 4 May 09
Lawson-land
says...
1:19pm Mon 4 May 09
Llort
says...
1:21pm Mon 4 May 09
wongy
says...
1:22pm Mon 4 May 09
Jo Wadsworth
says...
1:31pm Mon 4 May 09
Lawson-land wrote:Our photographers are right in the thick of it at the moment. However, we're hoping to get lots through in about half an hour, and then I'll be setting up a gallery to post them all to.
Can we have some more photos Argus please!
BN1
says...
1:32pm Mon 4 May 09
AJPrince
says...
1:32pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:The protest is also targeting greed and capitalism apparently, which means banks such as RBS - the organisations who have kindly assisted the government in bringing about the recession.
And what the flip do the Royal Bank of Scotland have to do with EDO?
I'd love one you protest supporters to explain that one.
Tye
says...
1:33pm Mon 4 May 09
Llort wrote:You want anger or confrontation - just look at how Mugabe or China deals with its dissenters - now THEY are Police States but just because the UK cops don't bend over backwards to help them ......
Some of the comments above make me ashamed to be from B&H. The Argus comments have become dominated by a small group of aggressively minded thugs, whom I presume are just excited to have a platform, when I imagine in real life, away from their computers, they struggle to find an audience. Disperse them with water cannons? Scroungers? Unwashed? Give em a bashing? Those views are a couple of decades out of date. Thankfully, some people out there are still prepared to switch off their computers, go outside and declare what they are for or against. That takes sacrifice and guts. Mayday has long been a day of celebration, solidarity with the downtrodden, and the rights of humanity. Today's events are perfectly in keeping with that, not easy in the face of apathy and those such as the government, the police and clearly some of the minority represented by the regular posters above, who wish to deny those rights. These protesters are part of the rich cultural tapestry of this city, alongside the pier amusements, the art of the Brighton Festival, the music scene and so on. They are not contrary to it.
correction man
says...
1:39pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
1:42pm Mon 4 May 09
AJPrince wrote:Well they are attacking the wrong target.
Osama bin there wrote:The protest is also targeting greed and capitalism apparently, which means banks such as RBS - the organisations who have kindly assisted the government in bringing about the recession.
And what the flip do the Royal Bank of Scotland have to do with EDO?
I'd love one you protest supporters to explain that one.
Dave At Home
says...
1:47pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:There is only one water cannon in the UK and that is located in Northern Ireland, it has only been brought over to the mainland once for the G8 summit.
Tye wrote:I don't know why we don't use it. It's an easy way of dispersing a crowd without causing major injury.
My only other question is why oh why do British Police NOT use water cannon in the same way as the rest of Europe would a **** good wash infringe the uman rites of these scum - funny how we brits are about the only followers of this damned stupid EU regulation
I'll never forget the tv pictures of the Belgian police using water cannon against english football hooligans, after they had done their best to wreck a beautiful medieval town centre.
The look of pure bewilderment on some fat, lagered up skinhead as he was swept across a plaza on his ar5e by the water cannon was a joy to behold..
And then the big babies accused the belgian police of overreacting!
Yep - bring on the water cannon!
Acheron
says...
1:51pm Mon 4 May 09
Jo Wadsworth
says...
1:51pm Mon 4 May 09
correction man wrote:Thanks correction man, I've now made the change. Please bear with us, and carry on pointing out errors - the nature of a live blog means the odd mistake will creep through, and we really appreciate your help with this.
think your reporter may be lost, no Queen Street in Brighton
steeleysmith
says...
1:55pm Mon 4 May 09
BN1
says...
1:55pm Mon 4 May 09
Acheron
says...
1:59pm Mon 4 May 09
Lil
says...
1:59pm Mon 4 May 09
sugarhorse
says...
2:02pm Mon 4 May 09
BN1 wrote:I guess we are....as well as paying for the damage that these idiots have caused to be put right.
It's just wall to wall police sirens up here - who's paying for all this policing?
Dave At Home
says...
2:02pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
2:04pm Mon 4 May 09
fergus96
says...
2:06pm Mon 4 May 09
Jo Wadsworth
says...
2:07pm Mon 4 May 09
Acheron wrote:There's no Twitter link as such, I've just found a few people who are tweeting live from the scene and are following what they say, and posting it here if it's more than what we have. But we have to be a bit careful, as we want information verified before including it here.
Jo (web editor). Can you post the twitter link so we can follow on that as well (or is it just the same as whats appearing here). Thanks, had a quick look and couldn't find it.
Lil
says...
2:08pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
2:14pm Mon 4 May 09
Lil wrote:You're along way away in Worthing, unfortunately I'm quite close and can hear in all kicking off.
I can imagine it now...
Reporter Peter O'Hanra-Hanrahan reports that at least 66 billion residents of the UK have descended into Brighton for a peaceful protest which is currently passing off peacefully.
Peter you've lost the news!
Hohum. Still let's not let a little bit of jumped up hysteria, over-reporting, undue limelight and media enduced frenzy get in the way of the facts...
Lollercopter
says...
2:15pm Mon 4 May 09
BN1
says...
2:16pm Mon 4 May 09
steeleysmith
says...
2:19pm Mon 4 May 09
Lil
says...
2:35pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:I'm over at a friends house in Brighton (Carden Ave area) at the moment, although appreciably not that near the central area, I've heard the odd siren but not loads.
Lil wrote:You're along way away in Worthing, unfortunately I'm quite close and can hear in all kicking off.
I can imagine it now...
Reporter Peter O'Hanra-Hanrahan reports that at least 66 billion residents of the UK have descended into Brighton for a peaceful protest which is currently passing off peacefully.
Peter you've lost the news!
Hohum. Still let's not let a little bit of jumped up hysteria, over-reporting, undue limelight and media enduced frenzy get in the way of the facts...
There is a mini riot going on whether you want to believe it or not.
Abrightonian
says...
2:36pm Mon 4 May 09
Acheron
says...
2:38pm Mon 4 May 09
Acheron
says...
2:40pm Mon 4 May 09
The God Of Love
says...
2:40pm Mon 4 May 09
On_the_Level
says...
2:42pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
2:45pm Mon 4 May 09
Lil wrote:I kind of agree with you to a certain extent, that very often in the Argus stuff is reported that without the oxygen of publicity wouldn't actually be much of a story.
Osama bin there wrote:I'm over at a friends house in Brighton (Carden Ave area) at the moment, although appreciably not that near the central area, I've heard the odd siren but not loads.
Lil wrote:You're along way away in Worthing, unfortunately I'm quite close and can hear in all kicking off.
I can imagine it now...
Reporter Peter O'Hanra-Hanrahan reports that at least 66 billion residents of the UK have descended into Brighton for a peaceful protest which is currently passing off peacefully.
Peter you've lost the news!
Hohum. Still let's not let a little bit of jumped up hysteria, over-reporting, undue limelight and media enduced frenzy get in the way of the facts...
There is a mini riot going on whether you want to believe it or not.
Maybe I was a bit too sarcastic but I do feel that too much media coverage on such a protest could glorify it for the next time, and the next time...
Sorry if I offended, but I didn't really word my response that well.
Number Six
says...
2:47pm Mon 4 May 09
TheInsider
says...
2:58pm Mon 4 May 09
Acheron
says...
2:58pm Mon 4 May 09
Lawson-land
says...
3:03pm Mon 4 May 09
Jo Wadsworth wrote:Thanks Jo and the Argus reporters.
Lawson-land wrote:Our photographers are right in the thick of it at the moment. However, we're hoping to get lots through in about half an hour, and then I'll be setting up a gallery to post them all to.
Can we have some more photos Argus please!
Acheron
says...
3:06pm Mon 4 May 09
Mel Shock
says...
3:09pm Mon 4 May 09
Acheron
says...
3:13pm Mon 4 May 09
Number Six
says...
3:18pm Mon 4 May 09
Acheron wrote:Oh no! I've got shares in Barclays. Does that mean that rent-a-mob will be coming round here?
News in - Apparently McD is a target because they own shares in EDO! My dad used to own shares in Marconi, wonder if he's a target!
TheInsider
says...
3:18pm Mon 4 May 09
Mel Shock
says...
3:19pm Mon 4 May 09
Acheron
says...
3:27pm Mon 4 May 09
ctkirk
says...
3:28pm Mon 4 May 09
TheInsider
says...
3:33pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
3:39pm Mon 4 May 09
Number Six
says...
3:42pm Mon 4 May 09
BN1
says...
3:43pm Mon 4 May 09
Acheron
says...
3:46pm Mon 4 May 09
ipaymytaxes
says...
3:48pm Mon 4 May 09
Fight Back
says...
3:49pm Mon 4 May 09
Brightongal86
says...
3:50pm Mon 4 May 09
BN1 wrote:I agree its all about the disruption. The more they are disruptive the more they think they are getting the point across!!!!
It was a massive success. There was disruption, chaos and they all got to have another pop at the old bill - let's face it - that's all these "protesters" are interested in doing.
brightongal2009
says...
3:51pm Mon 4 May 09
kabsolution
says...
3:52pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
3:53pm Mon 4 May 09
Brightongal86 wrote:Indeed.. and no doubt we;ll only see one side of the story..
BN1 wrote:I agree its all about the disruption. The more they are disruptive the more they think they are getting the point across!!!!
It was a massive success. There was disruption, chaos and they all got to have another pop at the old bill - let's face it - that's all these "protesters" are interested in doing.
jay316
says...
3:55pm Mon 4 May 09
kabsolution wrote:because its not them that have to pay for the damage to be repaired...
Why can't they be less destructive, pool their resources and be proactiven and leave our city alone?!
Brightongal86
says...
3:55pm Mon 4 May 09
kabsolution wrote:Because that would be the peaceful way to do it.
Why can't they be less destructive, pool their resources and be proactiven and leave our city alone?!
Brigadier Monty
says...
3:56pm Mon 4 May 09
Wont be druv
says...
3:56pm Mon 4 May 09
BN1
says...
3:56pm Mon 4 May 09
SeanCh
says...
3:56pm Mon 4 May 09
brightongal2009
says...
3:58pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
4:02pm Mon 4 May 09
brightongal2009 wrote:Why work, when the country will give you hand outs..
go home and find a constructive job to do!
gerardgraphics
says...
4:04pm Mon 4 May 09
ipaymytaxes
says...
4:05pm Mon 4 May 09
sabbat36
says...
4:05pm Mon 4 May 09
Brightongal86
says...
4:05pm Mon 4 May 09
green-griffin
says...
4:06pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
4:07pm Mon 4 May 09
ipaymytaxes wrote:They have no respect..
My heart goes out to the residents of Brighton and the innocent protesters and police who will get caught up in this. It will be front page news when some violent tree hugger falls over and claims compensation and brutality. Do people honestly think that this sort of protest does the cause any favours? Decent people do not behave in this way; they should be ashamed.
SeanCh
says...
4:07pm Mon 4 May 09
gerardgraphics wrote:You can say that, but when someone hits you with a bin, or throws a brick into your face your not just going to sit by let it go are you, think about what you say before making yourself look like an idiot, the protestors are lucky the police are restrained so much, because if you treated a normal group of people like that your likely to get you head kicked in. (not me trying to be threatening or violent, its just what would happen)
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
brightongal2009
says...
4:08pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
4:10pm Mon 4 May 09
gerardgraphics wrote:Sit by your barbecues?
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
AJPrince
says...
4:10pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316 wrote:Yes I'm sure that out of 2,000 people not one of them pays taxes or council tax :) And yes the police don't carry guns thankfully, you wouldn't give a box of matches to a pyromanic would you.
kabsolution wrote:because its not them that have to pay for the damage to be repaired...
Why can't they be less destructive, pool their resources and be proactiven and leave our city alone?!
I think the police should take the same stance as in China...
The protestors are just **** lucky we don't allow our police to carry guns.
jay316
says...
4:11pm Mon 4 May 09
SeanCh wrote:or spat in the face.. which is the worse of the worse..
gerardgraphics wrote:You can say that, but when someone hits you with a bin, or throws a brick into your face your not just going to sit by let it go are you, think about what you say before making yourself look like an idiot, the protestors are lucky the police are restrained so much, because if you treated a normal group of people like that your likely to get you head kicked in. (not me trying to be threatening or violent, its just what would happen)
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
Lil
says...
4:11pm Mon 4 May 09
sandy1304
says...
4:13pm Mon 4 May 09
SeanCh
says...
4:14pm Mon 4 May 09
gerardgraphics wrote:I Think some of the protestors are already out moulscoomb way, at the bottom of the road that leads upto the EDO factory, can hear their drums etc... might go take a look
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
Brightongal86
says...
4:14pm Mon 4 May 09
brightongal2009 wrote:Correction handouts are for alcoholics, druggies, people who are not born in this country and lazy people. Even if you are pregnant or married you get nothing!
unlike sum i appreciate the fact that i made that money throught my own sweat and blood. i dont live on handouts because that means im usless...almost homeless??? i am homeless and have been for years...living in friends and now with boyfiends family and contributing to the household! i went to the council once but apparently u gotta be pregnant, married or a complete drug or alcahol addict to be eligable for handouts. says alot doesnt it. im just glad i can run my car and have decent cloathes on my back like i should, i work for it. i choose not to be the sufferer who resorts to drugs, alcahol and handouts. hail to the hard workers!
DWho
says...
4:14pm Mon 4 May 09
gerardgraphics wrote:and what you're doing is *so* much more worthwhile, obviously...
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
BN1
says...
4:15pm Mon 4 May 09
gerardgraphics wrote:Rik from The Young Ones?
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
jay316
says...
4:18pm Mon 4 May 09
SeanCh wrote:Yes they are... already there....
gerardgraphics wrote:I Think some of the protestors are already out moulscoomb way, at the bottom of the road that leads upto the EDO factory, can hear their drums etc... might go take a look
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
SeanCh
says...
4:21pm Mon 4 May 09
gerardgraphics wrote:Well that rules me taking my dogs out for a walk until they've gone, any idea how many are out this way?
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
mish25
says...
4:22pm Mon 4 May 09
Lil wrote:then they can go and prtest to the person that threw the missile the people that made it and imn a town that sells it just for fits and giggles. what gets me is that there are small children in the protest witnessing all of it how are these children going to grow up?
So what if one of these protesters lobs a missile, it hits an innocent child and leaves them in hospital, wounded or worse? Is that OK?
churchst
says...
4:22pm Mon 4 May 09
donitababy
says...
4:22pm Mon 4 May 09
brightongal2009
says...
4:24pm Mon 4 May 09
gerardgraphics
says...
4:25pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
4:26pm Mon 4 May 09
donitababy wrote:Yep... only to be expected.. whole protest was a sham coz of these few idiots.. just makes people hate this cause more.
i would just like to say i don't agree with the protest getting voilent i really enjoyed watching the parade and thought there was a great buzz about it its just a shame some had to spoil it for others there message was a good one there shouldnt be that factory in brighton its wrong
once again its a shame a small minority of people have spoiled that message getting accross by acting in a voilent way
ipaymytaxes
says...
4:26pm Mon 4 May 09
gerardgraphics wrote:WHAT?! I hope that you do not pardon the behaviour demmonstrated by thugs who claim to have a cause? I sincerely hope that nobody you know is injured. Im not having a BBQ, do not have a fat belly and if I was throwing missiles towards a crowd of children I would expect to be hit with a truncheon.
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
BN1
says...
4:27pm Mon 4 May 09
Brightongal86
says...
4:29pm Mon 4 May 09
Lil
says...
4:29pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
4:29pm Mon 4 May 09
ipaymytaxes wrote:or tazer'd.
gerardgraphics wrote:WHAT?! I hope that you do not pardon the behaviour demmonstrated by thugs who claim to have a cause? I sincerely hope that nobody you know is injured. Im not having a BBQ, do not have a fat belly and if I was throwing missiles towards a crowd of children I would expect to be hit with a truncheon.
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
brightongal2009
says...
4:32pm Mon 4 May 09
Bryan taxi driver
says...
4:32pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
4:32pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:I'll say it just one more time. IT'S NOT AN ARMS FACTORY.
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong.
It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not.
There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps?
Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
donitababy
says...
4:32pm Mon 4 May 09
Tye
says...
4:32pm Mon 4 May 09
Dave At Home wrote:How could you be so cruel about the poor dogs ?
Osama bin there wrote:There is only one water cannon in the UK and that is located in Northern Ireland, it has only been brought over to the mainland once for the G8 summit. Maybe we could let some police dogs loose on them and come back a few hours later and see what is left.Tye wrote: My only other question is why oh why do British Police NOT use water cannon in the same way as the rest of Europe would a **** good wash infringe the uman rites of these scum - funny how we brits are about the only followers of this damned stupid EU regulationI don't know why we don't use it. It's an easy way of dispersing a crowd without causing major injury. I'll never forget the tv pictures of the Belgian police using water cannon against english football hooligans, after they had done their best to wreck a beautiful medieval town centre. The look of pure bewilderment on some fat, lagered up skinhead as he was swept across a plaza on his ar5e by the water cannon was a joy to behold.. And then the big babies accused the belgian police of overreacting! Yep - bring on the water cannon!
jay316
says...
4:35pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:As its already been stated.. most of those protesting probably don't know why they are there... Just out to force more businesses to close.. but they don't care as they get all their money given to them.
churchst wrote:I'll say it just one more time. IT'S NOT AN ARMS FACTORY.
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong.
It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not.
There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps?
Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
You lot are so indoctrinated, you don't seem to be able to think for yourselves.
An if EDO are the 'real issue' why have the protesters spent the whole of the afternoon disrupting and fighting with police in other parts of the town, and attacking totally unconnected businesses?
No. You can't have it both ways. As usual, logic is not the strong point in any Smash EDO argument.
ipaymytaxes
says...
4:37pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:Yes, the issue is the arms factory and people are well within their rights to stand up for what they belive - I do not think anybody is doubting that. The real problem is the fact that many protestors are using violence, chaos and the harm of innocent people to try and get a message across. It would appear that many of THESE campaigners are not decent, hard working and respectful people. You cannot prove people wrong if they are intent on causing trouble.
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong. It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not. There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps? Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
waynegee
says...
4:41pm Mon 4 May 09
tomBarnabyRules
says...
4:44pm Mon 4 May 09
sabbat36
says...
4:44pm Mon 4 May 09
sabbat36
says...
4:47pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst
says...
4:50pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:Ok... it's not an arms factory perse... what to call it then. 'Missile release component Factory' - the basis of arguments here seems to be that the protesters don't really need or have a cause, they just want to cause chaos for the sake of it?
churchst wrote:I'll say it just one more time. IT'S NOT AN ARMS FACTORY.
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong.
It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not.
There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps?
Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
You lot are so indoctrinated, you don't seem to be able to think for yourselves.
An if EDO are the 'real issue' why have the protesters spent the whole of the afternoon disrupting and fighting with police in other parts of the town, and attacking totally unconnected businesses?
No. You can't have it both ways. As usual, logic is not the strong point in any Smash EDO argument.
steveP2009
says...
4:51pm Mon 4 May 09
ipaymytaxes wrote:"Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!"
churchst wrote:Yes, the issue is the arms factory and people are well within their rights to stand up for what they belive - I do not think anybody is doubting that. The real problem is the fact that many protestors are using violence, chaos and the harm of innocent people to try and get a message across. It would appear that many of THESE campaigners are not decent, hard working and respectful people. You cannot prove people wrong if they are intent on causing trouble.
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong. It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not. There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps? Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
Psychic-S
says...
4:52pm Mon 4 May 09
ipaymytaxes
says...
4:53pm Mon 4 May 09
waynegee wrote:Granted there are a few police who will over step the mark and let the profession down but most reported cases of police brutality are biased and portray criminals as innocent victims. The police are in Brighton to protect the innocent people who always get caught up in this sort of demonstration. I would like to know how the families of injured bystanders and police react when they are hurt -Oh I forgot...front page news is only ever about the human rights of trouble makers. I would never condone excessive police force but gently asking armed protesters to move along whilst playing classical music is also not going to work. If people are determined to cause trouble then they need to deal with the consequences.
The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
steveP2009
says...
4:53pm Mon 4 May 09
TheInsider
says...
4:53pm Mon 4 May 09
princecharles
says...
4:54pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
4:55pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
4:57pm Mon 4 May 09
princecharles wrote:Twitter read by morons also...
The Argus: written by idiots; read by idiots.
Abrightonian
says...
4:57pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
4:58pm Mon 4 May 09
princecharles wrote:Sorry forgot to say .. so why are you on their website.. if are basically say your and idiot yourself :)
The Argus: written by idiots; read by idiots.
sabbat36
says...
4:58pm Mon 4 May 09
SurgicalMask
says...
5:00pm Mon 4 May 09
DWho
says...
5:01pm Mon 4 May 09
waynegee wrote:Well, frankly, the " active protesters" (aka yobs with no idea of how to conduct themselves in a public place) would shout that, wouldn't they - precisely to try and get their whinging little voices heard...
The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
jay316
says...
5:04pm Mon 4 May 09
DWho wrote:why are they down by the pier. oh the pier make weapons my bad.
waynegee wrote:Well, frankly, the " active protesters" (aka yobs with no idea of how to conduct themselves in a public place) would shout that, wouldn't they - precisely to try and get their whinging little voices heard...
The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
Jo Wadsworth
says...
5:06pm Mon 4 May 09
waynegee wrote:Wayne, you make a very important point there. I've not included some of the more contentious tweets lasthours is making, because we do have a duty to make sure serious allegations like that are confirmed before reporting them. We cannot prove what he is saying, and so could not defend ourselves against any libel actions. However, we do of course intend following up any allegations once the protest is over.
The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
jay316
says...
5:10pm Mon 4 May 09
Jo Wadsworth wrote:It odd that there is live tv or radio reports.. and we are only getting tweets from a protestor..
waynegee wrote:Wayne, you make a very important point there. I've not included some of the more contentious tweets lasthours is making, because we do have a duty to make sure serious allegations like that are confirmed before reporting them. We cannot prove what he is saying, and so could not defend ourselves against any libel actions. However, we do of course intend following up any allegations once the protest is over.
The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
bugmenot
says...
5:11pm Mon 4 May 09
TheInsider
says...
5:11pm Mon 4 May 09
Tye
says...
5:16pm Mon 4 May 09
waynegee wrote:tw4t and a liar
The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
ipaymytaxes
says...
5:16pm Mon 4 May 09
bugmenot wrote:I repeat my earlier post
I say good for SmashEDO. Let's face it, there is no 'good' or 'appropriate' time to protest. You're always going to cause some kind of problems, so you may as well go for the busiest day and get your point across. The police have been violent for too long, they need to know their place. See: g20 protest. People here claim it was stupid to wander into a protest, that may be so but considering he posed no threat, there is no reason he should have been struck down like that. Police are there for the safety of others and themselves. Not to attack bystanders.
brightongal2009
says...
5:16pm Mon 4 May 09
Jo Wadsworth
says...
