One law for all in the UK?

spen666

Yes- its about those terrorist supportersholding London to ransom.

Firstly- I am all for free speech and the right to demonstrate.

however can I make a few points

1. It is illegal to hold a demonstration within 1 ( or 2km) of Parliament without permission.

This mob clearly were organized enough that 5000 turned up for an "impromtu" demonstration about something that has nothing to do with the UK. We are neither involved in the fighting or backing either party

no arrests were made, but a single female reading out the names of British War dead in Iraq at the Cenotaph is arrested and convicted.

2. It is illegal to obstruct the highway

This mob could have protested on the green in parliament square, but instead chose to block the roads- not march on them , but simply obstruct the roads

They turned up with blankets prepared to sleep on the road and what do the police do? Yes- thats right close the roads for them

The same met police who want to stop bike rides on the last friday of the month using the roads to pass along, but happily shut it for illegal demonstartionss about things that have nothing to do with the UK

During the night a rump of 900 blocked the bridge - including women and children sleeping in sheets and blankets.
Police were forced to close several nearby roads and commuters face severe rush-hour congestion this morning.
Organisers of the demonstration failed to give notice - required by law - and protesters have been carrying the emblem of the Tamil Tigers, banned in the UK and the EU as a terrorist organisation. But there have been no arrests so far, Scotland Yard said.

3. It is illegal to have material supporting terrorist orgainsations- but its ok to apparently do it if it is the tamil tigers- despite there being banned by the UK government in the same way as Al Quaeda are. You try demonstrating in support of them or the IRA- or even just be a member of a legitimate political party like the BNP and see what happens



PS - they didn't affect my commute to work today

always_tyred

I think that they should have arrested all 5000 of them. Okay, they'd have had to ask most of the major police forces in the UK to help out, but I'm sure that the crooks in Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, etc would have been persuaded to lay off for a day under the circumstances.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

I think that they should have arrested all 5000 of them. Okay, they'd have had to ask most of the major police forces in the UK to help out, but I'm sure that the crooks in Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, etc would have been persuaded to lay off for a day under the circumstances.

No- thats far too bureaucratic and time consuming.

now the inquest int oJean Charles De Meninez has finished, we have all those firearms officers with nothing to do.

They could get some target practice in AND of course it would be justified as they feared there was going to be an attack on Parliament.....

Say 100 firearms officers- thats only 50 shots needed each and problem is solved....

verloren

Can I clarify - you're all for the right to demonstrate and freedom of speech, so long as it's done at a time and place approved by the government? Have I summarized your position correctly?

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

3. It is illegal to have material supporting terrorist orgainsations- but its ok to apparently do it if it is the tamil tigers- despite there being banned by the UK government in the same way as Al Quaeda are. You try demonstrating in support of them or the IRA- or even just be a member of a legitimate political party like the BNP and see what happens

Exactly! The BNP are completely legitimate, nothing remotely wrong with their policies whatsoever. I voted for them myself actually.

Excellent transport policies. :roll:

Its an absolute piss-take that all those BNP members were outed so viciously. What about the right to privacy! Some of them were well-to-do professionals such as Doctors, Nurses and Police Officers. If you can't trust your Doctor or a Police Officer (to be impartial) then who can you trust, sheesh. :roll:

alfablue

DDD - so funny

il_principe

A close mate of mine is married to a Tamil - I've got no issue with their protesting, the Tigers are no saints but what is going on over there is tantamount to genocide. Sadly this government gives not a to$$ about human rights etc - just look at their track record in Iraq, collusion with Guantánamo and lack response to Zimbabwe and Sudan. So these protests are unlikely to make the slightest bit of difference.

Good thing about being on a bike - we can alter our travel to avoid disruption and are less likely to be caught in snarls so I fail to see the problem here.

What I do have a problem with is inciting hatred - those anti army protestors in Luton carrying banners with message like "Anglian soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists" should have been arrested. For me that goes beyond free speech. I'm sure if I turned up sporting an equally hateful banner with the words "Muslims: cowards, killers, extremists" I'd have been promptly banged up, and rightly so.

What's needed is consistency.

gtvlusso

The government does not give a toss because Sri Lanka has no assets...Oil, Gold, Platinum......

Comes down to cold hard cash, I am afraid......

Al Queda threatens oil supplies.......Tamil Tigers are fighting for freedom and human rights.....I guess the oil is worth more.....

woodyonthebeach

Problem solved. Sit down demonstration. Articulated Lorry at maximum capacity load (50 Tonnes) Breaks fail. all sorted. Messy but but would work.

Next thought dont they have a queue to be in to get their benefits!!!!!!!!

il_principe

Worth pointing out that some of the Tigers are vicious bastards as well though. I can't understand why the UN won't get involved and at least try to broker a peace deal. History tells us that Guerilla movements are all but impossible to crush.

Christophe3967

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

3. It is illegal to have material supporting terrorist orgainsations- but its ok to apparently do it if it is the tamil tigers- despite there being banned by the UK government in the same way as Al Quaeda are. You try demonstrating in support of them or the IRA- or even just be a member of a legitimate political party like the BNP and see what happens

Exactly! The BNP are completely legitimate, nothing remotely wrong with their policies whatsoever. I voted for them myself actually.

Excellent transport policies. :roll:

Its an absolute wee-wee-take that all those BNP members were outed so viciously. What about the right to privacy! Some of them were well-to-do professionals such as Doctors, Nurses and Police Officers. If you can't trust your Doctor or a Police Officer (to be impartial) then who can you trust, sheesh. :roll:

jashburnham wrote:

Sadly this government gives not a to$$ about human rights etc - just look at their track record in Iraq, collusion with Guantánamo and lack response to Zimbabwe and Sudan. So these protests are unlikely to make the slightest bit of difference.