5:19pm Mon 4 May 09
TheInsider wrote:I obviously can't comment on your last point. But we've three reporters and two photographers on the scene, but even if we had 30 reporters and 20 photographers, we would still include third-party sources. The strongest lines from the G20 protest came from citizen journalists - albeit with the help of mainstream media (The Guardian and Channel 4 News) to get to the widest audience.
Perhaps if The Argus had its whole news and photo team on the scene we could trust the reporting and you would not have to use reports from unverified sources. Perhaps Newsquest should not have axed so many of its staff.
Tye
says...
5:20pm Mon 4 May 09
princecharles wrote:I guess you've just commented without listening tomthe argumwnt- well done
The Argus: written by idiots; read by idiots.
jay316
says...
5:20pm Mon 4 May 09
ipaymytaxes wrote:As is the case in any profession, be it police, security, stewards, armed forces. There are always the bad apples.. But until you get both sides of the story we can only go on what we are told.
bugmenot wrote:I repeat my earlier post
I say good for SmashEDO. Let's face it, there is no 'good' or 'appropriate' time to protest. You're always going to cause some kind of problems, so you may as well go for the busiest day and get your point across. The police have been violent for too long, they need to know their place. See: g20 protest. People here claim it was stupid to wander into a protest, that may be so but considering he posed no threat, there is no reason he should have been struck down like that. Police are there for the safety of others and themselves. Not to attack bystanders.
'Granted there are a few police who will over step the mark and let the profession down but most reported cases of police brutality are biased and portray criminals as innocent victims. The police are in Brighton to protect the innocent people who always get caught up in this sort of demonstration. I would like to know how the families of injured bystanders and police react when they are hurt -Oh I forgot...front page news is only ever about the human rights of trouble makers. I would never condone excessive police force but gently asking armed protesters to move along whilst playing classical music is also not going to work. If people are determined to cause trouble then they need to deal with the consequences'
bugmenot
says...
5:21pm Mon 4 May 09
ipaymytaxes wrote:By your logic, innocent bystanders that are caught up are also trouble makers that the media likes to make human rights stories about.
bugmenot wrote:I repeat my earlier post
I say good for SmashEDO. Let's face it, there is no 'good' or 'appropriate' time to protest. You're always going to cause some kind of problems, so you may as well go for the busiest day and get your point across. The police have been violent for too long, they need to know their place. See: g20 protest. People here claim it was stupid to wander into a protest, that may be so but considering he posed no threat, there is no reason he should have been struck down like that. Police are there for the safety of others and themselves. Not to attack bystanders.
'Granted there are a few police who will over step the mark and let the profession down but most reported cases of police brutality are biased and portray criminals as innocent victims. The police are in Brighton to protect the innocent people who always get caught up in this sort of demonstration. I would like to know how the families of injured bystanders and police react when they are hurt -Oh I forgot...front page news is only ever about the human rights of trouble makers. I would never condone excessive police force but gently asking armed protesters to move along whilst playing classical music is also not going to work. If people are determined to cause trouble then they need to deal with the consequences'
drewboy30
says...
5:24pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:The problem is that these protestors are exactly like that. They present as dirty and unwashed weirdos.
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong. It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not. There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps? Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
bugmenot
says...
5:29pm Mon 4 May 09
drewboy30 wrote:How do you know they are unwashed? Did you go up and ask them? No. Back up your arguments with valid, proven points and don't try and spread hatred around. Just because they do not fit your mold of society does not mean they are unwashed or otherwise dirty.
churchst wrote:The problem is that these protestors are exactly like that. They present as dirty and unwashed weirdos.
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong. It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not. There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps? Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
I am glad that the arms factory is here in brighton. If it was not here providing work for people in the city it would in another town or city doing the same. Therefore I do not see the issue that needs resolving.
In an ideal world we would have no need of arms and therefore no need of this sort of protest.
Unfortunately,that is a dream that will never see the light of day. To think otherwise is to be living in cloud cuckhoo land !!
sabbat36
says...
5:30pm Mon 4 May 09
ipaymytaxes
says...
5:31pm Mon 4 May 09
bugmenot wrote:Badly interpreted on your part.
ipaymytaxes wrote:By your logic, innocent bystanders that are caught up are also trouble makers that the media likes to make human rights stories about. ...Wait what? tl;dr: lern2arguementbugmenot wrote: I say good for SmashEDO. Let's face it, there is no 'good' or 'appropriate' time to protest. You're always going to cause some kind of problems, so you may as well go for the busiest day and get your point across. The police have been violent for too long, they need to know their place. See: g20 protest. People here claim it was stupid to wander into a protest, that may be so but considering he posed no threat, there is no reason he should have been struck down like that. Police are there for the safety of others and themselves. Not to attack bystanders.I repeat my earlier post 'Granted there are a few police who will over step the mark and let the profession down but most reported cases of police brutality are biased and portray criminals as innocent victims. The police are in Brighton to protect the innocent people who always get caught up in this sort of demonstration. I would like to know how the families of injured bystanders and police react when they are hurt -Oh I forgot...front page news is only ever about the human rights of trouble makers. I would never condone excessive police force but gently asking armed protesters to move along whilst playing classical music is also not going to work. If people are determined to cause trouble then they need to deal with the consequences'
steveP2009
says...
5:33pm Mon 4 May 09
Spx
says...
5:34pm Mon 4 May 09
bugmenot
says...
5:34pm Mon 4 May 09
ipaymytaxes wrote:Bad interpretation is a two way street, and seeing as I can read perfectly, there must be a problem with your writing. Maybe you should try making your point clear before rushing into a debate, spouting mindless comments left right and centre.
bugmenot wrote:Badly interpreted on your part.
ipaymytaxes wrote:By your logic, innocent bystanders that are caught up are also trouble makers that the media likes to make human rights stories about. ...Wait what? tl;dr: lern2arguementbugmenot wrote: I say good for SmashEDO. Let's face it, there is no 'good' or 'appropriate' time to protest. You're always going to cause some kind of problems, so you may as well go for the busiest day and get your point across. The police have been violent for too long, they need to know their place. See: g20 protest. People here claim it was stupid to wander into a protest, that may be so but considering he posed no threat, there is no reason he should have been struck down like that. Police are there for the safety of others and themselves. Not to attack bystanders.I repeat my earlier post 'Granted there are a few police who will over step the mark and let the profession down but most reported cases of police brutality are biased and portray criminals as innocent victims. The police are in Brighton to protect the innocent people who always get caught up in this sort of demonstration. I would like to know how the families of injured bystanders and police react when they are hurt -Oh I forgot...front page news is only ever about the human rights of trouble makers. I would never condone excessive police force but gently asking armed protesters to move along whilst playing classical music is also not going to work. If people are determined to cause trouble then they need to deal with the consequences'
SimonS
says...
5:34pm Mon 4 May 09
waynegee
says...
5:38pm Mon 4 May 09
Jo Wadsworth wrote:I can appreciate that, but you do report allegations of violence from protesters, sourced from lasthours. All readers will be grateful that you will be following up allegations after the protests. Information about the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests emerged after the the protest, for example.
waynegee wrote:Wayne, you make a very important point there. I've not included some of the more contentious tweets lasthours is making, because we do have a duty to make sure serious allegations like that are confirmed before reporting them. We cannot prove what he is saying, and so could not defend ourselves against any libel actions. However, we do of course intend following up any allegations once the protest is over.
The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
churchst
says...
5:39pm Mon 4 May 09
drewboy30 wrote:Picking on a sub-group of the protesters to define all the protesters present in Brighton today is short sighted. There were parents, children, pensioners as well as the'unwashed' types.
churchst wrote:The problem is that these protestors are exactly like that. They present as dirty and unwashed weirdos.
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong. It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not. There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps? Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
I am glad that the arms factory is here in brighton. If it was not here providing work for people in the city it would in another town or city doing the same. Therefore I do not see the issue that needs resolving.
In an ideal world we would have no need of arms and therefore no need of this sort of protest.
Unfortunately,that is a dream that will never see the light of day. To think otherwise is to be living in cloud cuckhoo land !!
bugmenot
says...
5:39pm Mon 4 May 09
steveP2009 wrote:Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods.
An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
Bennn
says...
5:40pm Mon 4 May 09
Jim BB
says...
5:42pm Mon 4 May 09
steveP2009
says...
5:44pm Mon 4 May 09
bugmenot wrote:my point is if they don't want weapons because they're dangerous and harm people, maybe they shouldn't be playing with dangerous objects in the middle of a crowd, patronising but true
steveP2009 wrote:Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods.
An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
steveP2009
says...
5:46pm Mon 4 May 09
Jim BB wrote:that was exactly my point referring to what i wrote earlier
These so-called protesters are so concerned about people and the environment - then why aren't they recycling their bottles and cans instead of using them as weapons?
Am I the only person to feel that anti-war protesters and their use of weapons don't quite tally?
dazv88
says...
5:50pm Mon 4 May 09
bugmenot
says...
5:53pm Mon 4 May 09
steveP2009 wrote:A flare is a simple piece of pyrotechnics equipment. It is not different from a firework or a sparkler, just light and noise. How many people do you see letting children as young as 3 hold sparklers?
bugmenot wrote:my point is if they don't want weapons because they're dangerous and harm people, maybe they shouldn't be playing with dangerous objects in the middle of a crowd, patronising but true
steveP2009 wrote:Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods.
An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
Tye
says...
5:54pm Mon 4 May 09
SimonS
says...
5:54pm Mon 4 May 09
steveP2009
says...
5:56pm Mon 4 May 09
bugmenot wrote:can't you just take the concept of the paragraph instead of just the flare. figure of speaking is what it is.
steveP2009 wrote:A flare is a simple piece of pyrotechnics equipment. It is not different from a firework or a sparkler, just light and noise. How many people do you see letting children as young as 3 hold sparklers?
bugmenot wrote:my point is if they don't want weapons because they're dangerous and harm people, maybe they shouldn't be playing with dangerous objects in the middle of a crowd, patronising but true
steveP2009 wrote:Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods.
An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
bugmenot
says...
5:56pm Mon 4 May 09
dazv88 wrote:Yeah mate!!!! lets all go and watch the footy with a pint of stella and shout at foreigners!!!
Throwing bottles, bricks, setting off flares what a peacefull protest. Can not wait for these vagrant anarchists to leave, have a bath, hair cut and a shave !!!
drewboy30
says...
5:56pm Mon 4 May 09
ipaymytaxes wrote:Indeed and a case in point was the BBC coverage of a Police officer in London being seriously injured trying to arrest a Burglar. This was just prior to the G20 problems. He got about half a day on the front page. Thereafter the alleged actions of other officers at the G20 continued unabated for days and weeks on end.
waynegee wrote: The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!Granted there are a few police who will over step the mark and let the profession down but most reported cases of police brutality are biased and portray criminals as innocent victims. The police are in Brighton to protect the innocent people who always get caught up in this sort of demonstration. I would like to know how the families of injured bystanders and police react when they are hurt -Oh I forgot...front page news is only ever about the human rights of trouble makers. I would never condone excessive police force but gently asking armed protesters to move along whilst playing classical music is also not going to work. If people are determined to cause trouble then they need to deal with the consequences.
DWho
says...
5:58pm Mon 4 May 09
bugmenot wrote:I quite agree. they could throw it up in the air and then shout "whoosh! Bang! RED!"
steveP2009 wrote: An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods. The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
bugmenot
says...
5:59pm Mon 4 May 09
steveP2009 wrote:In other words, I think you meant to say, "You have proven that I am wrong, but for the sake of my pride and my weak argument I will instead go on to argue about semantics.
bugmenot wrote:can't you just take the concept of the paragraph instead of just the flare. figure of speaking is what it is.
steveP2009 wrote:A flare is a simple piece of pyrotechnics equipment. It is not different from a firework or a sparkler, just light and noise. How many people do you see letting children as young as 3 hold sparklers?
bugmenot wrote:my point is if they don't want weapons because they're dangerous and harm people, maybe they shouldn't be playing with dangerous objects in the middle of a crowd, patronising but true
steveP2009 wrote:Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods.
An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
getreal1
says...
6:00pm Mon 4 May 09
Tye
says...
6:00pm Mon 4 May 09
SimonS wrote:spot on AND they call it a police state - DUH!
Good to see you're allowed to get away with shouting in the streets, closing roads, climbing on buildings, attacking the police with misiles and bins and closing half of the city if you call it a 'protest'.
Tye
says...
6:00pm Mon 4 May 09
SimonS wrote:spot on AND they call it a police state - DUH!
Good to see you're allowed to get away with shouting in the streets, closing roads, climbing on buildings, attacking the police with misiles and bins and closing half of the city if you call it a 'protest'.
steveP2009
says...
6:01pm Mon 4 May 09
bugmenot wrote:In other words, irony, naivety and and opposite of "peaceful"
steveP2009 wrote:In other words, I think you meant to say, "You have proven that I am wrong, but for the sake of my pride and my weak argument I will instead go on to argue about semantics.
bugmenot wrote:can't you just take the concept of the paragraph instead of just the flare. figure of speaking is what it is.
steveP2009 wrote:A flare is a simple piece of pyrotechnics equipment. It is not different from a firework or a sparkler, just light and noise. How many people do you see letting children as young as 3 hold sparklers?
bugmenot wrote:my point is if they don't want weapons because they're dangerous and harm people, maybe they shouldn't be playing with dangerous objects in the middle of a crowd, patronising but true
steveP2009 wrote:Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods.
An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
bugmenot
says...
6:02pm Mon 4 May 09
DWho wrote:I fail to see the correlation between a red flare and a so called 'moron'. Maybe you should work on your metaphors and stop trying to 'win' an argument with unfunny remarks. Your statement holds no logic.
bugmenot wrote:I quite agree. they could throw it up in the air and then shout "whoosh! Bang! RED!"
steveP2009 wrote: An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods. The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
Red flares are also a metaphor for a moron who can't express a valid opinion without the need to let off what's basically a firework in an occupied public area to show how "safe and outspoken" they are.
Have a nice day.
garnat
says...
6:02pm Mon 4 May 09
spuldge
says...
6:04pm Mon 4 May 09
green-griffin
says...
6:05pm Mon 4 May 09
garnat wrote:no, apparently there is a weapons factory near wild park. might be why the police thought the protesters would be near moulscomb
Anyone supporting these idiots is no better than the protesters causing damage in the City. This is a pointless and ill informed protest, there is not a weapons factory in Brighton. Some small electrical components might be used in weapons manufacture, just as many other commodity electrical items make it into weapons systems. Suggest you 'supporters' throw your PC out of the window right now as there are also intel chips in weapons systems.
jay316
says...
6:08pm Mon 4 May 09
green-griffin wrote:MBM technology makes parts for Nato. I know that coz they were original based in Portslade...
garnat wrote:no, apparently there is a weapons factory near wild park. might be why the police thought the protesters would be near moulscomb
Anyone supporting these idiots is no better than the protesters causing damage in the City. This is a pointless and ill informed protest, there is not a weapons factory in Brighton. Some small electrical components might be used in weapons manufacture, just as many other commodity electrical items make it into weapons systems. Suggest you 'supporters' throw your PC out of the window right now as there are also intel chips in weapons systems.
steveP2009
says...
6:09pm Mon 4 May 09
bugmenot wrote:I'm not even trying to be funny (lord knows where you got that from) I'd rather be unfunny than a pompous know it all, I'm a resident of the centre of Brighton putting up with these people so I think I should have a say regardless.
DWho wrote:I fail to see the correlation between a red flare and a so called 'moron'. Maybe you should work on your metaphors and stop trying to 'win' an argument with unfunny remarks. Your statement holds no logic.
bugmenot wrote:I quite agree. they could throw it up in the air and then shout "whoosh! Bang! RED!"
steveP2009 wrote: An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods. The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
Red flares are also a metaphor for a moron who can't express a valid opinion without the need to let off what's basically a firework in an occupied public area to show how "safe and outspoken" they are.
Have a nice day.
SimonS
says...
6:10pm Mon 4 May 09
TheInsider
says...
6:10pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
6:13pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
6:14pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:Well the pier obviously supports the making of bombs or weapons....
can anyone explain to me what connection the pier has to edo? Its been attacked and damaged. Or maybe just mindless violence maybe?
dazv88
says...
6:16pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:theres no connection unless someone who works at edo used to work there or knows someone who worked there, its just mindless violence by a group of hippies
can anyone explain to me what connection the pier has to edo? Its been attacked and damaged. Or maybe just mindless violence maybe?
churchst
says...
6:17pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
6:20pm Mon 4 May 09
dazv88 wrote:As this is what is the problem.. I don't think anyone has an issue with protests, as long as they are peaceful. We all have our views and have a legal right to express them.
Osama bin there wrote:theres no connection unless someone who works at edo used to work there or knows someone who worked there, its just mindless violence by a group of hippies
can anyone explain to me what connection the pier has to edo? Its been attacked and damaged. Or maybe just mindless violence maybe?
Number Six
says...
6:21pm Mon 4 May 09
bugmenot wrote:Hmm. I hate to repeat myself but it was the Communist states (when we used to have such things) that used May Day as an exercise to display there weaponry. Communism certainly wasn't promoting peace.
steveP2009 wrote: An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods. The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
Juliet Bravo
says...
6:22pm Mon 4 May 09
sugarhorse
says...
6:23pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316 wrote:Spot on Jay316.
dazv88 wrote:As this is what is the problem.. I don't think anyone has an issue with protests, as long as they are peaceful. We all have our views and have a legal right to express them.
Osama bin there wrote:theres no connection unless someone who works at edo used to work there or knows someone who worked there, its just mindless violence by a group of hippies
can anyone explain to me what connection the pier has to edo? Its been attacked and damaged. Or maybe just mindless violence maybe?
jay316
says...
6:27pm Mon 4 May 09
sugarhorse wrote:It really annoys me when the minority spoil a well planned protest. I have worked at presents... and I have seen stewards hurt, police hurt, security hurt, cival protesters hurt, and by-standers hurt, by the few that provoke police, security and stewards alike.
jay316 wrote:Spot on Jay316.
dazv88 wrote:As this is what is the problem.. I don't think anyone has an issue with protests, as long as they are peaceful. We all have our views and have a legal right to express them.
Osama bin there wrote:theres no connection unless someone who works at edo used to work there or knows someone who worked there, its just mindless violence by a group of hippies
can anyone explain to me what connection the pier has to edo? Its been attacked and damaged. Or maybe just mindless violence maybe?
Well said!
garnat
says...
6:27pm Mon 4 May 09
brightongrappler
says...
6:28pm Mon 4 May 09
Fight Back
says...
6:29pm Mon 4 May 09
SimonS wrote:As you've posted - THEY DON'T MAKE WEAPONS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are they even a 'weapons factory' I thoguht they just made parts for them? Surely that's a bit like saying a field of wheat is a bread factory.
DWho
says...
6:30pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:issues brought up by today:
The Argus seems to have a relatively neutral approach to today's reporting, but judging by the comments on this page, they have to appease there target audience. Which, with all due respect, seem to be ignorant of the issues. My problem is the front page picture, which speaks a million words. It's obvious where the paper stands and with whom.
Juliet Bravo
says...
6:30pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:Picking on a group of sub-protestors to define all the protestors present in Brighton today is short-sighted?
drewboy30 wrote:Picking on a sub-group of the protesters to define all the protesters present in Brighton today is short sighted. There were parents, children, pensioners as well as the'unwashed' types. There are lot of young protesters out today, masked up, being provocative, probably drinking too much, and just because they make the most noise, cause the biggest scene doesn't mean they speak for all. The people who marched today come from many places. Not just one. It's too easy to put them all in the same pigeon hole. Shutting down the factory in Brighton would be a symbolic victory. Of course it would just move somewhere else perhaps, but that's not really the point is it. Try think outside the big mac box.churchst wrote: If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong. It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not. There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps? Or is it easier just call to call them names....?The problem is that these protestors are exactly like that. They present as dirty and unwashed weirdos. I am glad that the arms factory is here in brighton. If it was not here providing work for people in the city it would in another town or city doing the same. Therefore I do not see the issue that needs resolving. In an ideal world we would have no need of arms and therefore no need of this sort of protest. Unfortunately,that is a dream that will never see the light of day. To think otherwise is to be living in cloud cuckhoo land !!
donitababy
says...
6:30pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
6:31pm Mon 4 May 09
brightongrappler wrote:But they are not all like that.. You can't tarnish them all with the same brush because of the minority that are there just to cause issues.
give the cops live ammunition and there wont be a problem with the soap dodgers. its very simple
loque77
says...
6:31pm Mon 4 May 09
dazv88
says...
6:31pm Mon 4 May 09
brightongrappler wrote:they don't need that they need a reggy bath that will sort em out, metal scour pads n cold water is what the troublemakers need, a strong deterrent
give the cops live ammunition and there wont be a problem with the soap dodgers. its very simple
brightonneil
says...
6:31pm Mon 4 May 09
getreal1
says...
6:33pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
6:35pm Mon 4 May 09
DWho wrote:The police from what I have seen and have been told. Were not using heavy handed tacktic... I am sure the one sided videos we will see will be that of the protesters.. as they have already stated the stop other from filming, by blocking them (ie standing in front of them)..
churchst wrote:issues brought up by today:
The Argus seems to have a relatively neutral approach to today's reporting, but judging by the comments on this page, they have to appease there target audience. Which, with all due respect, seem to be ignorant of the issues. My problem is the front page picture, which speaks a million words. It's obvious where the paper stands and with whom.
name: "smash EDO"
issue: EDO not smashed; various other parts of Brighton, and some poor lady's face smashed instead.
name: "protester"
issue: complete failure to distance themselves from the violent loutish behaviour started by a few inane individuals and conduct themselves in a proper manner.
name: "police violence"
issue: Police (whom I have been watching for the afternoon) very restrained and to be applauded, especially with the baiting tactics of "protesters" (see issue 2) and with Police personnel being the subjects of violence and attacks themselves.
How am I doing so far?
Juliet Bravo
says...
6:35pm Mon 4 May 09
loque77 wrote:Funny, isn't it, how they're so keen for the police to be individually identifiable.
Why dont these protesters make their voices count by putting a face to their voice. Whats with people covering up their faces and running battles with the police? These people need to learn how to have an effective protest that promotes their cause and doesn't just annoy everyone.
jay316
says...
6:38pm Mon 4 May 09
brightonneil wrote:section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray.
having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?
bibble
says...
6:38pm Mon 4 May 09
kevg
says...
6:38pm Mon 4 May 09
steveP2009
says...
6:39pm Mon 4 May 09
Juliet Bravo wrote:I've been waiting for someone to say that Juliet! Well said.
loque77 wrote:Funny, isn't it, how they're so keen for the police to be individually identifiable.
Why dont these protesters make their voices count by putting a face to their voice. Whats with people covering up their faces and running battles with the police? These people need to learn how to have an effective protest that promotes their cause and doesn't just annoy everyone.
jay316
says...
6:41pm Mon 4 May 09
getreal1 wrote:The police did the right thing in backing away.. If somebody fell from that roof, then the police would have more problems. Its called not putting fuel on the fire.
"5.50pm - Protestors dance on pier roof as police back off.
Police have stepped back to avoid confrontation with protesters" If I stand on the roof of the cop shop tomorrow to complain about the soft handling of the demo, including allowing criminal damage to occur, will the police bottle it/back off to avoid confrontation with me. No. Given the number shipped in today, the job should have been done better.
Juliet Bravo
says...
6:45pm Mon 4 May 09
brightonneil
says...
6:45pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:apparently the law in this country is that you are allowed to operate a factory that makes anything that is legal. If you feel that strongly maybe you should lobby your mp to change the law.
What a bunch on moaning minnies most commentators are. If you are happy having a bomb-part making factory on your doorsteps and don't do anything about it, you'll have to put up with people who are not so docile.
bibble
says...
6:46pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316 wrote:Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings".
brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
maxiboy
says...
6:47pm Mon 4 May 09
Cookie83
says...
6:47pm Mon 4 May 09
donitababy
says...
6:47pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble
says...
6:51pm Mon 4 May 09
maxiboy wrote:Where have you been for the last twenty years? We don't make cars or trains any more. The car "factories" are screwdriver assembly lines - no different from you buying a DIY book shelf.
Great Britain means growing our own food, making cars, trains etc. To defend our island we need to make our own weapons too. I pity these worthless vermin who make out they are doing good with their protest. But to put it bluntly they would make good cannon fodder for our troops training on Sailsbury plain.
Cookie83
says...
6:52pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
6:53pm Mon 4 May 09
Cookie83 wrote:Look how much media coverage they will get !!
For people who seem to be protesting for peace, they don't seem very peaceful!Was just at the Pier and all I saw was a bunch of drunk hangry kids jumping around, disrupting peoples' lives..That will get their point through I'm sure...And a lot of support as well!!!
davyboy
says...
6:55pm Mon 4 May 09
Tye wrote:exactly my thoughts. had it not been a bank holiday, rent-a-mob would have to be at work(lol) or college. water cannon best way of dealing with this sort of behaviour, as they do in germany. a good soaking would do these shirkers a heap of good. why can't people do business without threats?
My only other question is why oh why do British Police NOT use water cannon in the same way as the rest of Europe
would a **** good wash infringe the uman rites of these scum - funny how we brits are about the only followers of this damned stupid EU regulation
stickman
says...
6:55pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
6:56pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
6:58pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble
says...
6:59pm Mon 4 May 09
spuldge wrote:You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote.
When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.
Osama bin there
says...
7:00pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property?
jay316 wrote:Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings".
brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.
getreal1
says...
7:02pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316 wrote:A point well made Jay but the reality is that unless an extremely serious offence, well beyond criminal damage, is committed, I do not believe that the police would bother at a later date. The owners of property defaced or vandalised will be advised that it's not worth it, told to claim from their insurance company and think themselves lucky that it wasn't worse.
getreal1 wrote: "5.50pm - Protestors dance on pier roof as police back off. Police have stepped back to avoid confrontation with protesters" If I stand on the roof of the cop shop tomorrow to complain about the soft handling of the demo, including allowing criminal damage to occur, will the police bottle it/back off to avoid confrontation with me. No. Given the number shipped in today, the job should have been done better.The police did the right thing in backing away.. If somebody fell from that roof, then the police would have more problems. Its called not putting fuel on the fire. These few protestors are in one place, which is controlable.. and right by a cctv camera. So the police can deal with those involved at a later date. And the owner of the stand can if need be press charged for Criminal Damage.
Brampton_Horritt
says...
7:04pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316 wrote:Lets just hope it shows them exactly as they are - a bunch of trouble hungry numpties - the majority of those I spoke to didn't have a clue what they were protesting about. Wasters.
Cookie83 wrote:Look how much media coverage they will get !!
For people who seem to be protesting for peace, they don't seem very peaceful!Was just at the Pier and all I saw was a bunch of drunk hangry kids jumping around, disrupting peoples' lives..That will get their point through I'm sure...And a lot of support as well!!!
htims
says...
7:06pm Mon 4 May 09
stickman
says...
7:07pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way.
spuldge wrote:You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote.
When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.
Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
bibble
says...
7:08pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you?
bibble wrote:Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.jay316 wrote:Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
s8814548
says...
7:09pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
7:09pm Mon 4 May 09
getreal1 wrote:Totally agree... the point I was making, if you feel from that roof (drunk or not) you'd probably be seriously hurt, or dead..
jay316 wrote:A point well made Jay but the reality is that unless an extremely serious offence, well beyond criminal damage, is committed, I do not believe that the police would bother at a later date. The owners of property defaced or vandalised will be advised that it's not worth it, told to claim from their insurance company and think themselves lucky that it wasn't worse.
getreal1 wrote: "5.50pm - Protestors dance on pier roof as police back off. Police have stepped back to avoid confrontation with protesters" If I stand on the roof of the cop shop tomorrow to complain about the soft handling of the demo, including allowing criminal damage to occur, will the police bottle it/back off to avoid confrontation with me. No. Given the number shipped in today, the job should have been done better.The police did the right thing in backing away.. If somebody fell from that roof, then the police would have more problems. Its called not putting fuel on the fire. These few protestors are in one place, which is controlable.. and right by a cctv camera. So the police can deal with those involved at a later date. And the owner of the stand can if need be press charged for Criminal Damage.
brightoncore
says...
7:09pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble
says...
7:11pm Mon 4 May 09
stickman wrote:It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things.
bibble wrote:No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
Osama bin there
says...
7:12pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
7:13pm Mon 4 May 09
s8814548 wrote:Because they don't make missles.. they make parts for missles.. same as intel make CPUS :)
It surprizes me that a defence company can't deal with some vermin. These vermin were prepaired to damage business and attack inocent people. And I understand from Reuters were chanting give us our streets back. Which is funny when they arn't from brighton.
Why didn't edo help the police and supply a few stinger missles to help deal with these protesters. And if they don't like our country they can leave they always have that choice.
David
churchst
says...
7:15pm Mon 4 May 09
DWho wrote:Not very good.
churchst wrote:issues brought up by today:
The Argus seems to have a relatively neutral approach to today's reporting, but judging by the comments on this page, they have to appease there target audience. Which, with all due respect, seem to be ignorant of the issues. My problem is the front page picture, which speaks a million words. It's obvious where the paper stands and with whom.
name: "smash EDO"
issue: EDO not smashed; various other parts of Brighton, and some poor lady's face smashed instead.
name: "protester"
issue: complete failure to distance themselves from the violent loutish behaviour started by a few inane individuals and conduct themselves in a proper manner.
name: "police violence"
issue: Police (whom I have been watching for the afternoon) very restrained and to be applauded, especially with the baiting tactics of "protesters" (see issue 2) and with Police personnel being the subjects of violence and attacks themselves.
How am I doing so far?
brightonneil
says...
7:15pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:as a brightonian all my life(51yrs) it is my human right to go around my city on a bank holiday with my wife and 8 children and associated grandchildren without being harrassed and intimidated by a bunch of people who are just intent on causing trouble if you are upset by my comments you should have heard what was being shouted by the party goers. if you dont like the comments of a true brightonian please do us all a favour and dont come down here
Osama bin there wrote:Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you? If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.bibble wrote:Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.jay316 wrote:Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
Stu
says...
7:20pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst
says...
7:20pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316 wrote:Maybe the protesters feel as patriotic as you do. Maybe they feel responsible for the UK as a whole and not just the city/town they live in.
s8814548 wrote:Because they don't make missles.. they make parts for missles.. same as intel make CPUS :)
It surprizes me that a defence company can't deal with some vermin. These vermin were prepaired to damage business and attack inocent people. And I understand from Reuters were chanting give us our streets back. Which is funny when they arn't from brighton.
Why didn't edo help the police and supply a few stinger missles to help deal with these protesters. And if they don't like our country they can leave they always have that choice.
David
yifat
says...
7:21pm Mon 4 May 09
surreyseagull
says...
7:22pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
7:22pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:I was quoting someone else, and am still waiting for you to quote the chapter and verse on the legal statute that allows violent protest.
Osama bin there wrote:Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you?
bibble wrote:Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.jay316 wrote:Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.
bibble
says...
7:23pm Mon 4 May 09
brightoncore wrote:Very well said, brightoncore. I've seen the damage done by "gentrification" in London, which has ruined many areas. Superficially they are better, but it is just a veneer of higher house prices. With it comes the cost to the local society. Pubs, real pubs, have been changed into gastro-nonentities with no soul. They are usually owned by a chain company with several other once-were-pubs under its belt.
I am not surprised at the conservative contingent here in Brighton. Having been born and bred in Brighton this influx of wealthy Bourgeois only seeks to whittle out the Bohemian heart of Brighton which I think is now sadly dead. Listening to a wealthy family in a pub talking about how they were planning to buy another property in London while on another table people were worried about jobs clearly provided me with a classic example of how the pubs, attitudes and people in Brighton are now more like Surrey conservatives than the greater 'left' leaning of real Brightonians over the years. After being sniped at by the father of this family (who is a day trader, and to which he wanted to tell everyone in a very loud voice how much stock he was dealing in) in the pub as being ‘not a local’ and taking his ‘favorite spot’, I feel my anger burning at these usurpers of Brighton who’s money and attitudes are killing its creative heart. Police powers have now gone too far, liberty and your rights are at threat, but for the Daily Mail (and Argus Readers) images such as those on this website and the coverage will only fuel anger at what are a small minority of people who are doing what many of us are too hypocritical or scared to do. So I guess you people didn’t realise that the Bankers have caused more damage to this country than any terrorist has ever done, they are the one’s who are traitors. Over half a trillion debt, and they walk scot free. Get your priorities right and don’t believe conservative backed newspapers, go see for yourself.
jay316
says...
7:25pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:Where did I say they attacked innocent people. !!!!!!!??????!!!!!!
jay316 wrote:Maybe the protesters feel as patriotic as you do. Maybe they feel responsible for the UK as a whole and not just the city/town they live in.
s8814548 wrote:Because they don't make missles.. they make parts for missles.. same as intel make CPUS :)
It surprizes me that a defence company can't deal with some vermin. These vermin were prepaired to damage business and attack inocent people. And I understand from Reuters were chanting give us our streets back. Which is funny when they arn't from brighton.
Why didn't edo help the police and supply a few stinger missles to help deal with these protesters. And if they don't like our country they can leave they always have that choice.
David
Maybe they didn't attack innocent people, maybe you made that up.
Maybe you just an angry old man.
bibble
says...
7:25pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.
bibble wrote:I was quoting someone else, and am still waiting for you to quote the chapter and verse on the legal statute that allows violent protest.Osama bin there wrote:Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you? If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.bibble wrote:Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.jay316 wrote:Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
getreal1
says...
7:25pm Mon 4 May 09
brightoncore wrote:Crikey - I don't agree with all you've said but as a Brighton man born and bred, you'll have to find another boozer! I don't think that Brighton's been that left-leaning otherwise Juliam Amery would not have survived as an MP with his attendance record as bad as it was for the years, for the time that he did. As a city I think it has always been willing to accept a mixture of cultures and peoples, probably more than any other in Britain. If it had not then I personally do not think that the area would have become home to as many queer boys as it has. As to the principle of today's protest, this is the protester's prerogative to pursue even though I personally do not agree with the protest. As to the appalling behaviour I have witnessed in its name, no way. It's wrong.
I am not surprised at the conservative contingent here in Brighton. Having been born and bred in Brighton this influx of wealthy Bourgeois only seeks to whittle out the Bohemian heart of Brighton which I think is now sadly dead. Listening to a wealthy family in a pub talking about how they were planning to buy another property in London while on another table people were worried about jobs clearly provided me with a classic example of how the pubs, attitudes and people in Brighton are now more like Surrey conservatives than the greater 'left' leaning of real Brightonians over the years. After being sniped at by the father of this family (who is a day trader, and to which he wanted to tell everyone in a very loud voice how much stock he was dealing in) in the pub as being ‘not a local’ and taking his ‘favorite spot’, I feel my anger burning at these usurpers of Brighton who’s money and attitudes are killing its creative heart. Police powers have now gone too far, liberty and your rights are at threat, but for the Daily Mail (and Argus Readers) images such as those on this website and the coverage will only fuel anger at what are a small minority of people who are doing what many of us are too hypocritical or scared to do. So I guess you people didn’t realise that the Bankers have caused more damage to this country than any terrorist has ever done, they are the one’s who are traitors. Over half a trillion debt, and they walk scot free. Get your priorities right and don’t believe conservative backed newspapers, go see for yourself.
churchst
says...
7:26pm Mon 4 May 09
Stu wrote:Thankfully what you want isn't important as we live in a democracy where dissent and protest are integral components.
It's extremely sad to see other people's property damaged by so called grown adults acting like children.
By all means protest but please don't come back again cos we aren't interested in your cause here.
brightoncore
says...
7:28pm Mon 4 May 09
Bog Vern
says...
7:28pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:Bibble,
stickman wrote:It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things.
bibble wrote:No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.
stickman
says...
7:30pm Mon 4 May 09
brightoncore wrote:Sorry but I was born in the old Royal Alex and lived here pretty much all my life so don't start telling me what my opinions should be.
I am not surprised at the conservative contingent here in Brighton. Having been born and bred in Brighton this influx of wealthy Bourgeois only seeks to whittle out the Bohemian heart of Brighton which I think is now sadly dead.
Listening to a wealthy family in a pub talking about how they were planning to buy another property in London while on another table people were worried about jobs clearly provided me with a classic example of how the pubs, attitudes and people in Brighton are now more like Surrey conservatives than the greater 'left' leaning of real Brightonians over the years. After being sniped at by the father of this family (who is a day trader, and to which he wanted to tell everyone in a very loud voice how much stock he was dealing in) in the pub as being ‘not a local’ and taking his ‘favorite spot’, I feel my anger burning at these usurpers of Brighton who’s money and attitudes are killing its creative heart.
Police powers have now gone too far, liberty and your rights are at threat, but for the Daily Mail (and Argus Readers) images such as those on this website and the coverage will only fuel anger at what are a small minority of people who are doing what many of us are too hypocritical or scared to do.
So I guess you people didn’t realise that the Bankers have caused more damage to this country than any terrorist has ever done, they are the one’s who are traitors. Over half a trillion debt, and they walk scot free. Get your priorities right and don’t believe conservative backed newspapers, go see for yourself.
bibble
says...
7:30pm Mon 4 May 09
Stu wrote:Perhaps if you saw the damage caused by the bombs release by EDO-made components you would change your tune.
It's extremely sad to see other people's property damaged by so called grown adults acting like children. By all means protest but please don't come back again cos we aren't interested in your cause here.
SimonS
says...
7:31pm Mon 4 May 09
IKDRF
says...
7:32pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:Got to say I have been in town and found the protesters a little irksome but did not feel at all threatened by them.
jay316 wrote:Maybe the protesters feel as patriotic as you do. Maybe they feel responsible for the UK as a whole and not just the city/town they live in. Maybe they didn't attack innocent people, maybe you made that up. Maybe you just an angry old man.s8814548 wrote: It surprizes me that a defence company can't deal with some vermin. These vermin were prepaired to damage business and attack inocent people. And I understand from Reuters were chanting give us our streets back. Which is funny when they arn't from brighton. Why didn't edo help the police and supply a few stinger missles to help deal with these protesters. And if they don't like our country they can leave they always have that choice. DavidBecause they don't make missles.. they make parts for missles.. same as intel make CPUS :)
churchst
says...
7:34pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316 wrote:you didn't - s8814548 did - i was just continuing the thread...
churchst wrote:Where did I say they attacked innocent people. !!!!!!!??????!!!!!!
jay316 wrote:Maybe the protesters feel as patriotic as you do. Maybe they feel responsible for the UK as a whole and not just the city/town they live in.
s8814548 wrote:Because they don't make missles.. they make parts for missles.. same as intel make CPUS :)
It surprizes me that a defence company can't deal with some vermin. These vermin were prepaired to damage business and attack inocent people. And I understand from Reuters were chanting give us our streets back. Which is funny when they arn't from brighton.
Why didn't edo help the police and supply a few stinger missles to help deal with these protesters. And if they don't like our country they can leave they always have that choice.
David
Maybe they didn't attack innocent people, maybe you made that up.
Maybe you just an angry old man.
brightonneil
says...
7:35pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:bible
Stu wrote: It's extremely sad to see other people's property damaged by so called grown adults acting like children. By all means protest but please don't come back again cos we aren't interested in your cause here.Perhaps if you saw the damage caused by the bombs release by EDO-made components you would change your tune.
johnsmith48
says...
7:35pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble
says...
7:35pm Mon 4 May 09
Bog Vern wrote:Alas, you just don't get it. Whatever you think your entitlements are to a quiet and peaceful life, there is a RIGHT to protest. You will just have to put up with it. It's too bad you disagree with it, but there is nothing to stop you having a protest either. It's for your good as well as other protestors. Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong?
bibble wrote:Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.stickman wrote:It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.bibble wrote:No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
brightoncore
says...
7:36pm Mon 4 May 09
Bog Vern
says...
7:37pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:Bibble,
Stu wrote:Perhaps if you saw the damage caused by the bombs release by EDO-made components you would change your tune.
It's extremely sad to see other people's property damaged by so called grown adults acting like children. By all means protest but please don't come back again cos we aren't interested in your cause here.
jay316
says...
7:39pm Mon 4 May 09
brightoncore
says...
7:40pm Mon 4 May 09
brightoncore
says...
7:40pm Mon 4 May 09
yearman
says...
7:41pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
7:41pm Mon 4 May 09
Bog Vern
says...
7:41pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:Justify the comment 'appears to be coming from the police' - evidence that for this particular protest - go one - give me specific fact to justify your comments. What did you see or hear or is this a comment that is as valid as others - eg - you read it somewhere!!
Bog Vern wrote:Alas, you just don't get it. Whatever you think your entitlements are to a quiet and peaceful life, there is a RIGHT to protest. You will just have to put up with it. It's too bad you disagree with it, but there is nothing to stop you having a protest either. It's for your good as well as other protestors. Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong?
bibble wrote:Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.stickman wrote:It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.bibble wrote:No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
Do you deny that EDO makes bomb-release components? Yes or no?
As far as I can see this is very much about EDO. The violence and intimidation appears to be coming from the police, not the protestors.
churchst
says...
7:42pm Mon 4 May 09
SimonS wrote:Your ignorance is disgraceful.
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.
So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:
Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles
Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend
Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?
Disgraceful.
bibble
says...
7:42pm Mon 4 May 09
brightonneil wrote:A certificate from this government to make arms should be treated with contempt.
bibble wrote:bible as i pointed out before edo are entitled by law to make whatever they like as long as it is legal.the behaviour of the protesters was not legal, you talk a load of rubbish and are not even local.Stu wrote: It's extremely sad to see other people's property damaged by so called grown adults acting like children. By all means protest but please don't come back again cos we aren't interested in your cause here.Perhaps if you saw the damage caused by the bombs release by EDO-made components you would change your tune.
DWho
says...
7:43pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:sorry, I don't eat at McDonalds...
DWho wrote:Not very good. Your points are reactionary and incoherent. Maybe it's all the preservatives and E numbers in your 'Big Tasty® with Bacon'churchst wrote: The Argus seems to have a relatively neutral approach to today's reporting, but judging by the comments on this page, they have to appease there target audience. Which, with all due respect, seem to be ignorant of the issues. My problem is the front page picture, which speaks a million words. It's obvious where the paper stands and with whom.issues brought up by today: name: "smash EDO" issue: EDO not smashed; various other parts of Brighton, and some poor lady's face smashed instead. name: "protester" issue: complete failure to distance themselves from the violent loutish behaviour started by a few inane individuals and conduct themselves in a proper manner. name: "police violence" issue: Police (whom I have been watching for the afternoon) very restrained and to be applauded, especially with the baiting tactics of "protesters" (see issue 2) and with Police personnel being the subjects of violence and attacks themselves. How am I doing so far?
ipaymytaxes
says...
7:43pm Mon 4 May 09
Bog Vern wrote:Quote Bibble:
bibble wrote:Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.stickman wrote:It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.bibble wrote:No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
stickman
says...
7:44pm Mon 4 May 09
brightoncore wrote:The poll tax got binned because votes would be lost - the "riot" was a side show. Our great democracy at work again.
Hehe that's a but incoherent (getting angry).
What I meant was that the 'poll tax' was a drop in the ocean compared to the outrages of the Bankers actions.
Just remember at least half a trillion gone and we have foot the bill and the economic fallout not the rich.
brightonneil
says...
7:45pm Mon 4 May 09
yearman wrote:if the organisers had coperated with the police they would have known what reponse to make as they didnt they had to ensure that there was an adequate response available if needed.Take that up with the organisers and p**s off back to worthing
I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.
donitababy
says...
7:47pm Mon 4 May 09
brightoncore wrote:i agree the protest was valid but i dont feel ashamed for not taking part i watched and walked with them as they went up north street and as im new to brighton it opened my eyes as i didnt know there was such a thing in brighton
More property is damaged as a result of students in the town more than anyone, I suppose you should close the Universities. Obviously not as its a tiny minority of students. The point is even though some tiny minority resort to violence their point is valid, and you should be ashamed at not protesting not just against the military linked company (which I think is less important) than the obscene Banker fraud which has scammed our children out of a secure future. No just sit there and complain and let the rich and elite suck the life out of you, your family and your friends. It sickens me that not only the coverage but also the reactions are completely out of proportion related to the true exploitation you have all been exposed to. But hey let's not rock the boat eh? No revolution here please, we are 'British'.
sugarhorse
says...
7:48pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:Idiot
SimonS wrote:Your ignorance is disgraceful.
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.
So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:
Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles
Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend
Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?
Disgraceful.
Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.
With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...
...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?
Truly Disgraceful.
Some-one Else!
says...
7:49pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
7:49pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:I am not gonna get drawn into any issues on the rights or wrongs of war or killing people. As I am not there nor am I firing any missiles.
SimonS wrote:Your ignorance is disgraceful.
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.
So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:
Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles
Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend
Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?
Disgraceful.
Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.
With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...
...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?
Truly Disgraceful.
SimonS
says...
7:49pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:Oh, was that the point they were trying to make today? I just thought they wanted a good old ruck in the city and to antagonise police.
SimonS wrote:Your ignorance is disgraceful.
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.
So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:
Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles
Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend
Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?
Disgraceful.
Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.
With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...
...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?
Truly Disgraceful.
bibble
says...
7:50pm Mon 4 May 09
ipaymytaxes wrote:Actually there is plenty that excuses violence.
Bog Vern wrote:Quote Bibble: 'Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust' I am shocked at your attitude. There is nothing that excuses violence. If your statement is correct then you also fully support terroists, football hooligans and war. All fuelled by people who use violence, malice and crime as an excuse for things they supposedly support/believe in. Disgusting.bibble wrote:Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.stickman wrote:It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.bibble wrote:No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
brightonneil
says...
7:52pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble
says...
7:55pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst
says...
7:57pm Mon 4 May 09
brightonneil wrote:So brightonneil agrees the police we're violent, but had the protesters been more co-operative it wouldn't have been like that....???
yearman wrote:if the organisers had coperated with the police they would have known what reponse to make as they didnt they had to ensure that there was an adequate response available if needed.Take that up with the organisers and p**s off back to worthing
I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.
Bog Vern
says...
7:57pm Mon 4 May 09
Joe Average
says...
7:58pm Mon 4 May 09
stickman
says...
7:58pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:Great response but violence from Hitler was met by violence against Hitler i.e. they got to the heart of the problem. The Allies didn't get drunk and smash up the nearest ice cream shop.
ipaymytaxes wrote:Actually there is plenty that excuses violence.
Bog Vern wrote:Quote Bibble: 'Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust' I am shocked at your attitude. There is nothing that excuses violence. If your statement is correct then you also fully support terroists, football hooligans and war. All fuelled by people who use violence, malice and crime as an excuse for things they supposedly support/believe in. Disgusting.bibble wrote:Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.stickman wrote:It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.bibble wrote:No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
Would Hitler have stopped without being treated to a lot of violence in the form of invading armies? No. Would Napoleon have been stopped with words? No, it took armies.
There is little difference between violence on the part of a state when it it is "necessary", and violence from protestors when it is "necessary".
I will not condemn violence from protestors when they are acting against a violent organisation. Nor will I condemn protestors who use violence to protect themselves from police brutality.
brightonneil
says...
7:59pm Mon 4 May 09
Joe Average
says...
8:00pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst
says...
8:05pm Mon 4 May 09
SimonS wrote:sarcasm, very clever.
churchst wrote:Oh, was that the point they were trying to make today? I just thought they wanted a good old ruck in the city and to antagonise police.
SimonS wrote:Your ignorance is disgraceful.
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.
So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:
Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles
Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend
Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?
Disgraceful.
Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.
With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...
...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?
Truly Disgraceful.
brightonneil
says...
8:07pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:i didnt see any police violence, and i didnt say i had i was in town i saw protesters throwimg rocks at ncdonalds windows and heard lots of abusive shouting and vitriol coming from the protesters, not the police(who i dont particularly like having fallen foulm of them several times previously). just because someone is a schoolteacher does that make them special. i see that quite a few get arrested when i read the paper.
brightonneil wrote:So brightonneil agrees the police we're violent, but had the protesters been more co-operative it wouldn't have been like that....??? Unprovable vitriol targeted at a genuine statement from a schoolteacher. My prediction is more protesters were violently assaulted today than police or bystanders.yearman wrote: I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.if the organisers had coperated with the police they would have known what reponse to make as they didnt they had to ensure that there was an adequate response available if needed.Take that up with the organisers and p**s off back to worthing
bibble
says...
8:09pm Mon 4 May 09
Bog Vern wrote:I feel no compulsion to answer your questions put in such an impertinent manner, but I will do so.
Bibble Answer the point I raised at 741pm NOW - GIVE ME EVIDENCE THAT THE POLICE were the protagonists of violence and intimidation here today!! Or are you avoiding the question???? I want SPECIFICS not throw away remarks. FACTS please.
churchst
says...
8:09pm Mon 4 May 09
sugarhorse wrote:care to extrapolate? or is it just one word at a time for you?
churchst wrote:Idiot
SimonS wrote:Your ignorance is disgraceful.
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.
So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:
Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles
Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend
Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?
Disgraceful.
Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.
With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...
...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?
Truly Disgraceful.
bibble
says...
8:11pm Mon 4 May 09
stickman wrote:Area bombing was not targetted directly against Hitler. Ever heard of Dresden? An overwhelmingly civilian city. Lots of ice cream shops destroyed there...
bibble wrote:Great response but violence from Hitler was met by violence against Hitler i.e. they got to the heart of the problem. The Allies didn't get drunk and smash up the nearest ice cream shop. Whilst all this is going on there is fragile peace right now in Gaza - I want to see Western and Middle Eastern governments working hard to build on it and then it really doesn't matter what EDO makes because there will never be an opportunity to use them.ipaymytaxes wrote:Actually there is plenty that excuses violence. Would Hitler have stopped without being treated to a lot of violence in the form of invading armies? No. Would Napoleon have been stopped with words? No, it took armies. There is little difference between violence on the part of a state when it it is "necessary", and violence from protestors when it is "necessary". I will not condemn violence from protestors when they are acting against a violent organisation. Nor will I condemn protestors who use violence to protect themselves from police brutality.Bog Vern wrote:Quote Bibble: 'Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust' I am shocked at your attitude. There is nothing that excuses violence. If your statement is correct then you also fully support terroists, football hooligans and war. All fuelled by people who use violence, malice and crime as an excuse for things they supposedly support/believe in. Disgusting.bibble wrote:Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.stickman wrote:It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.bibble wrote:No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
mummy of 2
says...
8:11pm Mon 4 May 09
Bog Vern
says...
8:14pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:So you have no evidence at all.
Bog Vern wrote:I feel no compulsion to answer your questions put in such an impertinent manner, but I will do so.
Bibble Answer the point I raised at 741pm NOW - GIVE ME EVIDENCE THAT THE POLICE were the protagonists of violence and intimidation here today!! Or are you avoiding the question???? I want SPECIFICS not throw away remarks. FACTS please.
Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the news, but the police have been carefully briefing against this legal demonstration for the last few weeks. They have complained that the "organisers" would not meet with them, and that they would be on the lookout for "ringleaders".
Even the chief constable was moved to warn his officers to behave. All this strongly suggests very strongly that there are thuggish elements in his force, and that some of them are looking for trouble.
Every time I see a policeman on a horse with a riot helmet I cannot help but think of Planet of the Apes, and the apes on horses were the oppressors. Today there were quite a few police on horses, leaving their dropppings all over the place (is it legal for a horse to foul the public highway - probably, but I'm asking as I don't know).
Outside McDonalds there was evidence of thuggery. Let's see what comes out in the wash. By that I mean photography by members of the public and not the now-instantly-discre
dited official reports from the police.
brightonneil
says...
8:15pm Mon 4 May 09
mummy of 2 wrote:bibble
I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.
bibble
says...
8:15pm Mon 4 May 09
brightonneil wrote:And you are confusing democracy with the regime that we live under.
bibble you are confusing democracy and anarchy
churchst
says...
8:18pm Mon 4 May 09
brightonneil wrote:There's a video above that clearly shows police being aggressive towards protesters simply because they don't want them to go down the street...
churchst wrote:i didnt see any police violence, and i didnt say i had i was in town i saw protesters throwimg rocks at ncdonalds windows and heard lots of abusive shouting and vitriol coming from the protesters, not the police(who i dont particularly like having fallen foulm of them several times previously). just because someone is a schoolteacher does that make them special. i see that quite a few get arrested when i read the paper.
brightonneil wrote:So brightonneil agrees the police we're violent, but had the protesters been more co-operative it wouldn't have been like that....??? Unprovable vitriol targeted at a genuine statement from a schoolteacher. My prediction is more protesters were violently assaulted today than police or bystanders.yearman wrote: I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.if the organisers had coperated with the police they would have known what reponse to make as they didnt they had to ensure that there was an adequate response available if needed.Take that up with the organisers and p**s off back to worthing
pun master
says...
8:20pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
8:21pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:Yep.. and who shot that video... suprise me.. a protestor who only shows what they want you to see... like wise with the police... who's EG teams got attacked as they are gathering evidence.
brightonneil wrote:There's a video above that clearly shows police being aggressive towards protesters simply because they don't want them to go down the street...
churchst wrote:i didnt see any police violence, and i didnt say i had i was in town i saw protesters throwimg rocks at ncdonalds windows and heard lots of abusive shouting and vitriol coming from the protesters, not the police(who i dont particularly like having fallen foulm of them several times previously). just because someone is a schoolteacher does that make them special. i see that quite a few get arrested when i read the paper.
brightonneil wrote:So brightonneil agrees the police we're violent, but had the protesters been more co-operative it wouldn't have been like that....??? Unprovable vitriol targeted at a genuine statement from a schoolteacher. My prediction is more protesters were violently assaulted today than police or bystanders.yearman wrote: I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.if the organisers had coperated with the police they would have known what reponse to make as they didnt they had to ensure that there was an adequate response available if needed.Take that up with the organisers and p**s off back to worthing
McDonalds is a pet-hate of globalisation protesters, so if you stand outside one during a demo, your likely to see anger and damage to property (not to people)
Terrified families were inside McDs during today's demo and it's very wrong. On one hand I think the protesters should have refrained, but equally McDs should have been closed for the day.
getreal1
says...
8:24pm Mon 4 May 09
mummy of 2 wrote:Perhaps this person's comments might resonate through the tatty little bedsits that today's invaders return to. They cannot dismiss her comments as the rantings of xenophobes as others hostile to today's appalling behaviour have been labelled.
I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.
brightonneil
says...
8:24pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:why close? we live in a democracy don't we? it was there right to open. were you ther? I am saying what i saw you are saying what you have seen on a video
brightonneil wrote:There's a video above that clearly shows police being aggressive towards protesters simply because they don't want them to go down the street... McDonalds is a pet-hate of globalisation protesters, so if you stand outside one during a demo, your likely to see anger and damage to property (not to people) Terrified families were inside McDs during today's demo and it's very wrong. On one hand I think the protesters should have refrained, but equally McDs should have been closed for the day.churchst wrote:i didnt see any police violence, and i didnt say i had i was in town i saw protesters throwimg rocks at ncdonalds windows and heard lots of abusive shouting and vitriol coming from the protesters, not the police(who i dont particularly like having fallen foulm of them several times previously). just because someone is a schoolteacher does that make them special. i see that quite a few get arrested when i read the paper.brightonneil wrote:So brightonneil agrees the police we're violent, but had the protesters been more co-operative it wouldn't have been like that....??? Unprovable vitriol targeted at a genuine statement from a schoolteacher. My prediction is more protesters were violently assaulted today than police or bystanders.yearman wrote: I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.if the organisers had coperated with the police they would have known what reponse to make as they didnt they had to ensure that there was an adequate response available if needed.Take that up with the organisers and p**s off back to worthing
sugarhorse
says...
8:25pm Mon 4 May 09
mummy of 2 wrote:Well done mummy of 2. I think you have hit the nail on the head and you echo what so many of us true Brightonians are thinking.
I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.
Fight Back
says...
8:29pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:Idiot - EDO DO NOT MAKE BOMB RELEASE SYSTEMS - they make systems that PREVENT accidental release - but don't let the facts get in the way of a good ruck with the police.
Bog Vern wrote:Alas, you just don't get it. Whatever you think your entitlements are to a quiet and peaceful life, there is a RIGHT to protest. You will just have to put up with it. It's too bad you disagree with it, but there is nothing to stop you having a protest either. It's for your good as well as other protestors. Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong?
bibble wrote:Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.stickman wrote:It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.bibble wrote:No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
Do you deny that EDO makes bomb-release components? Yes or no?
As far as I can see this is very much about EDO. The violence and intimidation appears to be coming from the police, not the protestors.
sugarhorse
says...
8:30pm Mon 4 May 09
pun master wrote:...and any business that supply computers, have internet access, sell internet enabled mobiles, supply telephone lines oh the list is endless.. hey we could also call ourselves "Smash Time" and while we're at it pretend to be a peaceful organisation!
You are all missing the point here... my "Argus Liveblog" has the time as 8.53 am on Monday. I want to know what the hell has happened to Sunday night. I have a right to Sunday night, and yet someone at the Argus has seen fit to take it away. I suggest a protest, We all meet by the clock tower, and then go and smash up any shops or businesses that sell time pieces or supply part for timepieces. And cuckoos.
brightonneil
says...
8:32pm Mon 4 May 09
Fight Back
says...
8:32pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316 wrote:ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - let's hope the authorities can't get him to hospital because of teh chaos caused by his / her fellow demonstrators !!!!!
One protester fell from roof... that must have really hurt. 20" drop on to concrete groin
jay316
says...
8:34pm Mon 4 May 09
Fight Back wrote:They have a duty of care, so have no choice.. may take some time to get an ambulance to them, but hey thats life...
jay316 wrote:ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - let's hope the authorities can't get him to hospital because of teh chaos caused by his / her fellow demonstrators !!!!!
One protester fell from roof... that must have really hurt. 20" drop on to concrete groin
bibble
says...
8:40pm Mon 4 May 09
brightonneil wrote:Well, I will for two seconds grant "mummy of 2" the status of not being a police stooge and answer some of her points.
mummy of 2 wrote: I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.bibble that is what i was trying to say only that lady said it much better
MoreMikey
says...
8:44pm Mon 4 May 09
churchst wrote:FLICKING idiot.
sugarhorse wrote:care to extrapolate? or is it just one word at a time for you?
churchst wrote:Idiot
SimonS wrote:Your ignorance is disgraceful.
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.
So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:
Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles
Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend
Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?
Disgraceful.
Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.
With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...
...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?
Truly Disgraceful.
Fight Back
says...
8:46pm Mon 4 May 09
MoreMikey wrote:I'll go further - have YOU ever been to Gaza youy flicking idiot ?
churchst wrote:FLICKING idiot.
sugarhorse wrote:care to extrapolate? or is it just one word at a time for you?
churchst wrote:Idiot
SimonS wrote:Your ignorance is disgraceful.
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.
So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:
Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles
Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend
Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?
Disgraceful.
Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.
With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...
...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?
Truly Disgraceful.
TheInsider
says...
8:47pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
8:48pm Mon 4 May 09
Jo Wadsworth
says...
8:49pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316 wrote:jay316 - just to set the record straight, the video was shot by James Devonport, who is not a protester, but who happens to live in Trafalgar Street and captured the scene from his window.
churchst wrote:Yep.. and who shot that video... suprise me.. a protestor who only shows what they want you to see... like wise with the police... who's EG teams got attacked as they are gathering evidence. Why should McD close... the protestors shouldn't have attacked McD. I am interested to know what Brighton Pier has to do with all this.. Maybe the Noble Brothers are financing the making of rockets.. or is it because they have a rocket ride... who knows?? anyone?brightonneil wrote:There's a video above that clearly shows police being aggressive towards protesters simply because they don't want them to go down the street... McDonalds is a pet-hate of globalisation protesters, so if you stand outside one during a demo, your likely to see anger and damage to property (not to people) Terrified families were inside McDs during today's demo and it's very wrong. On one hand I think the protesters should have refrained, but equally McDs should have been closed for the day.churchst wrote:i didnt see any police violence, and i didnt say i had i was in town i saw protesters throwimg rocks at ncdonalds windows and heard lots of abusive shouting and vitriol coming from the protesters, not the police(who i dont particularly like having fallen foulm of them several times previously). just because someone is a schoolteacher does that make them special. i see that quite a few get arrested when i read the paper.brightonneil wrote:So brightonneil agrees the police we're violent, but had the protesters been more co-operative it wouldn't have been like that....??? Unprovable vitriol targeted at a genuine statement from a schoolteacher. My prediction is more protesters were violently assaulted today than police or bystanders.yearman wrote: I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.if the organisers had coperated with the police they would have known what reponse to make as they didnt they had to ensure that there was an adequate response available if needed.Take that up with the organisers and p**s off back to worthing
BN3
says...
8:49pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble
says...
8:50pm Mon 4 May 09
brightonneil wrote:So where is The Hikers?
lo enough of this im off to a good old brighton boozer for a couple, the hikers. wanna join me there bibble? now that would scare the **** out of you back to some poncy kensington saloon bar bar for nancy boys i expect
loopyblonde
says...
8:53pm Mon 4 May 09
brightonneil
says...
8:53pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:you are just so blind and ignorant, i felt intimidated today,i felt unable to protect my wife and children from the baying mob outside Mcds today,and if you say imagine what they feel like in gaza i dont live in gaza and from what i understand the israelis only respond to attacks, i have a human right to wander round my home town on a bank holiday without a bunch of w*****s scareing my family.as i said to you before F**K off back to poncy south kensington and leave us to get on with our lives. im off down the hikers now . see you ther if you fancy a real discussion you W*****r
brightonneil wrote:Well, I will for two seconds grant "mummy of 2" the status of not being a police stooge and answer some of her points. It is unfortunate and not a happy state of affairs when demonstrations turn ugly. I didn't see the demonstration outside Sea Life at tea time, so I can't comment on whether it was peaceful or not. If (again I qualify that by stating that I was not there, so am not a witness) protestors were pushing the police I have to ask the question "why?". Was the situation anything like that at the G20 demonstrations outside the Bank of England, with the police "kettling" people? Who started the pushing, was it the police or the demonstrators? That police are taken away from other duties to be at demonstrations is entirely irrelevant. There is a right to protest; the level of policing is decided by the police themselves, usually based on whatever information (nowadays they flatter themselves and call it "intelligence") they can gather beforehand. For the police to be at a demonstration is an absolutely legitimate use of their time, as legitimate as when they are on "child protection" duties. I doubt very much if the crowd of demonstrators would attack a woman with two young children, so if "mummy of 2" felt intimidated I am not sure why. Certainly demonstrations can have an air of tension, but that does not mean that the demonstrators are suddenly turned into psychopaths intent on harming passers-by (or anyone else). I would like to know how "mummy of 2" decided that the student-types "sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there". Were they singing (or chanting, or whatever it is student-types do) "we don't know why we are here"? Or was it that they were just making a noise, unpalatable to "mummy of 2"'s ears? Writing to MPs achieves nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks is does is completely deluding themselves. I am/was a capitalist, but I must admit my confidence in capitalism has taken a big dent. I have paid a huge amount of money in taxes over the years. I don't have a choice where my tax goes, and I certainly don't like it going to Fred the Shred. His payoff and pension I bet will add to a large proportion of those who were demonstrating today in Brighton. The argument that Fred's payoff was a contractually-bindin g and lawful agreement shows the rottenness of the system in this country. If "mummy of 2" wrote to her MP and complained she would get a reply back that says "sorry, that's the way it is". The demonstrators have a more reasonable view on this.mummy of 2 wrote: I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.bibble that is what i was trying to say only that lady said it much better
bibble
says...
8:55pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316 wrote:"mummy of 2" did not say that a group of people rushed towards her.
"I doubt very much if the crowd of demonstrators would attack a woman with two young children, so if "mummy of 2" felt intimidated I am not sure why. " Seeing a group of people rushing towards you be it a protest or any other such reason, is scary trust me. More so for children. A lot of people didn;t know the protests were coming into the town centre.... I think this is why it was kept hush hush by the organisers. To panic as many people as possible. "Certainly demonstrations can have an air of tension, but that does not mean that the demonstrators are suddenly turned into psychopaths intent on harming passers-by (or anyone else)." Really so why throw paint over property that has no involvement as I have said before with the companies that are protesting against. "Writing to MPs achieves nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks is does is completely deluding themselves." And smashing up property of people who are not involved with the company(ies) in question is the right thing to do.. what has the shops in the lanes done to any of the protesters... Nobody seems able to answer this question do they?
therat
says...
8:57pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble
says...
8:58pm Mon 4 May 09
Fight Back wrote:Paul Hills, Managing Director of EDO stated a few days ago "We make things that ensure the safe carriage and release of weapons from aircraft."
bibble wrote:Idiot - EDO DO NOT MAKE BOMB RELEASE SYSTEMS - they make systems that PREVENT accidental release - but don't let the facts get in the way of a good ruck with the police.Bog Vern wrote:Alas, you just don't get it. Whatever you think your entitlements are to a quiet and peaceful life, there is a RIGHT to protest. You will just have to put up with it. It's too bad you disagree with it, but there is nothing to stop you having a protest either. It's for your good as well as other protestors. Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong? Do you deny that EDO makes bomb-release components? Yes or no? As far as I can see this is very much about EDO. The violence and intimidation appears to be coming from the police, not the protestors.bibble wrote:Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.stickman wrote:It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.bibble wrote:No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
jay316
says...
8:58pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:The hikers is down in Coledean, Brighton... Bottom of Coledean Lane (I think)
brightonneil wrote:So where is The Hikers?
lo enough of this im off to a good old brighton boozer for a couple, the hikers. wanna join me there bibble? now that would scare the **** out of you back to some poncy kensington saloon bar bar for nancy boys i expect
I thought I had made clear that the poncy pubs are not to my taste. Did you actually read what I wrote?
bibble
says...
9:00pm Mon 4 May 09
brightonneil wrote:Oh dear, it sounds like you want to resort to violence.
bibble wrote:you are just so blind and ignorant, i felt intimidated today,i felt unable to protect my wife and children from the baying mob outside Mcds today,and if you say imagine what they feel like in gaza i dont live in gaza and from what i understand the israelis only respond to attacks, i have a human right to wander round my home town on a bank holiday without a bunch of w*****s scareing my family.as i said to you before F**K off back to poncy south kensington and leave us to get on with our lives. im off down the hikers now . see you ther if you fancy a real discussion you W*****rbrightonneil wrote:Well, I will for two seconds grant "mummy of 2" the status of not being a police stooge and answer some of her points. It is unfortunate and not a happy state of affairs when demonstrations turn ugly. I didn't see the demonstration outside Sea Life at tea time, so I can't comment on whether it was peaceful or not. If (again I qualify that by stating that I was not there, so am not a witness) protestors were pushing the police I have to ask the question "why?". Was the situation anything like that at the G20 demonstrations outside the Bank of England, with the police "kettling" people? Who started the pushing, was it the police or the demonstrators? That police are taken away from other duties to be at demonstrations is entirely irrelevant. There is a right to protest; the level of policing is decided by the police themselves, usually based on whatever information (nowadays they flatter themselves and call it "intelligence") they can gather beforehand. For the police to be at a demonstration is an absolutely legitimate use of their time, as legitimate as when they are on "child protection" duties. I doubt very much if the crowd of demonstrators would attack a woman with two young children, so if "mummy of 2" felt intimidated I am not sure why. Certainly demonstrations can have an air of tension, but that does not mean that the demonstrators are suddenly turned into psychopaths intent on harming passers-by (or anyone else). I would like to know how "mummy of 2" decided that the student-types "sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there". Were they singing (or chanting, or whatever it is student-types do) "we don't know why we are here"? Or was it that they were just making a noise, unpalatable to "mummy of 2"'s ears? Writing to MPs achieves nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks is does is completely deluding themselves. I am/was a capitalist, but I must admit my confidence in capitalism has taken a big dent. I have paid a huge amount of money in taxes over the years. I don't have a choice where my tax goes, and I certainly don't like it going to Fred the Shred. His payoff and pension I bet will add to a large proportion of those who were demonstrating today in Brighton. The argument that Fred's payoff was a contractually-bindin g and lawful agreement shows the rottenness of the system in this country. If "mummy of 2" wrote to her MP and complained she would get a reply back that says "sorry, that's the way it is". The demonstrators have a more reasonable view on this.mummy of 2 wrote: I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.bibble that is what i was trying to say only that lady said it much better
rudechris
says...
9:01pm Mon 4 May 09
brightonneil
says...
9:01pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316 wrote:so you are local then? cant evan spell coldean
bibble wrote:The hikers is down in Coledean, Brighton... Bottom of Coledean Lane (I think)brightonneil wrote: lo enough of this im off to a good old brighton boozer for a couple, the hikers. wanna join me there bibble? now that would scare the **** out of you back to some poncy kensington saloon bar bar for nancy boys i expectSo where is The Hikers? I thought I had made clear that the poncy pubs are not to my taste. Did you actually read what I wrote?
jay316
says...
9:02pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:And if you read what I said correctly, I didn't say she said that.. I was stating that if you had a group (maybe I should have PUT FOR EXAMPLE).
jay316 wrote:"mummy of 2" did not say that a group of people rushed towards her.
"I doubt very much if the crowd of demonstrators would attack a woman with two young children, so if "mummy of 2" felt intimidated I am not sure why. " Seeing a group of people rushing towards you be it a protest or any other such reason, is scary trust me. More so for children. A lot of people didn;t know the protests were coming into the town centre.... I think this is why it was kept hush hush by the organisers. To panic as many people as possible. "Certainly demonstrations can have an air of tension, but that does not mean that the demonstrators are suddenly turned into psychopaths intent on harming passers-by (or anyone else)." Really so why throw paint over property that has no involvement as I have said before with the companies that are protesting against. "Writing to MPs achieves nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks is does is completely deluding themselves." And smashing up property of people who are not involved with the company(ies) in question is the right thing to do.. what has the shops in the lanes done to any of the protesters... Nobody seems able to answer this question do they?
The protests have been in the newspapers for weeks. There were posters around town today indicating the protest. It would also be hard to miss the large police presence in Brighton today.
Throwing a bit of paint over property is not an attack on a person.
TheInsider
says...
9:03pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
9:04pm Mon 4 May 09
TheInsider wrote:Happy Days.. Happy Days.. :)
These poncy uni kids covering their faces and scaring children might have run the other way if they had bothered to walk far enough up the Lewes Road to get to the Hikers.
God help them if they has dared to interrupt a day's drinking in that good old fashioned British boozer. The brats would have wished they were in Gaza.
bibble
says...
9:04pm Mon 4 May 09
loopyblonde wrote:nutcaseblonde, I was a bystander. I was not scared.
What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters and make the world a more peaceful place without them. I respect peoples right to peacefully protest but this was anything but and by harming and scaring innocent bystanders they have as much blood on their hands as the company that they're protesting about.
MzEden
says...
9:08pm Mon 4 May 09
stickman
says...
9:09pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:Sounds like brightonneil will be getting closer to EDO than any protestors today.
brightonneil wrote:And you are confusing democracy with the regime that we live under.
bibble you are confusing democracy and anarchy
brightonneil
says...
9:09pm Mon 4 May 09
TheInsider wrote:thats the 1 didnt know i could do this on a mobile, bibble if you are brave enough?
These poncy uni kids covering their faces and scaring children might have run the other way if they had bothered to walk far enough up the Lewes Road to get to the Hikers. God help them if they has dared to interrupt a day's drinking in that good old fashioned British boozer. The brats would have wished they were in Gaza.
Acheron
says...
9:10pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble
says...
9:12pm Mon 4 May 09
brightonneil wrote:I'm back in The Smoke now. Maybe some other time.
TheInsider wrote: These poncy uni kids covering their faces and scaring children might have run the other way if they had bothered to walk far enough up the Lewes Road to get to the Hikers. God help them if they has dared to interrupt a day's drinking in that good old fashioned British boozer. The brats would have wished they were in Gaza.thats the 1 didnt know i could do this on a mobile, bibble if you are brave enough?
BN1
says...
9:13pm Mon 4 May 09
Acheron wrote:Best post of the day.
OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray.
A couple of points really (though one has just been said).
First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you).
Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)
brightonneil
says...
9:13pm Mon 4 May 09
brightonneil
says...
9:16pm Mon 4 May 09
BN1 wrote:how i wish i was clever enough to write a comment like that and not just be an argumentative old **** who knows right from wrong
Acheron wrote: OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray. A couple of points really (though one has just been said). First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you). Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)Best post of the day.
Osama bin there
says...
9:18pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:As far as I have heard, people were throwing missiles at the window of MacDonalds.
Bog Vern wrote:I feel no compulsion to answer your questions put in such an impertinent manner, but I will do so.
Bibble Answer the point I raised at 741pm NOW - GIVE ME EVIDENCE THAT THE POLICE were the protagonists of violence and intimidation here today!! Or are you avoiding the question???? I want SPECIFICS not throw away remarks. FACTS please.
Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the news, but the police have been carefully briefing against this legal demonstration for the last few weeks. They have complained that the "organisers" would not meet with them, and that they would be on the lookout for "ringleaders".
Even the chief constable was moved to warn his officers to behave. All this strongly suggests very strongly that there are thuggish elements in his force, and that some of them are looking for trouble.
Every time I see a policeman on a horse with a riot helmet I cannot help but think of Planet of the Apes, and the apes on horses were the oppressors. Today there were quite a few police on horses, leaving their dropppings all over the place (is it legal for a horse to foul the public highway - probably, but I'm asking as I don't know).
Outside McDonalds there was evidence of thuggery. Let's see what comes out in the wash. By that I mean photography by members of the public and not the now-instantly-discre
dited official reports from the police.
Vampyre Phaedrus
says...
9:25pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
9:27pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:WHAT? VIOLENT protest is legal in the UK?
Osama bin there wrote:Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.
bibble wrote:I was quoting someone else, and am still waiting for you to quote the chapter and verse on the legal statute that allows violent protest.Osama bin there wrote:Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you? If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.bibble wrote:Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.jay316 wrote:Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
brightonneil
says...
9:29pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:sorry Osama , there were too many police there , and i was with my family,and i ham already doing community service, so i couldnt give anyone a good hiding , but if i had they would have cried they were all a bunch of twats
bibble wrote:As far as I have heard, people were throwing missiles at the window of MacDonalds. What are police to do? Let them carry on or stop them - which may involve some physical coercion. If anyone got a hiding there they asked for it.Bog Vern wrote: Bibble Answer the point I raised at 741pm NOW - GIVE ME EVIDENCE THAT THE POLICE were the protagonists of violence and intimidation here today!! Or are you avoiding the question???? I want SPECIFICS not throw away remarks. FACTS please.I feel no compulsion to answer your questions put in such an impertinent manner, but I will do so. Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the news, but the police have been carefully briefing against this legal demonstration for the last few weeks. They have complained that the "organisers" would not meet with them, and that they would be on the lookout for "ringleaders". Even the chief constable was moved to warn his officers to behave. All this strongly suggests very strongly that there are thuggish elements in his force, and that some of them are looking for trouble. Every time I see a policeman on a horse with a riot helmet I cannot help but think of Planet of the Apes, and the apes on horses were the oppressors. Today there were quite a few police on horses, leaving their dropppings all over the place (is it legal for a horse to foul the public highway - probably, but I'm asking as I don't know). Outside McDonalds there was evidence of thuggery. Let's see what comes out in the wash. By that I mean photography by members of the public and not the now-instantly-discre dited official reports from the police.
unclesam
says...
9:33pm Mon 4 May 09
sugarhorse wrote:spot on mummy of 2
mummy of 2 wrote: I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.Well done mummy of 2. I think you have hit the nail on the head and you echo what so many of us true Brightonians are thinking. For somebody that's new to this, you've made a cracking start :)
bibble
says...
9:35pm Mon 4 May 09
Acheron wrote:You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights.
OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray. A couple of points really (though one has just been said). First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you). Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)
unclesam
says...
9:37pm Mon 4 May 09
jobarnes2000
says...
9:38pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble
says...
9:39pm Mon 4 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:It's you who used the word violent, I didn't. I was referring to the right to protest.
bibble wrote:WHAT? VIOLENT protest is legal in the UK? Don't be such an ar5e. Of course it isn't.Osama bin there wrote:Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.bibble wrote:I was quoting someone else, and am still waiting for you to quote the chapter and verse on the legal statute that allows violent protest.Osama bin there wrote:Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you? If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.bibble wrote:Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.jay316 wrote:Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
bibble
says...
9:42pm Mon 4 May 09
jobarnes2000 wrote:If the police are peaceful, why were they wearing riot helmets and (some of them) balaclavas?
I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.
bibble
says...
9:42pm Mon 4 May 09
jobarnes2000 wrote:If the police are peaceful, why were they wearing riot helmets and (some of them) balaclavas?
I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.
getreal1
says...
9:42pm Mon 4 May 09
unclesam wrote:As they're gutless stink pits, they had advance intelligence and decided that two hundred of them couldn't take five good pikeys.
can anyone tell me why you load of soap dodgers bypassed the level ? it would have been such a great day seeing you all get a good kickin by the pikeys at the fair it would have made it all worth while .
Acheron
says...
9:43pm Mon 4 May 09
SimonS
says...
9:43pm Mon 4 May 09
brightonneil
says...
9:45pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:i saw the "partygoers"today they were violent.
Osama bin there wrote:It's you who used the word violent, I didn't. I was referring to the right to protest. I will not accept any policeman's word that the protests were violent today. The police have demonstrated far too many times in the past and recently that they lie to suit themselves.bibble wrote:WHAT? VIOLENT protest is legal in the UK? Don't be such an ar5e. Of course it isn't.Osama bin there wrote:Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.bibble wrote:I was quoting someone else, and am still waiting for you to quote the chapter and verse on the legal statute that allows violent protest.Osama bin there wrote:Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you? If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.bibble wrote:Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.jay316 wrote:Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
jay316
says...
9:45pm Mon 4 May 09
SimonS wrote:I thought that was normal behavour for people now adays... you missed paint being throw over police and vehicles, and also their tires being let down...
I've seen pictures of flares under police vans, police vans being rocked dangerously, someone was injured by some flying object, all violent in my opinion. If I did any of those normally I would be arrested and so I should be.
Bog Vern
says...
9:49pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:Bibble sorry
Acheron wrote:You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights.
OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray. A couple of points really (though one has just been said). First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you). Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)
Your point that the right to demonstrate should not impose on other peoples' rights is, at first glance, reasonable and fair. But the law on this is rather more complex, as numerous cases have shown.
Take, for example, the law against highway obstruction. Anybody today who was blocking the roads might be considered to be causing an obstruction. They would interfere with the rights of others to use the highways.
But there have been judgements in the High Court (forget the magistrates, they're too friendly to the police and their decisions do not make case law anyway), that the right to public assembly is "unduly restricted" unless it can be on the public highway in some circumstances.
The law recognises that public demonstrations DO interfere with the rights of others, and there is a balance to be struck. But that balance is not equitable at all times. In other words, sometimes some people will just have to put up with demonstrations even if it interferes with their rights.
brightonneil
says...
9:49pm Mon 4 May 09
loopyblonde
says...
9:50pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:Ok bibble, you are obviously not a parent. Please tell me how you tell a 3 or 4 year old to 'get a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality'. Because I'd love to know so that I can explain things to my children before the next time the bunch of crusty thugs arrive.
loopyblonde wrote: What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters and make the world a more peaceful place without them. I respect peoples right to peacefully protest but this was anything but and by harming and scaring innocent bystanders they have as much blood on their hands as the company that they're protesting about.nutcaseblonde, I was a bystander. I was not scared. Perhaps some bystanders need to get either a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality.
Osama bin there
says...
9:54pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:Right, so vandalising Barclays, MacDonalds and other shops and the pier aren't violent acts then? And letting down a police vehicles tyres as well? Photographic evidence on this site.
Osama bin there wrote:It's you who used the word violent, I didn't. I was referring to the right to protest.
bibble wrote:WHAT? VIOLENT protest is legal in the UK? Don't be such an ar5e. Of course it isn't.Osama bin there wrote:Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.bibble wrote:I was quoting someone else, and am still waiting for you to quote the chapter and verse on the legal statute that allows violent protest.Osama bin there wrote:Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you? If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.bibble wrote:Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.jay316 wrote:Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
I will not accept any policeman's word that the protests were violent today. The police have demonstrated far too many times in the past and recently that they lie to suit themselves.
steeleysmith
says...
9:55pm Mon 4 May 09
jobarnes2000
says...
9:57pm Mon 4 May 09
Dave At Home
says...
10:01pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble
says...
10:04pm Mon 4 May 09
Acheron wrote:I mentioned highway obstruction because there was much of that today (note, I'm not conceding that offences were committed - just stating a fact).
Bibble, You'll not that I didn't include the issue of roads being blocked in post. I didn't because I didn't want the post to go on too long and I wanted to make a point about issues to the person and property rather than anything else. Yes you are absolutely right in what you say about demonstrations interferring with the right of others, but that the same time I am sure you will concede that we are talking about very different scales here. The police have the ability to limit peoples rights for their own, or others safety, which is what happens with demonstrations (for both the general public and the protestors). However, as said, that is very different from the case that I cited. I appreciate that my initial post may have seemed simplistic, but I wanted to be brief, I trust you will now (1) acknowledge that I'm not as naive as you may feel and (2) comment on the issue of violence in demonstations that I was pointing out and challenging you on!
bibble
says...
10:12pm Mon 4 May 09
Bog Vern wrote:There is no contradiction in what I have written. I never wrote anywhere that the High Court ruling takes precedence over the Charter (now incorporated).
bibble wrote:Bibble sorry You contradict yourself again. 'Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.' This was your post at 927pm. Your post at 935pm then goes on to intimate that a High Court ruling over rules a European ruling based upon the ECHR - everyone has rights. Therefore - why did those 'protesting' today have more rights than those who wanted to go about their business lawfully? What gave them a right, over and above the victims to this 'protest' to go ahead and do it? To quote you once more 'You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights'. Who has more rights and what is more powerful - European Law or our common/statute law? Sorry you are very confused and therefore confusing me? Answer please?Acheron wrote: OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray. A couple of points really (though one has just been said). First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you). Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights. Your point that the right to demonstrate should not impose on other peoples' rights is, at first glance, reasonable and fair. But the law on this is rather more complex, as numerous cases have shown. Take, for example, the law against highway obstruction. Anybody today who was blocking the roads might be considered to be causing an obstruction. They would interfere with the rights of others to use the highways. But there have been judgements in the High Court (forget the magistrates, they're too friendly to the police and their decisions do not make case law anyway), that the right to public assembly is "unduly restricted" unless it can be on the public highway in some circumstances. The law recognises that public demonstrations DO interfere with the rights of others, and there is a balance to be struck. But that balance is not equitable at all times. In other words, sometimes some people will just have to put up with demonstrations even if it interferes with their rights.
bibble
says...
10:14pm Mon 4 May 09
loopyblonde wrote:Oh loopy, I hope you are not teaching your children that it is OK blow up "scum bag wasters", or that you falsely claim that demonstrators have "as much blood on their hands" as bomb-release suppliers.
bibble wrote:Ok bibble, you are obviously not a parent. Please tell me how you tell a 3 or 4 year old to 'get a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality'. Because I'd love to know so that I can explain things to my children before the next time the bunch of crusty thugs arrive. I hope that the police DID kick the sh*t out of the lot of them. If they don't want the police to be violent then they shouldn't act with violence themselves or take part in a protest with a history of violence. I hope you stay well out of Brighton because believe me, you are not wanted here.loopyblonde wrote: What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters and make the world a more peaceful place without them. I respect peoples right to peacefully protest but this was anything but and by harming and scaring innocent bystanders they have as much blood on their hands as the company that they're protesting about.nutcaseblonde, I was a bystander. I was not scared. Perhaps some bystanders need to get either a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality.
Acheron
says...
10:16pm Mon 4 May 09
andyelevator
says...
10:27pm Mon 4 May 09
Bog Vern
says...
10:28pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:'The law recognises that demonstrations do interfere with the rights of others'
Bog Vern wrote:There is no contradiction in what I have written. I never wrote anywhere that the High Court ruling takes precedence over the Charter (now incorporated).
bibble wrote:Bibble sorry You contradict yourself again. 'Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.' This was your post at 927pm. Your post at 935pm then goes on to intimate that a High Court ruling over rules a European ruling based upon the ECHR - everyone has rights. Therefore - why did those 'protesting' today have more rights than those who wanted to go about their business lawfully? What gave them a right, over and above the victims to this 'protest' to go ahead and do it? To quote you once more 'You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights'. Who has more rights and what is more powerful - European Law or our common/statute law? Sorry you are very confused and therefore confusing me? Answer please?Acheron wrote: OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray. A couple of points really (though one has just been said). First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you). Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights. Your point that the right to demonstrate should not impose on other peoples' rights is, at first glance, reasonable and fair. But the law on this is rather more complex, as numerous cases have shown. Take, for example, the law against highway obstruction. Anybody today who was blocking the roads might be considered to be causing an obstruction. They would interfere with the rights of others to use the highways. But there have been judgements in the High Court (forget the magistrates, they're too friendly to the police and their decisions do not make case law anyway), that the right to public assembly is "unduly restricted" unless it can be on the public highway in some circumstances. The law recognises that public demonstrations DO interfere with the rights of others, and there is a balance to be struck. But that balance is not equitable at all times. In other words, sometimes some people will just have to put up with demonstrations even if it interferes with their rights.
I have said, quite rightly, that the law recognises that protest sometimes does interfere with the rights of others. There is a RIGHT to protest. That other people also have other RIGHTS is also true. There is NO RIGHT NOT to be demonstrated against in the Charter.
So that is why cases come to court to determine if demonstrator Bob's rights have been interfered with TOO MUCH in comparison with Dave the passer by or business owner.
And the courts have regularly shown that OFTEN (but not always) a demonstrator's right to protest will take precedence.
getreal1
says...
10:30pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:LoopyBlonde - a quote from an earlier post from Bibble. He's not in a position to lecture to you or anyone else given this stance. Truth be known he knew there'd be trouble as well as the rest of us and became an innocent bystander and bottled it when his comrades were out and about... probably now retreating to a watering hole in Kensington where his views will be about as welcome as they are on here. Quote Bibble:- "Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust." What a prize waster.
loopyblonde wrote:Oh loopy, I hope you are not teaching your children that it is OK blow up "scum bag wasters", or that you falsely claim that demonstrators have "as much blood on their hands" as bomb-release suppliers.bibble wrote:Ok bibble, you are obviously not a parent. Please tell me how you tell a 3 or 4 year old to 'get a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality'. Because I'd love to know so that I can explain things to my children before the next time the bunch of crusty thugs arrive. I hope that the police DID kick the sh*t out of the lot of them. If they don't want the police to be violent then they shouldn't act with violence themselves or take part in a protest with a history of violence. I hope you stay well out of Brighton because believe me, you are not wanted here.loopyblonde wrote: What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters and make the world a more peaceful place without them. I respect peoples right to peacefully protest but this was anything but and by harming and scaring innocent bystanders they have as much blood on their hands as the company that they're protesting about.nutcaseblonde, I was a bystander. I was not scared. Perhaps some bystanders need to get either a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality.
yoyoman
says...
10:36pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble
says...
10:39pm Mon 4 May 09
Bog Vern wrote:You really are a nutcase.
bibble wrote:'The law recognises that demonstrations do interfere with the rights of others' Then you say that the ECHR is of the utmost importance and you said that the rights of any person are vital. So I say again - using the ECHR as the vanguard of law - what gives a group of people the right over and above another group - to destroy their property, interupt people going their business and frightening children? Morally what gives someone the right to do that? In law what right do they have to frighten, intimidate and bully others to change their plans due to actions and events in their City? I agree that writing to MPs are useless. Direct action is the way forward and I think that I should dig deep into my pockets to help you. Would you go to Israel and protest about this human suffering? Would you go to China to protest about their human rights? Would you go to Burma, Nepal or Zimbabwe to do the same? I will gladly pay some of the cost for you to do so. No you wouldn't. Why - because you are a 'safe' radical who is as prepared to do that as give up all the wonderful facets of life you hold so dear - nice home, telly, too much food in the fridge, cable telly, nice restaurants, fantastic holidays, money on the hip. And you waffle on about injustices in the world. What about famine in Africa? What about the elderly not being looked after in the UK? What are you doing about CO2 emissions? What are you doing to assist with the fight against cancer. heart disease? What are you doing about child protection issues in the UK? Tea time expert. Worse than that a selective tea time expert.Bog Vern wrote:There is no contradiction in what I have written. I never wrote anywhere that the High Court ruling takes precedence over the Charter (now incorporated). I have said, quite rightly, that the law recognises that protest sometimes does interfere with the rights of others. There is a RIGHT to protest. That other people also have other RIGHTS is also true. There is NO RIGHT NOT to be demonstrated against in the Charter. So that is why cases come to court to determine if demonstrator Bob's rights have been interfered with TOO MUCH in comparison with Dave the passer by or business owner. And the courts have regularly shown that OFTEN (but not always) a demonstrator's right to protest will take precedence.bibble wrote:Bibble sorry You contradict yourself again. 'Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.' This was your post at 927pm. Your post at 935pm then goes on to intimate that a High Court ruling over rules a European ruling based upon the ECHR - everyone has rights. Therefore - why did those 'protesting' today have more rights than those who wanted to go about their business lawfully? What gave them a right, over and above the victims to this 'protest' to go ahead and do it? To quote you once more 'You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights'. Who has more rights and what is more powerful - European Law or our common/statute law? Sorry you are very confused and therefore confusing me? Answer please?Acheron wrote: OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray. A couple of points really (though one has just been said). First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you). Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights. Your point that the right to demonstrate should not impose on other peoples' rights is, at first glance, reasonable and fair. But the law on this is rather more complex, as numerous cases have shown. Take, for example, the law against highway obstruction. Anybody today who was blocking the roads might be considered to be causing an obstruction. They would interfere with the rights of others to use the highways. But there have been judgements in the High Court (forget the magistrates, they're too friendly to the police and their decisions do not make case law anyway), that the right to public assembly is "unduly restricted" unless it can be on the public highway in some circumstances. The law recognises that public demonstrations DO interfere with the rights of others, and there is a balance to be struck. But that balance is not equitable at all times. In other words, sometimes some people will just have to put up with demonstrations even if it interferes with their rights.
Ommakeyas
says...
10:40pm Mon 4 May 09
Bog Vern
says...
10:45pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble
says...
10:47pm Mon 4 May 09
getreal1 wrote:"prize waster"? Not at all. My position is very moral. If you are not prepared to stand up and do something you are unhappy about you basically have no back bone.
bibble wrote:LoopyBlonde - a quote from an earlier post from Bibble. He's not in a position to lecture to you or anyone else given this stance. Truth be known he knew there'd be trouble as well as the rest of us and became an innocent bystander and bottled it when his comrades were out and about... probably now retreating to a watering hole in Kensington where his views will be about as welcome as they are on here. Quote Bibble:- "Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust." What a prize waster.loopyblonde wrote:Oh loopy, I hope you are not teaching your children that it is OK blow up "scum bag wasters", or that you falsely claim that demonstrators have "as much blood on their hands" as bomb-release suppliers.bibble wrote:Ok bibble, you are obviously not a parent. Please tell me how you tell a 3 or 4 year old to 'get a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality'. Because I'd love to know so that I can explain things to my children before the next time the bunch of crusty thugs arrive. I hope that the police DID kick the sh*t out of the lot of them. If they don't want the police to be violent then they shouldn't act with violence themselves or take part in a protest with a history of violence. I hope you stay well out of Brighton because believe me, you are not wanted here.loopyblonde wrote: What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters and make the world a more peaceful place without them. I respect peoples right to peacefully protest but this was anything but and by harming and scaring innocent bystanders they have as much blood on their hands as the company that they're protesting about.nutcaseblonde, I was a bystander. I was not scared. Perhaps some bystanders need to get either a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality.
Ommakeyas
says...
10:50pm Mon 4 May 09
theoryofevolution
says...
10:51pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:The police have to wear 'balacalvas' as you refer to them as because they filter out the smell coming from the people that spent their night in someone elses property claiming 'squatters rights'. It's nice to know some bunch of hooligans broke into a church, barrackading themselves in last night. That sort of behaviour is disgusting and it's a shame God was not on top form last night because maybe a lightening bolt would have solved some problems. Maybe some people need to start reading up on the law and, in particular, PACE, COPS and the human rights act which the residents and workers of Brighton today were clearly not benefitting from. I wonder if all your theories of 'anarchy' should be put into practice. 'Anarchy Day' may test the theory of evolution - bring on survival of the fitness - then we will see if your 'points of view' work. I'm guessing Lord of the Flies is not something you people have read because you clearly don't understand it. I'd love to be able to live in a world which didn't require policing and the armed forces however the country would fall apart without rules. You all live in idealistic worlds, the rest of us live in reality. When you have finished smoking cannabis maybe you will come back down to earth and join in the with the real world.
jobarnes2000 wrote:If the police are peaceful, why were they wearing riot helmets and (some of them) balaclavas?
I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.
You seem to have a "one rule for the police, one rule for the demonstrators" mentality.
bibble
says...
10:55pm Mon 4 May 09
Ommakeyas wrote:Well, Ommakeyas, some commentators here will say you got exactly what you deserved. They will say that protestors are scum and the soap-dodgers, and that the police should run you out of town. And that the police who assaulted you should be given medals.
I was a peacefull demonstarter at this event today, after i was told i was threatening fellow police (which is not in my nature) i was thrown to the ground by an officer (who was not showing his numbers)after having my hands up and shouting for him to stop. I was nearly trampled by backing riot police, i was not offered any medical support by police medics, although protesters who saw this attack offered what they could to help, i have sustained a few minor injuries and after this, i feel as though i cannot trust any officer again.
worthinglad
says...
10:58pm Mon 4 May 09
stickman
says...
10:59pm Mon 4 May 09
Ommakeyas wrote:How shocking someone could have suggested such a thing. I also saw a photo where they were drunk and dancing on the roof of the Beach House Cafe. And throwing paint at buildings.
I have just veiwed a video, and it says my fellow protesters where using missiles against the police. that is not true, use common sence we were protesting against a company that makes those things, so why would WE use them? what world are you in??????
bibble
says...
11:01pm Mon 4 May 09
Bog Vern wrote:I will happily argue with anybody who has a different opinion to me, as long as that person will listen to my arguments as I have listened to theirs.
Bibble 'The rest of your post is a load of waffle.' No I don't think it is actually. Tell me about the other aspects of my post? When someone moralises about their superior stance then they have a right to be challenged - it is called democracy. What are your views on going to Israel and taking direct action/demonstration over there? Oh - when someone has made a comment to you that has been rude on previous posts - you have been the first to throw you teddy out of the pram and then go on and moralise about the fact that when you swear you lose the argument, you have nothing to say therefore you resort to insults etc. What have you got to say about that then?
Mel Shock
says...
11:01pm Mon 4 May 09
getreal1
says...
11:02pm Mon 4 May 09
Ommakeyas wrote:Oh well, perhaps next time since you have no confidence in the police, you won't be looking for treatment foc. Hope that your hurt pride's recovered quickly... certainly quickly enough for you and your comrades to peacefully frighten the wits out of small children in McDonalds who were quietly supporting EDO.
I was a peacefull demonstarter at this event today, after i was told i was threatening fellow police (which is not in my nature) i was thrown to the ground by an officer (who was not showing his numbers)after having my hands up and shouting for him to stop. I was nearly trampled by backing riot police, i was not offered any medical support by police medics, although protesters who saw this attack offered what they could to help, i have sustained a few minor injuries and after this, i feel as though i cannot trust any officer again.
weaverfish
says...
11:03pm Mon 4 May 09
yoyoman
says...
11:05pm Mon 4 May 09
Guerrero
says...
11:05pm Mon 4 May 09
Psychic-S
says...
11:09pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:But surrounding and their vehicles as well as opening their car doors and shouting threats at them certainly is! Also have to agree at 'mummy of 2's point; the behaviour I witnessed on Preston Road was most definately that of intimidation. People really lost their argument against war and violence by behaving in that manner and in front of a number of children. The harm that can be done to a child by witnessing that kind of behaviour (think of those kids inside McD's) may not be immediate but can show up later in life, even from a one off incident! I hope, therefore, that those protesters who are so worried about the 'innocent' children affected by bombs / war are (which is definately something to protest against by the by) are proud of themselves and their bullying tactics today! More so, however, I really hope that those children who witnessed them are OK!
jay316 wrote: "I doubt very much if the crowd of demonstrators would attack a woman with two young children, so if "mummy of 2" felt intimidated I am not sure why. " Seeing a group of people rushing towards you be it a protest or any other such reason, is scary trust me. More so for children. A lot of people didn;t know the protests were coming into the town centre.... I think this is why it was kept hush hush by the organisers. To panic as many people as possible. "Certainly demonstrations can have an air of tension, but that does not mean that the demonstrators are suddenly turned into psychopaths intent on harming passers-by (or anyone else)." Really so why throw paint over property that has no involvement as I have said before with the companies that are protesting against. "Writing to MPs achieves nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks is does is completely deluding themselves." And smashing up property of people who are not involved with the company(ies) in question is the right thing to do.. what has the shops in the lanes done to any of the protesters... Nobody seems able to answer this question do they?"mummy of 2" did not say that a group of people rushed towards her. The protests have been in the newspapers for weeks. There were posters around town today indicating the protest. It would also be hard to miss the large police presence in Brighton today. Throwing a bit of paint over property is not an attack on a person.
Ommakeyas
says...
11:09pm Mon 4 May 09
jay316
says...
11:10pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble
says...
11:10pm Mon 4 May 09
theoryofevolution wrote:You must look up to an Old Testament God. Whatever happened to forgiveness? Do you have any?
bibble wrote:The police have to wear 'balacalvas' as you refer to them as because they filter out the smell coming from the people that spent their night in someone elses property claiming 'squatters rights'. It's nice to know some bunch of hooligans broke into a church, barrackading themselves in last night. That sort of behaviour is disgusting and it's a shame God was not on top form last night because maybe a lightening bolt would have solved some problems. Maybe some people need to start reading up on the law and, in particular, PACE, COPS and the human rights act which the residents and workers of Brighton today were clearly not benefitting from. I wonder if all your theories of 'anarchy' should be put into practice. 'Anarchy Day' may test the theory of evolution - bring on survival of the fitness - then we will see if your 'points of view' work. I'm guessing Lord of the Flies is not something you people have read because you clearly don't understand it. I'd love to be able to live in a world which didn't require policing and the armed forces however the country would fall apart without rules. You all live in idealistic worlds, the rest of us live in reality. When you have finished smoking cannabis maybe you will come back down to earth and join in the with the real world.jobarnes2000 wrote: I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.If the police are peaceful, why were they wearing riot helmets and (some of them) balaclavas? You seem to have a "one rule for the police, one rule for the demonstrators" mentality.
Mel Shock
says...
11:10pm Mon 4 May 09
weaverfish wrote:oh horrendously intelligent. You must be so proud of that comment.
Give them all a bath and a job. It'll scare the hell out of them!!!
jay316
says...
11:13pm Mon 4 May 09
Ommakeyas wrote:Tell that to people who lost loved ones in the london bombing..
I see much ignorance and apathy amoung some of you. Our country IS NOT UNDER ANY THREAT. so we make bombs anyway.
theoryofevolution
says...
11:15pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:So you don't deny it then? Let's hope there was no damage caused because you wouldn't want to be admitting to a burglary now...
theoryofevolution wrote:You must look up to an Old Testament God. Whatever happened to forgiveness? Do you have any?
bibble wrote:The police have to wear 'balacalvas' as you refer to them as because they filter out the smell coming from the people that spent their night in someone elses property claiming 'squatters rights'. It's nice to know some bunch of hooligans broke into a church, barrackading themselves in last night. That sort of behaviour is disgusting and it's a shame God was not on top form last night because maybe a lightening bolt would have solved some problems. Maybe some people need to start reading up on the law and, in particular, PACE, COPS and the human rights act which the residents and workers of Brighton today were clearly not benefitting from. I wonder if all your theories of 'anarchy' should be put into practice. 'Anarchy Day' may test the theory of evolution - bring on survival of the fitness - then we will see if your 'points of view' work. I'm guessing Lord of the Flies is not something you people have read because you clearly don't understand it. I'd love to be able to live in a world which didn't require policing and the armed forces however the country would fall apart without rules. You all live in idealistic worlds, the rest of us live in reality. When you have finished smoking cannabis maybe you will come back down to earth and join in the with the real world.jobarnes2000 wrote: I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.If the police are peaceful, why were they wearing riot helmets and (some of them) balaclavas? You seem to have a "one rule for the police, one rule for the demonstrators" mentality.
stay-back
bibble
says...
11:23pm Mon 4 May 09
theoryofevolution wrote:I don't know anything about some squatters in a church. I was simply referring to your lack of charity, calling on thunderbolts for people. It seems a bit extreme for a bit of criminal damage (if damage was done to gain entry).
bibble wrote:So you don't deny it then? Let's hope there was no damage caused because you wouldn't want to be admitting to a burglary now...theoryofevolution wrote:You must look up to an Old Testament God. Whatever happened to forgiveness? Do you have any? stay-backbibble wrote:The police have to wear 'balacalvas' as you refer to them as because they filter out the smell coming from the people that spent their night in someone elses property claiming 'squatters rights'. It's nice to know some bunch of hooligans broke into a church, barrackading themselves in last night. That sort of behaviour is disgusting and it's a shame God was not on top form last night because maybe a lightening bolt would have solved some problems. Maybe some people need to start reading up on the law and, in particular, PACE, COPS and the human rights act which the residents and workers of Brighton today were clearly not benefitting from. I wonder if all your theories of 'anarchy' should be put into practice. 'Anarchy Day' may test the theory of evolution - bring on survival of the fitness - then we will see if your 'points of view' work. I'm guessing Lord of the Flies is not something you people have read because you clearly don't understand it. I'd love to be able to live in a world which didn't require policing and the armed forces however the country would fall apart without rules. You all live in idealistic worlds, the rest of us live in reality. When you have finished smoking cannabis maybe you will come back down to earth and join in the with the real world.jobarnes2000 wrote: I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.If the police are peaceful, why were they wearing riot helmets and (some of them) balaclavas? You seem to have a "one rule for the police, one rule for the demonstrators" mentality.
bagsy67
says...
11:29pm Mon 4 May 09
theoryofevolution
says...
11:38pm Mon 4 May 09
bibble wrote:Thanks for setting me straight on that one...You're very judgemental people. I was not sitting on my backside today, I was working - you know earning a living, doing something for the country, paying taxes so the police can at least try and prevent crime from occurring during 'peaceful protests'. I disagree with war and violence as much as the next person however I also think our armed forces do a brilliant job and, in the words of the Levellers, they are 'fighting for another man's cause'. My question to you is, would you still be anti the likes of EDO if this country came under attack? Do you agree with terrorism? If you feel so strongly about how other countries treat there people, get off your backside, stop terrorising the residents of Brighton, and get out there and sort it out.
theoryofevolution wrote:I don't know anything about some squatters in a church. I was simply referring to your lack of charity, calling on thunderbolts for people. It seems a bit extreme for a bit of criminal damage (if damage was done to gain entry).
bibble wrote:So you don't deny it then? Let's hope there was no damage caused because you wouldn't want to be admitting to a burglary now...theoryofevolution wrote:You must look up to an Old Testament God. Whatever happened to forgiveness? Do you have any? stay-backbibble wrote:The police have to wear 'balacalvas' as you refer to them as because they filter out the smell coming from the people that spent their night in someone elses property claiming 'squatters rights'. It's nice to know some bunch of hooligans broke into a church, barrackading themselves in last night. That sort of behaviour is disgusting and it's a shame God was not on top form last night because maybe a lightening bolt would have solved some problems. Maybe some people need to start reading up on the law and, in particular, PACE, COPS and the human rights act which the residents and workers of Brighton today were clearly not benefitting from. I wonder if all your theories of 'anarchy' should be put into practice. 'Anarchy Day' may test the theory of evolution - bring on survival of the fitness - then we will see if your 'points of view' work. I'm guessing Lord of the Flies is not something you people have read because you clearly don't understand it. I'd love to be able to live in a world which didn't require policing and the armed forces however the country would fall apart without rules. You all live in idealistic worlds, the rest of us live in reality. When you have finished smoking cannabis maybe you will come back down to earth and join in the with the real world.jobarnes2000 wrote: I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.If the police are peaceful, why were they wearing riot helmets and (some of them) balaclavas? You seem to have a "one rule for the police, one rule for the demonstrators" mentality.
You may not realise or appreciate it, but those demonstrators were helping you today. They stood up for THE right to protest. It is not THEIR right, it is OUR right.
If you wanted to, and could get enough soap-using keyboard warriors off their backsides or out of the pub, you could organise a protest. But you don't. It is people who DON'T protest who cause the loss of rights.
If you had any sense you would say something like this to the protestors: "I didn't agree with your protest today, but thank you for reminding me that we do have the right to protest. Thank you for exercising OUR rights."
JohnSmith47
says...
11:45pm Mon 4 May 09
Henfield Hovite
says...
11:48pm Mon 4 May 09
kkj
says...
1:03am Tue 5 May 09
MoreMikey
says...
1:10am Tue 5 May 09
MoreMikey
says...
1:12am Tue 5 May 09
Henfield Hovite wrote:Those were the days, weren't they?
I cant help reminiscing back to those halcyon days when there were just a few thousand mods and rockers trashing brighton during the may bank holidays. aah happy days!!
MoreMikey
says...
1:14am Tue 5 May 09
brightongrappler
says...
1:31am Tue 5 May 09
jay316
says...
1:35am Tue 5 May 09
Abrightonian
says...
1:38am Tue 5 May 09
Abrightonian
says...
1:42am Tue 5 May 09
jooj
says...
3:05am Tue 5 May 09
jay316
says...
3:11am Tue 5 May 09
jooj wrote:EDO makes parts, not whole weapons...
So after Monday we can classify these two entities as:
EDO = Weapons Manufacturer.
Smash EDO = Terrorist group.
Which is worse?
bobbob94
says...
8:00am Tue 5 May 09
oyl
says...
8:20am Tue 5 May 09
bobbob94 wrote:You should rename the campaign to SmashEverything .... grrrrr
For anyone confused about why places other than the EDO arms component factory were targeted, did you look at the Smash EDO website or see any publicity for the event? It was billed as a demonstration against war and greed, with the line Smash EDO, Smash Capitalism on the posters in large letters. So its not exactly suprising that Barclays Bank, McDonalds and an army recruitment center might be targeted by protestors. Its clearly not just a single issue campaign but has a wider anti-capitalist view of things...
Osama bin there
says...
8:25am Tue 5 May 09
bobbob94 wrote:So, if that's the case, can you explain to me why the pier was targeted and damaged?
For anyone confused about why places other than the EDO arms component factory were targeted, did you look at the Smash EDO website or see any publicity for the event? It was billed as a demonstration against war and greed, with the line Smash EDO, Smash Capitalism on the posters in large letters. So its not exactly suprising that Barclays Bank, McDonalds and an army recruitment center might be targeted by protestors. Its clearly not just a single issue campaign but has a wider anti-capitalist view of things...
Jaspurs
says...
8:30am Tue 5 May 09
oyl
says...
8:46am Tue 5 May 09
bibble
says...
9:01am Tue 5 May 09
kkj wrote:You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long.
bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
bibble
says...
9:03am Tue 5 May 09
MoreMikey wrote:It is you who is deluded, chum. If you don't use and exercise your rights, you lose them.
bibble, London (but visit Brighton regularly) says... 11:23pm Mon 4 May 09 It is people who DON'T protest who cause the loss of rights. OK, run that by me again. If people organise protests, disrupt a city for an entire day, frighten children, damage property, assault bystanders and attack policemen, they actually preserve the right to do that, but if people are quiet and stay at home, they lose the right to protest peacefully? You're out of your friggin' mind. You have it completely backwards. It's disgraceful behaviour like that "demonstrated" today that will lose people the right to protest anything.
bibble
says...
9:05am Tue 5 May 09
Abrightonian wrote:If you have ever watched a demonstration it would be clear to you that the police have often been the ones to seek violence. It is telling that the chief constable of Sussex warned his officers against bad behaviour, because nowadays members of the public are filming them when they get up to no good.
Protest is a right we enjoy. What a shame that the people who sought violnece today didn't think of it that way. One business that wasn't inconvenienced was EDO. Well done, Smash EDO. FAIL.
bibble
says...
9:07am Tue 5 May 09
jooj wrote:In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud?
So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
oyl
says...
9:16am Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?
jooj wrote:In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud?
So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations.
Which is worse? Idiots like you.
bibble
says...
9:22am Tue 5 May 09
oyl wrote:It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise".
bibble wrote:They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
yoyoman
says...
9:31am Tue 5 May 09
yoyoman
says...
9:31am Tue 5 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
9:33am Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:If you don't like the laws in this country, use legitimate channels to change them, or better still go and live somewhere else.
kkj wrote:You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long.
bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand.
If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have.
So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong.
Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
Osama bin there
says...
9:41am Tue 5 May 09
yoyoman wrote:But they weren't making any kind of a 'serious point'.
IT TOOK ME AGES TO GET HOME FROM WORK YESTERDAY.... i was unhappy...but when i found out is was the anti-war brigade making a serious point...then my delay of 45 min utes seemed worth it...
we need stronger unions , stronger members of unions and politicians with a back bone...
yoyoman
says...
9:43am Tue 5 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:KKJ
bibble wrote:If you don't like the laws in this country, use legitimate channels to change them, or better still go and live somewhere else. I recommend China for freedom for the individual to do exactly as they please. Do let us know how you get on with challenging the police over there, won't you? The British police are the 'softest' police force in the whole of western Europe. No rubber bullets, no tear gas, no water cannon. Count your blessings.kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
kkj
says...
9:53am Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this.
kkj wrote:You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long.
bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand.
If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have.
So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong.
Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
bibble
says...
9:54am Tue 5 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:Oh dear. You just don't get it.
bibble wrote:If you don't like the laws in this country, use legitimate channels to change them, or better still go and live somewhere else. I recommend China for freedom for the individual to do exactly as they please. Do let us know how you get on with challenging the police over there, won't you? The British police are the 'softest' police force in the whole of western Europe. No rubber bullets, no tear gas, no water cannon. Count your blessings.kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
kkj
says...
9:58am Tue 5 May 09
yoyoman wrote:yoyoman, I suggest you read the entry you are commenting on FULLY before you make the comment.
Osama bin there wrote:KKJ
bibble wrote:If you don't like the laws in this country, use legitimate channels to change them, or better still go and live somewhere else. I recommend China for freedom for the individual to do exactly as they please. Do let us know how you get on with challenging the police over there, won't you? The British police are the 'softest' police force in the whole of western Europe. No rubber bullets, no tear gas, no water cannon. Count your blessings.kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
go to china if you dont like it...PATHETIC COMENT
our police are the softest...
The family of john charles de menezes and the family of garry reynolds do not think that our police are 'soft'..
THE POLICE SHOULD POLICE AND NOT CONFRONT..
ever since 1984 the police have been confrontational..i wonder why?
could it be something to do with the pinochet lover leader we had !!!
yoyoman
says...
10:01am Tue 5 May 09
kkj wrote:IT WILL TAKE ANOTHER PC BLAKELOCK INCIDENT before the police review there VIOLENT tactics...
bibble wrote:But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
bibble
says...
10:01am Tue 5 May 09
kkj wrote:But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to.
bibble wrote:But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
oyl
says...
10:04am Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:• verb create and maintain a feeling of terror in (a person or area).
oyl wrote:It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise".
bibble wrote:They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
kkj
says...
10:11am Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:No-one is suggesting that they have a free hand to restict protest any way they like but is it not reasonable for the police to know the date, time and route of any procession? Is it not reasonable that they know who the organiser is?
kkj wrote:But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to.
bibble wrote:But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest.
Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.
bibble
says...
10:16am Tue 5 May 09
kkj wrote:Yes, in my view, it is absolutely unreasonable for the police to know the route of a protest or who the organisers are. Because that is surrendering the right to protest to a policeman.
bibble wrote:No-one is suggesting that they have a free hand to restict protest any way they like but is it not reasonable for the police to know the date, time and route of any procession? Is it not reasonable that they know who the organiser is? I'll look up your high court case later, must go to work now.kkj wrote:But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to. Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest. Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.bibble wrote:But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
oyl
says...
10:19am Tue 5 May 09
worthinglad
says...
10:24am Tue 5 May 09
worthinglad
says...
10:24am Tue 5 May 09
churchst
says...
11:37am Tue 5 May 09
Acheron wrote:Lets get this straight...
OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray.
A couple of points really (though one has just been said).
First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you).
Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)
churchst
says...
11:59am Tue 5 May 09
loopyblonde wrote:So peace comes when you kill everyone who doesn't agree with you.
What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters and make the world a more peaceful place without them. I respect peoples right to peacefully protest but this was anything but and by harming and scaring innocent bystanders they have as much blood on their hands as the company that they're protesting about.
churchst
says...
12:22pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316 wrote:ok jay316 I'll answer...
As there now seems to be some actual protestors in here... can you answer these questions which nobody today has been able to.
If you protest was against EDO/MBM.. why was Brighton Pier involed along with several shops in the laines.
Is it not the case that no protestors went to the EDO/MBM site to protest (or there wasn't whilst my colleague was there).
If this protest was peaceful, why the need for paintbomb against shops that had no involvement in EDO/MBM.
Finally why the need (and I was there when items were being thrown), did the protestors feel the need to scare poor children half to death.. children who I don't think would have shares, or even work for EDO.
Comments please!!?
jooj
says...
12:43pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe?
oyl wrote:It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise".
bibble wrote:They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
jay316
says...
12:57pm Tue 5 May 09
churchst wrote:Thanks for your comments
jay316 wrote:ok jay316 I'll answer...
As there now seems to be some actual protestors in here... can you answer these questions which nobody today has been able to.
If you protest was against EDO/MBM.. why was Brighton Pier involed along with several shops in the laines.
Is it not the case that no protestors went to the EDO/MBM site to protest (or there wasn't whilst my colleague was there).
If this protest was peaceful, why the need for paintbomb against shops that had no involvement in EDO/MBM.
Finally why the need (and I was there when items were being thrown), did the protestors feel the need to scare poor children half to death.. children who I don't think would have shares, or even work for EDO.
Comments please!!?
1)The pier and the rest of Brighton was 'involved' in the protest today because the protest was held in Brighton town centre... it's not that complicated.
2) The EDO factory was not targeted, because, again, the venue for the protest was Brighton town centre.
3)Throwing red paint in a symbolic act - to make a point. Not 100% peaceful, but not exactly dangerous. Most of the 'painted' businesses do have a connection to EDO, do your homework.
4)When the police start controlling a march, stopping protesters going the direction they want to, the police start hitting people, the protesters instinctively react by throwing stuff at them.
Violence is always regrettable, but don't forget to look at who got violent first, was it the protester with his hands in the air, of the officer with his truncheon in the air?
If I saw a march like that coming towards me and my kids, I would walk away. There are plenty of other McDonalds around.
jay316
says...
1:01pm Tue 5 May 09
jooj wrote:The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM...
bibble wrote:dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe?
oyl wrote:It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise".
bibble wrote:They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought"
Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway.
Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under:
Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box.
Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up.
Hitting a bystander with a projectile.
Destruction of public/private property.
etc.. as already mentioned.
Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"
Richard Eastes
says...
1:14pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316
says...
1:21pm Tue 5 May 09
Osama bin there
says...
2:34pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316
says...
2:40pm Tue 5 May 09
Osama bin there wrote:As I said they seem to think they were in the right and that the police were the ones in the wrong.. of course thats always the case with Criminals :P
Forget every single other argument. Let's just focus one one thing only.
Before yesterday Smash EDO would have had some support within the local community, that is without doubt.
After yesterday's childish, juvenile and wanton destruction of private property, there is no doubt at all that they have considerably less support.
So how does that make yesterday's demo a success?
ipaymytaxes
says...
3:25pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble
says...
3:27pm Tue 5 May 09
jooj wrote:I would describe the police action in which Jean Charles de Menezes was murdered as terrorism. It struck considerable fear into the bystanders.
bibble wrote:dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"oyl wrote:It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.bibble wrote:They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
bibble
says...
3:29pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316 wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.
jooj wrote:The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...bibble wrote:dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"oyl wrote:It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.bibble wrote:They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
Osama bin there
says...
3:31pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316
says...
3:34pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:Really I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier....
jay316 wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.
jooj wrote:The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...bibble wrote:dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"oyl wrote:It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.bibble wrote:They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
bibble
says...
3:37pm Tue 5 May 09
ipaymytaxes wrote:Protestors hide their faces for very good reasons - the police gather "intelligence" on law-abiding people. You must have read how, a couple of weeks ago but also further back, they tried to bribe somebody inside a protest group to provide them with information. The police have stepped beyond law enforcement into the realm of political policing. That is wrong and should be resisted by any necessary measures by the public.
Although the peaceful protestors may have had a valid argument and most certainly have the right to free speech, the remainder of the campaigners used yesterday to cause damage, chaos and violence and are no more than criminals who cover their faces to avoid being identified. Those of you law abiding citizens should ignore the comments of biddle and churchst who a) quite clearly agree with breaking the law and endangering & disrupting the lives of innocent people and businesses and b)who are getting far to much attention.
jay316
says...
3:39pm Tue 5 May 09
ipaymytaxes wrote:It would have made more sense to pull the police out and let the lawful citizens of brighton deal with these thugs.. We used to in the 1970's :)
Although the peaceful protestors may have had a valid argument and most certainly have the right to free speech, the remainder of the campaigners used yesterday to cause damage, chaos and violence and are no more than criminals who cover their faces to avoid being identified. Those of you law abiding citizens should ignore the comments of biddle and churchst who a) quite clearly agree with breaking the law and endangering & disrupting the lives of innocent people and businesses and b)who are getting far to much attention.
ipaymytaxes
says...
3:39pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316 wrote:Great response Jay316, could not have said it better myself!
bibble wrote:Really I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier.... Oh yeah that right the police put all the protestors on the roof to make the protestors look bad... The police forced a protestor to throw a missle that hit a by stander.... The police rocked their own van and let down tires.. All of which was filmed. So I would guess that you are talking a lot of what one could only call "Bull ****" or are indeed one of the protestors (not a bystander as you allegdedly claimed)jay316 wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.jooj wrote:The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...bibble wrote:dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"oyl wrote:It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.bibble wrote:They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
south_coast
says...
3:39pm Tue 5 May 09
south_coast
says...
3:39pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble
says...
3:40pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316 wrote:Perhaps you didn't see any policemen IN UNIFORM on the pier. They have been known to wear plain clothes from time to time...
bibble wrote:Really I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier.... Oh yeah that right the police put all the protestors on the roof to make the protestors look bad... The police forced a protestor to throw a missle that hit a by stander.... The police rocked their own van and let down tires.. All of which was filmed. So I would guess that you are talking a lot of what one could only call "Bull ****" or are indeed one of the protestors (not a bystander as you allegdedly claimed)jay316 wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.jooj wrote:The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...bibble wrote:dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"oyl wrote:It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.bibble wrote:They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
jay316
says...
3:42pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:The release equipment on its own does not endanger anyones lives, as its only a part.
ipaymytaxes wrote:Protestors hide their faces for very good reasons - the police gather "intelligence" on law-abiding people. You must have read how, a couple of weeks ago but also further back, they tried to bribe somebody inside a protest group to provide them with information. The police have stepped beyond law enforcement into the realm of political policing. That is wrong and should be resisted by any necessary measures by the public.
Although the peaceful protestors may have had a valid argument and most certainly have the right to free speech, the remainder of the campaigners used yesterday to cause damage, chaos and violence and are no more than criminals who cover their faces to avoid being identified. Those of you law abiding citizens should ignore the comments of biddle and churchst who a) quite clearly agree with breaking the law and endangering & disrupting the lives of innocent people and businesses and b)who are getting far to much attention.
Please note that the police also often cover their faces at demonstrations. Are they too doing that to "aovid being identified"?
I pay my taxes too. Don't imagine that doing so provides you with greater rights than somebody else.
Where were lives endangered yesterday? What about the safe bomb release equipment that EDO makes? Does not that endanger lives?
bibble
says...
3:46pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316 wrote:Bomb release equipment has only one purpose - to release bombs.
bibble wrote:The release equipment on its own does not endanger anyones lives, as its only a part. Did anyone protest against, RS or Farnell or even maplins all of which supply parts (such as caps, resisters etc) that are used in such equipment. Nope they didn't.. simply because this whole alledged protest, much like the standstead incident, was to cause distruption.. nothing more nothing less.ipaymytaxes wrote: Although the peaceful protestors may have had a valid argument and most certainly have the right to free speech, the remainder of the campaigners used yesterday to cause damage, chaos and violence and are no more than criminals who cover their faces to avoid being identified. Those of you law abiding citizens should ignore the comments of biddle and churchst who a) quite clearly agree with breaking the law and endangering & disrupting the lives of innocent people and businesses and b)who are getting far to much attention.Protestors hide their faces for very good reasons - the police gather "intelligence" on law-abiding people. You must have read how, a couple of weeks ago but also further back, they tried to bribe somebody inside a protest group to provide them with information. The police have stepped beyond law enforcement into the realm of political policing. That is wrong and should be resisted by any necessary measures by the public. Please note that the police also often cover their faces at demonstrations. Are they too doing that to "aovid being identified"? I pay my taxes too. Don't imagine that doing so provides you with greater rights than somebody else. Where were lives endangered yesterday? What about the safe bomb release equipment that EDO makes? Does not that endanger lives?
jay316
says...
3:50pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:It may help your case if you correctly read what people are saying. Where did I say I didn't see any police at the pier.
jay316 wrote:Perhaps you didn't see any policemen IN UNIFORM on the pier. They have been known to wear plain clothes from time to time...
bibble wrote:Really I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier.... Oh yeah that right the police put all the protestors on the roof to make the protestors look bad... The police forced a protestor to throw a missle that hit a by stander.... The police rocked their own van and let down tires.. All of which was filmed. So I would guess that you are talking a lot of what one could only call "Bull ****" or are indeed one of the protestors (not a bystander as you allegdedly claimed)jay316 wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.jooj wrote:The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...bibble wrote:dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"oyl wrote:It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.bibble wrote:They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
And the police have also been known to act as agent provocateurs, egging people on.
It's obvious that you have a closed mind, and think that anything the police do is fine. Too bad. One day perhaps you will learn.
jay316
says...
3:54pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:I know what it does..
jay316 wrote:Bomb release equipment has only one purpose - to release bombs.
bibble wrote:The release equipment on its own does not endanger anyones lives, as its only a part. Did anyone protest against, RS or Farnell or even maplins all of which supply parts (such as caps, resisters etc) that are used in such equipment. Nope they didn't.. simply because this whole alledged protest, much like the standstead incident, was to cause distruption.. nothing more nothing less.ipaymytaxes wrote: Although the peaceful protestors may have had a valid argument and most certainly have the right to free speech, the remainder of the campaigners used yesterday to cause damage, chaos and violence and are no more than criminals who cover their faces to avoid being identified. Those of you law abiding citizens should ignore the comments of biddle and churchst who a) quite clearly agree with breaking the law and endangering & disrupting the lives of innocent people and businesses and b)who are getting far to much attention.Protestors hide their faces for very good reasons - the police gather "intelligence" on law-abiding people. You must have read how, a couple of weeks ago but also further back, they tried to bribe somebody inside a protest group to provide them with information. The police have stepped beyond law enforcement into the realm of political policing. That is wrong and should be resisted by any necessary measures by the public. Please note that the police also often cover their faces at demonstrations. Are they too doing that to "aovid being identified"? I pay my taxes too. Don't imagine that doing so provides you with greater rights than somebody else. Where were lives endangered yesterday? What about the safe bomb release equipment that EDO makes? Does not that endanger lives?
How blinkered you are.
jay316
says...
4:00pm Tue 5 May 09
south_coast wrote:That is the case.. as many people who were bystanders Witnessed. But not according to the official sources from the alledged protestors.
Some of the protestor were quite obviously out to cause trouble and nothing else. Why else would they be wearing face scarfs and mask if they were going to have a peaceful demonstration. The ones starting the trouble would no doubt have been amongst the first people to go crying to the press when the police used force.
They lost a lot of public support yesterday and only have themselves to blame.
bibble
says...
4:00pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316 wrote:"Where did I say I didn't see any police at the pier"?
bibble wrote:It may help your case if you correctly read what people are saying. Where did I say I didn't see any police at the pier. I said and I quote "I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier", not I didnt see any police. I also never said at any time that the police were in the right or wrong, or for that matter that they egg or do not egg people on. I was merely stating that the protestors always seem to thing they did right even if they break the law, and then wine like babies if they get arrested for such offenses.. And you need to remember that there are the rent a mob people who are there to cause problems be it as part of the offical protest or merely for their own needs. One point I will stress is I don't find it clever to stop a person filming in the street, which happened twice yesterday.. Anyone is allowed to record anything in a public place.. but as this recording may have caught a protestor doing something wrong they get **** with the camera person. FACT!! I don't have a closed mind, and there are good and bad in every industry. There are good and bad in protestors.. even though they all think they are squicky clean.jay316 wrote:Perhaps you didn't see any policemen IN UNIFORM on the pier. They have been known to wear plain clothes from time to time... And the police have also been known to act as agent provocateurs, egging people on. It's obvious that you have a closed mind, and think that anything the police do is fine. Too bad. One day perhaps you will learn.bibble wrote:Really I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier.... Oh yeah that right the police put all the protestors on the roof to make the protestors look bad... The police forced a protestor to throw a missle that hit a by stander.... The police rocked their own van and let down tires.. All of which was filmed. So I would guess that you are talking a lot of what one could only call "Bull ****" or are indeed one of the protestors (not a bystander as you allegdedly claimed)jay316 wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.jooj wrote:The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...bibble wrote:dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"oyl wrote:It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.bibble wrote:They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
bibble
says...
4:04pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316
says...
4:09pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:READ CAREFULLY... "any police on the roof of the pier.. "..
jay316 wrote:"Where did I say I didn't see any police at the pier"?
bibble wrote:It may help your case if you correctly read what people are saying. Where did I say I didn't see any police at the pier. I said and I quote "I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier", not I didnt see any police. I also never said at any time that the police were in the right or wrong, or for that matter that they egg or do not egg people on. I was merely stating that the protestors always seem to thing they did right even if they break the law, and then wine like babies if they get arrested for such offenses.. And you need to remember that there are the rent a mob people who are there to cause problems be it as part of the offical protest or merely for their own needs. One point I will stress is I don't find it clever to stop a person filming in the street, which happened twice yesterday.. Anyone is allowed to record anything in a public place.. but as this recording may have caught a protestor doing something wrong they get **** with the camera person. FACT!! I don't have a closed mind, and there are good and bad in every industry. There are good and bad in protestors.. even though they all think they are squicky clean.jay316 wrote:Perhaps you didn't see any policemen IN UNIFORM on the pier. They have been known to wear plain clothes from time to time... And the police have also been known to act as agent provocateurs, egging people on. It's obvious that you have a closed mind, and think that anything the police do is fine. Too bad. One day perhaps you will learn.bibble wrote:Really I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier.... Oh yeah that right the police put all the protestors on the roof to make the protestors look bad... The police forced a protestor to throw a missle that hit a by stander.... The police rocked their own van and let down tires.. All of which was filmed. So I would guess that you are talking a lot of what one could only call "Bull ****" or are indeed one of the protestors (not a bystander as you allegdedly claimed)jay316 wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.jooj wrote:The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...bibble wrote:dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"oyl wrote:It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.bibble wrote:They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
Your previous comment: "I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier...."
You are mistaken about filming in a public place now. Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act amended a previous Terrorim Act. It is an offence to take a photograph of a policeman. It has strict liability, i.e. the taking of the photograph is the offence. There is a statutory defence if the photographer can PROVE they have a reasonable excuse.
ANYONE who took photographs of the police yesterday has, according to the act, committed an offence. The fact that the police were in a public place is entirely irrelevant - the act makes no special allowance for that.
Unless, of course, you are referring to the police taking photographs. It doesn't, perhaps, cross your mind that it's wrong to elevate the police above ordinary members of the public in this way.
jay316
says...
4:14pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:Not unless I was standing right in front of him..
Look at the main page of The Argus web site. Is that the face of a friendly policeman? Does that not strike fear into you?
bibble
says...
4:20pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316 wrote:You're trying to dig yourself out of a hole of your own making. I doubt many people would accept that being on the roof of the pier is not also being at the pier. If I am on the concourse at Brighton Station am I also not at the station?
bibble wrote:READ CAREFULLY... "any police on the roof of the pier.. ".. NOT AT THE PIER.. Its a different sentance. .... You don't need legislation to ask someone a question. The police, police by consent, after all. They can do a S.44 search, assuming that it is in force in the area in which the filming is being done. You obviously don't need a reason. . . However, if your normal response is to quote Terror legislation at people and then search them as a matter of course then I am sure you would be making some piece of vermin in The Daily Toilet Paper press offices smile because they would have another anti-police story. That experience would probably also alienate a MOP for the rest of their lives. Nonetheless, if there is intel for a particular area and someone does not answer questions satisfactorily as to why they are photographing I can see why a search might be considered. But I am not sure that I would be challenging people taking pictures anyway. A terrorist is hardly going to stand there that blatantly and take pictures of buildings. There are many more subtle ways to do that.jay316 wrote:"Where did I say I didn't see any police at the pier"? Your previous comment: "I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier...." You are mistaken about filming in a public place now. Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act amended a previous Terrorim Act. It is an offence to take a photograph of a policeman. It has strict liability, i.e. the taking of the photograph is the offence. There is a statutory defence if the photographer can PROVE they have a reasonable excuse. ANYONE who took photographs of the police yesterday has, according to the act, committed an offence. The fact that the police were in a public place is entirely irrelevant - the act makes no special allowance for that. Unless, of course, you are referring to the police taking photographs. It doesn't, perhaps, cross your mind that it's wrong to elevate the police above ordinary members of the public in this way.bibble wrote:It may help your case if you correctly read what people are saying. Where did I say I didn't see any police at the pier. I said and I quote "I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier", not I didnt see any police. I also never said at any time that the police were in the right or wrong, or for that matter that they egg or do not egg people on. I was merely stating that the protestors always seem to thing they did right even if they break the law, and then wine like babies if they get arrested for such offenses.. And you need to remember that there are the rent a mob people who are there to cause problems be it as part of the offical protest or merely for their own needs. One point I will stress is I don't find it clever to stop a person filming in the street, which happened twice yesterday.. Anyone is allowed to record anything in a public place.. but as this recording may have caught a protestor doing something wrong they get **** with the camera person. FACT!! I don't have a closed mind, and there are good and bad in every industry. There are good and bad in protestors.. even though they all think they are squicky clean.jay316 wrote:Perhaps you didn't see any policemen IN UNIFORM on the pier. They have been known to wear plain clothes from time to time... And the police have also been known to act as agent provocateurs, egging people on. It's obvious that you have a closed mind, and think that anything the police do is fine. Too bad. One day perhaps you will learn.bibble wrote:Really I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier.... Oh yeah that right the police put all the protestors on the roof to make the protestors look bad... The police forced a protestor to throw a missle that hit a by stander.... The police rocked their own van and let down tires.. All of which was filmed. So I would guess that you are talking a lot of what one could only call "Bull ****" or are indeed one of the protestors (not a bystander as you allegdedly claimed)jay316 wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.jooj wrote:The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...bibble wrote:dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"oyl wrote:It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.bibble wrote:They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
loopyblonde
says...
4:36pm Tue 5 May 09
Ommakeyas wrote:Can you honestly say that you were just standing in the street making no noise or actions that may be construed as agressive and a Policeman attacked you completely unprovoked?
I was a peacefull demonstarter at this event today, after i was told i was threatening fellow police (which is not in my nature) i was thrown to the ground by an officer (who was not showing his numbers)after having my hands up and shouting for him to stop. I was nearly trampled by backing riot police, i was not offered any medical support by police medics, although protesters who saw this attack offered what they could to help, i have sustained a few minor injuries and after this, i feel as though i cannot trust any officer again.
south_coast
says...
4:36pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316
says...
4:37pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316
says...
4:41pm Tue 5 May 09
loopyblonde wrote:Indeed.. why should the police put themselves and lawful members of public at risk..
Ommakeyas wrote:Can you honestly say that you were just standing in the street making no noise or actions that may be construed as agressive and a Policeman attacked you completely unprovoked?
I was a peacefull demonstarter at this event today, after i was told i was threatening fellow police (which is not in my nature) i was thrown to the ground by an officer (who was not showing his numbers)after having my hands up and shouting for him to stop. I was nearly trampled by backing riot police, i was not offered any medical support by police medics, although protesters who saw this attack offered what they could to help, i have sustained a few minor injuries and after this, i feel as though i cannot trust any officer again.
I'm sorry but, if you know that you're attending a protest with a history of violence then surely you are aware that their is a risk to your personal safety?
loopyblonde
says...
4:42pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316
says...
4:43pm Tue 5 May 09
south_coast wrote:Indeed. if you have done nothing wrong, why would the police stop you in the first place.. It seems that some people go out of their way to cause themselves issues with the police.
"If a policeman stops you for any reason and you say "you do not have my consent to stop me" he will laugh at you, and quickly follow up with some violence no doubt."
Nothing like a sweeping statement is there!
I would not have a problem with Police stopping me for any reason. The people that seem to have the problem with it are often those with someone to hide.
I'm sorry but any trouble that you had with the police yesterday was brought on by yourselves.
I think you'll find that very few people have any sympathy for those involved yesterday.
bibble
says...
4:58pm Tue 5 May 09
loopyblonde wrote:Can you make an allegation if you think Ommakayes was guilty of something? We don't have to prove innocence in this country, though some people, loopy people, seem to think that we do.
Ommakeyas wrote: I was a peacefull demonstarter at this event today, after i was told i was threatening fellow police (which is not in my nature) i was thrown to the ground by an officer (who was not showing his numbers)after having my hands up and shouting for him to stop. I was nearly trampled by backing riot police, i was not offered any medical support by police medics, although protesters who saw this attack offered what they could to help, i have sustained a few minor injuries and after this, i feel as though i cannot trust any officer again.Can you honestly say that you were just standing in the street making no noise or actions that may be construed as agressive and a Policeman attacked you completely unprovoked? I'm sorry but, if you know that you're attending a protest with a history of violence then surely you are aware that their is a risk to your personal safety?
kkj
says...
5:05pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:I've now returned from work and looked up your High Court case. It appears that this was an out-of-court settlement, recorded at the High Court. I can find no reports of a court case. Neither can I find any evidence that they were beaten up.
kkj wrote:But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to.
bibble wrote:But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest.
Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.
bibble
says...
5:07pm Tue 5 May 09
south_coast wrote:That you don't have a problem with a policeman stopping you for "any" reason does not mean you have given your consent. It means you are docile.
"If a policeman stops you for any reason and you say "you do not have my consent to stop me" he will laugh at you, and quickly follow up with some violence no doubt." Nothing like a sweeping statement is there! I would not have a problem with Police stopping me for any reason. The people that seem to have the problem with it are often those with someone to hide. I'm sorry but any trouble that you had with the police yesterday was brought on by yourselves. I think you'll find that very few people have any sympathy for those involved yesterday.
bibble
says...
5:09pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316 wrote:Voting has nothing to do with policing by consent.
I am not dig out of any hole.. There may well have been police on the pier itself, that isn't the roof.. the cafe is outside the pier on the main road if my memory serves me right.. and is outside pier property (you can see the line on the pavement). We vote in the govenment (I presume), who employ civil servents (be it police, tax man etc.).. as such we have given the government to act on our behalf. You seem to be a police hater.. lets just hope one day you don't need their help. With regards to the concent as I said "we vote in the govenment (even if you didn't vote directly for them) so that is our concent"
bibble
says...
5:10pm Tue 5 May 09
loopyblonde wrote:Be prepared then if you ever go on a peaceful demonstration. No change will ever result of your being there.
Bibble, you've been saying in some of your posts that the people protesting were also protecting our right to protest. I DO believe in peaceful protest and this is what I will teach my children. But I DON'T believe in violent protests such as yesterday's one and I believe that violent protests such as yesterdays will eventually lead to the removal of our right to protest. It breaks my heart that people came to my town and caused such terror among my family and friends. Maybe one day if you ever have children of your own you will understand.
bibble
says...
5:13pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316 wrote:You're nuts. Innocent people get stopped all the time.
south_coast wrote: "If a policeman stops you for any reason and you say "you do not have my consent to stop me" he will laugh at you, and quickly follow up with some violence no doubt." Nothing like a sweeping statement is there! I would not have a problem with Police stopping me for any reason. The people that seem to have the problem with it are often those with someone to hide. I'm sorry but any trouble that you had with the police yesterday was brought on by yourselves. I think you'll find that very few people have any sympathy for those involved yesterday.Indeed. if you have done nothing wrong, why would the police stop you in the first place.. It seems that some people go out of their way to cause themselves issues with the police. I actually know a few officers who do the local beat on st. james street in Brighton, and they have always been polite to me. Always stop and chat as well. Whilst I am working...
bibble
says...
5:17pm Tue 5 May 09
kkj wrote:Detective Chief Inspector Alex Gibbs, of the Met's directorate of professional standards, stated: "It is accepted that your arrest was unlawful and that any force used on you during your arrest was therefore an assault and battery.
bibble wrote:I've now returned from work and looked up your High Court case. It appears that this was an out-of-court settlement, recorded at the High Court. I can find no reports of a court case. Neither can I find any evidence that they were beaten up. Anyway as I stated earlier, I am not claiming the police have a free hand, but this 'case' does not indicate to me that the legal requirements may well be illegal, as you claim.kkj wrote:But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to. Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest. Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.bibble wrote:But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
bibble
says...
5:20pm Tue 5 May 09
kkj wrote:If the police thought they had a leg to stand on they would have pursued the case.
bibble wrote:I've now returned from work and looked up your High Court case. It appears that this was an out-of-court settlement, recorded at the High Court. I can find no reports of a court case. Neither can I find any evidence that they were beaten up. Anyway as I stated earlier, I am not claiming the police have a free hand, but this 'case' does not indicate to me that the legal requirements may well be illegal, as you claim.kkj wrote:But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to. Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest. Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.bibble wrote:But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
kkj
says...
5:26pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:and...?
kkj wrote:Detective Chief Inspector Alex Gibbs, of the Met's directorate of professional standards, stated: "It is accepted that your arrest was unlawful and that any force used on you during your arrest was therefore an assault and battery.
bibble wrote:I've now returned from work and looked up your High Court case. It appears that this was an out-of-court settlement, recorded at the High Court. I can find no reports of a court case. Neither can I find any evidence that they were beaten up. Anyway as I stated earlier, I am not claiming the police have a free hand, but this 'case' does not indicate to me that the legal requirements may well be illegal, as you claim.kkj wrote:But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to. Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest. Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.bibble wrote:But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
bibble
says...
5:44pm Tue 5 May 09
kkj wrote:"and?" It's an admission of guilt.
bibble wrote:and...? If you go to http://www.timesonli ne.co.uk/tol/news/uk /crime/article619429 6.ece you will find footage of Jeremie Fernandez' arrest. This is what DCI Gibbs is referring to as legally assault and battery. What it isn't is someone being beaten up! When you find any evidence , please feel free to let me know. Likewise, if you can support your claim that the 'legal requirements may well be illegal', let me know.kkj wrote:Detective Chief Inspector Alex Gibbs, of the Met's directorate of professional standards, stated: "It is accepted that your arrest was unlawful and that any force used on you during your arrest was therefore an assault and battery.bibble wrote:I've now returned from work and looked up your High Court case. It appears that this was an out-of-court settlement, recorded at the High Court. I can find no reports of a court case. Neither can I find any evidence that they were beaten up. Anyway as I stated earlier, I am not claiming the police have a free hand, but this 'case' does not indicate to me that the legal requirements may well be illegal, as you claim.kkj wrote:But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to. Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest. Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.bibble wrote:But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
south_coast
says...
5:45pm Tue 5 May 09
MoreMikey
says...
5:50pm Tue 5 May 09
kkj
says...
6:01pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:No, I'm not trying to be obtuse; I'm trying to show your arguments as being half-truths and opinion, rather than facts.
kkj wrote:"and?" It's an admission of guilt.
bibble wrote:and...? If you go to http://www.timesonli ne.co.uk/tol/news/uk /crime/article619429 6.ece you will find footage of Jeremie Fernandez' arrest. This is what DCI Gibbs is referring to as legally assault and battery. What it isn't is someone being beaten up! When you find any evidence , please feel free to let me know. Likewise, if you can support your claim that the 'legal requirements may well be illegal', let me know.kkj wrote:Detective Chief Inspector Alex Gibbs, of the Met's directorate of professional standards, stated: "It is accepted that your arrest was unlawful and that any force used on you during your arrest was therefore an assault and battery.bibble wrote:I've now returned from work and looked up your High Court case. It appears that this was an out-of-court settlement, recorded at the High Court. I can find no reports of a court case. Neither can I find any evidence that they were beaten up. Anyway as I stated earlier, I am not claiming the police have a free hand, but this 'case' does not indicate to me that the legal requirements may well be illegal, as you claim.kkj wrote:But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to. Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest. Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.bibble wrote:But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
You are trying to be obtuse, deliberately closing your eyes to illegal activity by the police. Interestingly, although the police arrest was unlawful and the protestors were assaulted, no policeman has been arrested or even investigated for the crimes they committed.
Yet again, the police pay people to keep quiet, to drop a case. If the boot was on the other foot, the police would investigate the payout as attempting to pervert the course of justice.
The police settled out of court because the plaintiff's case rested on the fact that the police action was unlawful, i.e. they illegally policed the demonstration. Even if the "legal requirements" are not met, that does not mean the demonstration was unlawful.
Bog Vern
says...
6:01pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble
says...
6:23pm Tue 5 May 09
Bog Vern wrote:Not double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insult
loopyblonde
says...
6:26pm Tue 5 May 09
worthinglad
says...
6:30pm Tue 5 May 09
oyl
says...
7:03pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:Bibble - what is the word that SmashEDO protesters have been screeching at anybody in the home farm area for five years - whether or not they work for EDO? SCUM is the answer.
south_coast wrote:That you don't have a problem with a policeman stopping you for "any" reason does not mean you have given your consent. It means you are docile.
"If a policeman stops you for any reason and you say "you do not have my consent to stop me" he will laugh at you, and quickly follow up with some violence no doubt." Nothing like a sweeping statement is there! I would not have a problem with Police stopping me for any reason. The people that seem to have the problem with it are often those with someone to hide. I'm sorry but any trouble that you had with the police yesterday was brought on by yourselves. I think you'll find that very few people have any sympathy for those involved yesterday.
Standing up for one's rights has NOTHING to do with a person having something to hide.
It is a lie, and a lie that a lot of people fall for, that "having nothing to hide" is a legitimate reason for the police to stop you.
I really don't care if you or a lot of other people have no sympathy for the demonstrators yesterday. I know that there are a lot of extremely bigoted people in Brighton, who keep using emotive language to describe people you disagree with. We saw what people like you did in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Calling people "scum" is the first step in dehumanisation, and we saw where that led.
The police have been shown to attack people without any justification. Perhaps you have heard of Ian Tomlinson? Perhaps you think he deserved to be killed.
I adhere strongly to rights, but I do wonder sometimes if people like you should have yours taken away. We'd soon see you hopping up and down. But then we would have to send in OUR police on horses and with dogs, wearing riot uniforms and give you a clubbing. But don't expect us to complain too much.
jay316
says...
7:09pm Tue 5 May 09
Bog Vern
says...
7:11pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:Oh - I see
Bog Vern wrote:Not double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insult
bibble
says...
7:55pm Tue 5 May 09
Bog Vern wrote:I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again.
bibble wrote:Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very muchBog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insultNot double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
bibble
says...
7:59pm Tue 5 May 09
loopyblonde wrote:I think if you open your eyes properly you will see that a lot of police act badly. It isn't just the odd rotten apple here and there. I used to think that, but then I woke up.
Bibble, I don't think anyone is saying that the police NEVER do anything wrong. Isn't this debate about yesterdays violent protest and not any other police involved incidents? To tar ALL of the police with the same brush is to tar ALL protesters with the same brush. There is always good and evil. As for yesterday, in my opinion the protesters who took part in a known to be violent protest march on a known to be family day in a seaside town were the evil on that occasion.
jay316
says...
8:14pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:People on this thread have mostly said they have issues with the Violent Protests not with the protestors as such.
Bog Vern wrote:I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again.
bibble wrote:Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very muchBog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insultNot double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference.
Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults.
Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint.
Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.
loopyblonde
says...
8:16pm Tue 5 May 09
Bog Vern
says...
8:34pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:Bibble - you make me laugh so much that my sides are splitting.
Bog Vern wrote:I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again.
bibble wrote:Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very muchBog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insultNot double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference.
Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults.
Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint.
Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.
bibble
says...
8:40pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316 wrote:No, a lot of people posting on this article DO have a problem with the protestors themselves. Words ranging from "pikey scum" to the ludicrous "hope it rains". Those people are bigots.
bibble wrote:People on this thread have mostly said they have issues with the Violent Protests not with the protestors as such. I think the comment about warmongers is out of line... Our grandparents, parents etc died in several world wars to give wankers like you your liberty.. Maybe this country would have been better under hitlers control (sorry if that offends those of us that are cival). I am sure he would have culled all the wasters, etc.Bog Vern wrote:I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again. I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference. Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults. Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint. Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.bibble wrote:Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very muchBog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insultNot double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
jay316
says...
8:41pm Tue 5 May 09
Bog Vern wrote:Which as I said leads me to believe his is a Protester... not a bystander...
bibble wrote:Bibble - you make me laugh so much that my sides are splitting.
Bog Vern wrote:I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again.
bibble wrote:Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very muchBog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insultNot double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference.
Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults.
Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint.
Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.
You cannot see the woods for the trees can you!!
You have been rude to other people who have posted yet you cant see it can you? You show the same traits as those in Govt - believe they are above everybody else.
Your not and MP are you? Have you got a second home?
You imply that people are attempting to 'dehumanise protestors' - no they are merely expressing their disbelief that they destroy property, intimidate children, frighten women and implicate businesses to EDO through their own warped perspective on life.
They do like protestors that is what they have said - it is the violence and intimidation they reject.
I am not a warmonger at all - I do not promote violence.
You are being rude about people because you are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly.
bibble
says...
8:44pm Tue 5 May 09
Bog Vern wrote:I suggest you read the posts again from start to finish. There are a very large number of posts which are against the protestors personally. "chavs", "pikeys", "scum". How some people judge a book by its cover.
bibble wrote:Bibble - you make me laugh so much that my sides are splitting. You cannot see the woods for the trees can you!! You have been rude to other people who have posted yet you cant see it can you? You show the same traits as those in Govt - believe they are above everybody else. Your not and MP are you? Have you got a second home? You imply that people are attempting to 'dehumanise protestors' - no they are merely expressing their disbelief that they destroy property, intimidate children, frighten women and implicate businesses to EDO through their own warped perspective on life. They do like protestors that is what they have said - it is the violence and intimidation they reject. I am not a warmonger at all - I do not promote violence. You are being rude about people because you are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly.Bog Vern wrote:I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again. I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference. Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults. Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint. Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.bibble wrote:Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very muchBog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insultNot double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
bibble
says...
8:46pm Tue 5 May 09
jay316 wrote:Oh dear. I have said that I was a spectator, not a protestor. But some people believe anything they want to believe.
Bog Vern wrote:Which as I said leads me to believe his is a Protester... not a bystander... Most protestors are happy to shout and scream, but when confronted with a valid arguement, they all disappear in to the woodwork. Strange eh?bibble wrote:Bibble - you make me laugh so much that my sides are splitting. You cannot see the woods for the trees can you!! You have been rude to other people who have posted yet you cant see it can you? You show the same traits as those in Govt - believe they are above everybody else. Your not and MP are you? Have you got a second home? You imply that people are attempting to 'dehumanise protestors' - no they are merely expressing their disbelief that they destroy property, intimidate children, frighten women and implicate businesses to EDO through their own warped perspective on life. They do like protestors that is what they have said - it is the violence and intimidation they reject. I am not a warmonger at all - I do not promote violence. You are being rude about people because you are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly.Bog Vern wrote:I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again. I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference. Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults. Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint. Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.bibble wrote:Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very muchBog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insultNot double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Bog Vern
says...
8:48pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:Still not replied properly although you insist you do.
Bog Vern wrote:I suggest you read the posts again from start to finish. There are a very large number of posts which are against the protestors personally. "chavs", "pikeys", "scum". How some people judge a book by its cover.
bibble wrote:Bibble - you make me laugh so much that my sides are splitting. You cannot see the woods for the trees can you!! You have been rude to other people who have posted yet you cant see it can you? You show the same traits as those in Govt - believe they are above everybody else. Your not and MP are you? Have you got a second home? You imply that people are attempting to 'dehumanise protestors' - no they are merely expressing their disbelief that they destroy property, intimidate children, frighten women and implicate businesses to EDO through their own warped perspective on life. They do like protestors that is what they have said - it is the violence and intimidation they reject. I am not a warmonger at all - I do not promote violence. You are being rude about people because you are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly.Bog Vern wrote:I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again. I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference. Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults. Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint. Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.bibble wrote:Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very muchBog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insultNot double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
bibble
says...
8:51pm Tue 5 May 09
loopyblonde wrote:So how do you justify your earlier comment "What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters".
I'm not interested in talking about other cases where the police were involved and whether or not there was any wrongdoing. I am talking about yesterday's violent protest that was done in front of young children and families. And the fact that the police were there to protect the innocent who never asked for this to happen and may have even been unaware that it was going to happen. You are blinkered. You commented earlier on the main front page picture of the snarling policeman but what you didn't comment on was the fact that smoke from flares or whatever was filling up a public street full of people on a bank holiday day out. And in answer to one of your replies "the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference." I can't say in general whether I like or don't like protesters. I can say that I did not like what yesterdays protesters were doing. Where's the difference in that? You are nothing but a politician yourself judging by a lot of your answers.
jay316
says...
8:53pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:I have not said "that I have an issue with protestors". I have issues with those that are causing issues. (which I think everyone really has an issue with).
jay316 wrote:No, a lot of people posting on this article DO have a problem with the protestors themselves. Words ranging from "pikey scum" to the ludicrous "hope it rains". Those people are bigots.
bibble wrote:People on this thread have mostly said they have issues with the Violent Protests not with the protestors as such. I think the comment about warmongers is out of line... Our grandparents, parents etc died in several world wars to give wankers like you your liberty.. Maybe this country would have been better under hitlers control (sorry if that offends those of us that are cival). I am sure he would have culled all the wasters, etc.Bog Vern wrote:I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again. I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference. Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults. Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint. Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.bibble wrote:Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very muchBog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insultNot double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
My comment about warmongers is valid, when you consider the context in which is was made. My family too fought in WW2 (and WW1) for OUR freedom. Don't try and pretend that YOUR family fought for MY freedom, that's not true.
But then you really let the cat out of the bag saying perhaps it would be better if Hitler did win. You show your true colours with the words "I am sure he would have culled all the wasters, etc.) You look upon the "culling" of people, that is the mass murder of people, as something that could be in some way beneficial.
Thank you for letting us all know.
jay316
says...
8:56pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:Kettle Black.
jay316 wrote:Oh dear. I have said that I was a spectator, not a protestor. But some people believe anything they want to believe.
Bog Vern wrote:Which as I said leads me to believe his is a Protester... not a bystander... Most protestors are happy to shout and scream, but when confronted with a valid arguement, they all disappear in to the woodwork. Strange eh?bibble wrote:Bibble - you make me laugh so much that my sides are splitting. You cannot see the woods for the trees can you!! You have been rude to other people who have posted yet you cant see it can you? You show the same traits as those in Govt - believe they are above everybody else. Your not and MP are you? Have you got a second home? You imply that people are attempting to 'dehumanise protestors' - no they are merely expressing their disbelief that they destroy property, intimidate children, frighten women and implicate businesses to EDO through their own warped perspective on life. They do like protestors that is what they have said - it is the violence and intimidation they reject. I am not a warmonger at all - I do not promote violence. You are being rude about people because you are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly.Bog Vern wrote:I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again. I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference. Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults. Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint. Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.bibble wrote:Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very muchBog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insultNot double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Did you argue or debate any of your points with protestors yesterday? I doubt it.
BN1
says...
9:51pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:Take the case of Ian Tomlinson.
loopyblonde wrote:I think if you open your eyes properly you will see that a lot of police act badly. It isn't just the odd rotten apple here and there. I used to think that, but then I woke up.
Bibble, I don't think anyone is saying that the police NEVER do anything wrong. Isn't this debate about yesterdays violent protest and not any other police involved incidents? To tar ALL of the police with the same brush is to tar ALL protesters with the same brush. There is always good and evil. As for yesterday, in my opinion the protesters who took part in a known to be violent protest march on a known to be family day in a seaside town were the evil on that occasion.
Take the case of Ian Tomlinson. One police officer shoved him to the ground. Did any of the (about) 9 or 10 other police officers there do anything to restrain their colleague, or even help Mr Tomlinson on the ground? No. That's not one bad apple, that's 9 or 10 in one go.
mummy of 2
says...
10:06pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:I was merely stating that my son- who is only 4- was asking why were people pushing the police. He, rightly or wrongly, has been brought up to believe that the police are to protect people.
brightonneil wrote:Well, I will for two seconds grant "mummy of 2" the status of not being a police stooge and answer some of her points. It is unfortunate and not a happy state of affairs when demonstrations turn ugly. I didn't see the demonstration outside Sea Life at tea time, so I can't comment on whether it was peaceful or not. If (again I qualify that by stating that I was not there, so am not a witness) protestors were pushing the police I have to ask the question "why?". Was the situation anything like that at the G20 demonstrations outside the Bank of England, with the police "kettling" people? Who started the pushing, was it the police or the demonstrators? That police are taken away from other duties to be at demonstrations is entirely irrelevant. There is a right to protest; the level of policing is decided by the police themselves, usually based on whatever information (nowadays they flatter themselves and call it "intelligence") they can gather beforehand. For the police to be at a demonstration is an absolutely legitimate use of their time, as legitimate as when they are on "child protection" duties. I doubt very much if the crowd of demonstrators would attack a woman with two young children, so if "mummy of 2" felt intimidated I am not sure why. Certainly demonstrations can have an air of tension, but that does not mean that the demonstrators are suddenly turned into psychopaths intent on harming passers-by (or anyone else). I would like to know how "mummy of 2" decided that the student-types "sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there". Were they singing (or chanting, or whatever it is student-types do) "we don't know why we are here"? Or was it that they were just making a noise, unpalatable to "mummy of 2"'s ears? Writing to MPs achieves nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks is does is completely deluding themselves. I am/was a capitalist, but I must admit my confidence in capitalism has taken a big dent. I have paid a huge amount of money in taxes over the years. I don't have a choice where my tax goes, and I certainly don't like it going to Fred the Shred. His payoff and pension I bet will add to a large proportion of those who were demonstrating today in Brighton. The argument that Fred's payoff was a contractually-bindin g and lawful agreement shows the rottenness of the system in this country. If "mummy of 2" wrote to her MP and complained she would get a reply back that says "sorry, that's the way it is". The demonstrators have a more reasonable view on this.mummy of 2 wrote: I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.bibble that is what i was trying to say only that lady said it much better
BN1
says...
10:14pm Tue 5 May 09
loopyblonde
says...
10:24pm Tue 5 May 09
bibble wrote:I stand by my comment yesterday and repeat what I have said.
loopyblonde wrote: I'm not interested in talking about other cases where the police were involved and whether or not there was any wrongdoing. I am talking about yesterday's violent protest that was done in front of young children and families. And the fact that the police were there to protect the innocent who never asked for this to happen and may have even been unaware that it was going to happen. You are blinkered. You commented earlier on the main front page picture of the snarling policeman but what you didn't comment on was the fact that smoke from flares or whatever was filling up a public street full of people on a bank holiday day out. And in answer to one of your replies "the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference." I can't say in general whether I like or don't like protesters. I can say that I did not like what yesterdays protesters were doing. Where's the difference in that? You are nothing but a politician yourself judging by a lot of your answers.So how do you justify your earlier comment "What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters". YOU are tarring ALL the protestors with one fat brush. I noticed very young children taking part in the demonstrations yesterday, accompanied by their parents. But here you wanting to blow up a load of people. Oh dear.
kkj
says...
12:07am Wed 6 May 09
jay316
says...
2:24pm Wed 6 May 09
kkj wrote:Mmmmm interesting point :)
bibble, I am most disappointed. Six hours and no response to my last post. Am I now to assume that you agree with me?
jay316
says...
2:40pm Wed 6 May 09
Acheron
says...
2:40pm Wed 6 May 09
BN1
says...
6:31pm Wed 6 May 09
jay316 wrote:These videos show nothing but SCUM.
having just watched.
http://www.theargus.
co.uk/news/videonews
/82246/?archive_page
=0
was it not claimed by the protestors who was blogging that the police pushed the biker over.. this video clearly shows protestors doing it..
Shows that they can't even tell the truth on simple matters.
brightongrappler
says...
9:40pm Wed 6 May 09
jay316
says...
11:29pm Wed 6 May 09
brightongrappler wrote:Totally Agree. 100%..
the police have failed miserably - the chief constable should be ashamed and resign now - next time if there is one then let the decent people in brighton sort these unwashed pieces of vermin out.
IndieVoice
says...
11:24am Sun 10 May 09
CAFE CRUNCH: Protesters dance on top of the cafe on the Palace Pier
LETDOWN: A protester lets the air out of a police van which has been sprayed with graffiti. Picture by Kate Howell
CONFRONTATION: A police officer outside McDonald's in London Road. Picture by Simon Dack
STANDOFF: The confrontation in Trafalgar Street. Picture by James Devonport
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Search for Jobs in Brighton, Hove, Lewes, Worthing, Crawley and more...
Search Now »
Find the right person in Brighton, Hove, Lewes, Worthing, Crawley...
Search Now »
Search for Homes in Brighton, Worthing, Hove, Lewes...
Search Now »
Search for Cars in Brighton, Hove, Lewes, Worthing, Crawley...
Search Now »
Jay-kay says...
8:52am Mon 4 May 09