Good thing about being on a bike - we can alter our travel to avoid disruption and are less likely to be caught in snarls so I fail to see the problem here.

What I do have a problem with is inciting hatred - those anti army protestors in Luton carrying banners with message like "Anglian soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists" should have been arrested. For me that goes beyond free speech. I'm sure if I turned up sporting an equally hateful banner with the words "Muslims: cowards, killers, extremists" I'd have been promptly banged up, and rightly so.

What's needed is consistency.

Spot on guys.

flattythehurdler

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

3. It is illegal to have material supporting terrorist orgainsations- but its ok to apparently do it if it is the tamil tigers- despite there being banned by the UK government in the same way as Al Quaeda are. You try demonstrating in support of them or the IRA- or even just be a member of a legitimate political party like the BNP and see what happens

Exactly! The BNP are completely legitimate, nothing remotely wrong with their policies whatsoever. I voted for them myself actually.

Excellent transport policies. :roll:

Which is all well and good , but has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP, whose point is entirely valid.
Jack Tweedy hardly got the treatment an ordinary thug, (who had just bettered a teenager with a golf club) would get either. Equally OTT.

Its an absolute wee-wee-take that all those BNP members were outed so viciously. What about the right to privacy! Some of them were well-to-do professionals such as Doctors, Nurses and Police Officers. If you can't trust your Doctor or a Police Officer (to be impartial) then who can you trust, sheesh. :roll:

DonDaddyD

flattythehurdler wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

3. It is illegal to have material supporting terrorist orgainsations- but its ok to apparently do it if it is the tamil tigers- despite there being banned by the UK government in the same way as Al Quaeda are. You try demonstrating in support of them or the IRA- or even just be a member of a legitimate political party like the BNP and see what happens

Exactly! The BNP are completely legitimate, nothing remotely wrong with their policies whatsoever. I voted for them myself actually.

Excellent transport policies. :roll:

Which is all well and good , but has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP, whose point is entirely valid.

At what point have I indicated that I either agree or disagree with the original post? What I've done is taken a section of the post that I've disagreed with and commented on it.

Jack Tweedy hardly got the treatment an ordinary thug, (who had just bettered a teenager with a golf club) would get either. Equally OTT.

Tell me you're joking.

He beat the boy before he was in the public eyes (Celebrity Big Brother) he was sentenced to 18months (before he was on TV) and only served 4 months.

artaxerxes

If any of you drive cars ( that includes me) you might have been unknowingly funding the Tamil Tigers in the last few years :shock:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1690415.ece

DonDaddyD

My trouble with the law is that it isn't treated consistently or enforced consistently.

Its also a political tool. Politicians will use the law, force through changes in the law to win support. This leads to a lack of consistentcy. - If I wanted to get voted in now, for example I would: Take a harder line on drugs, knives, thugs and anti-social behaviour. I'd also try and relax the restrictions and laws on motorists.

Also I think that enforcing the law is only as effective as the financial backing given to those enforcing said law. Its also widely cost prohibitive. The beauty and trouble with protests is that if you have 5000 protestors, possibly more what can the police force do? If the police go in all Stormtropper and start stomping on peoples heads they're gonna have to contend with potentially 5000 rioters possibly more. Its not just a question of man power either think of the cost of damage. The simply solution, bend the rules around them, close the road to others don't arrest them for blocking a road. Its not the right option in the 'eyes of the law' its the safe opition for everyone.

Edit: Dr Dre demonstrated limitations within the law against a mob of people so brilliantly with one of his tours. At the last concert the State police (can't remember which state) said he couldn't play a violent video at the start of his bit with Snoop because there were children present at the concert - which, IMO is fair enough. Dre refused to go ahead with the concert stating that they should have before the five mins until he was about to start. He also rationalised that there was some thousands of people at the concert who would make things very ugly very quickly if the concert was cancelled (this may have been Detroit or LA). With the fear of a riot on their hands the police allowed him to continue. On the bonus disc Dre admits he had a non-violent version of the controversial video but the police didn't ask him if he had one. All they did was demand he didn't play it and threatened to cancel the concert if he did... Its not really a point, just thinking is all.

woodyonthebeach

Martial Law?

cjcp

And despite the disruption, people still drove to work in the direction of Parlt Square. :roll:

Following on from what Jash says, leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the demonstration, I think there comes a point when some (much?) of the disruption is just down to commuters still jumping into their cars and not taking an alternative mode of transport to work during events occasions such as this. Cause and effect etc.?

cee

I think I agree with spen.....

If my thoughts on his post are correct, why should 1 person be allowed to demonstrate their right to free speech, when another would not be tolerated, just because of the particular group they support.

If we can march to support the Tamil Tigers, then why not Al-Q, or IRA etc.

I guess the problem with freedom of speech means that we will sometimes hear things we do not agree with.

As for the BNP stuff. it is actually outrageous that your political beliefs mean that your name and address is spurted all over the intertubes, no matter how many others find your beliefs distasteful.

Free speech eh....yes as long as you are inline with our agenda.

cjcp

What really pi$$es me off though is that their threats to jump into the Thames mean that the four RNLI lifeboats on stand-by should they carry out that threat are not being used elsewhere. I hope that the Govt is funding the cost of having the RNLI boats there, because I'd be surprised if the protestors are offering to make any donations.

Let them sodding jump.

chuckcork

If you want one law for all in the UK you could start by looking at pollies expenses, what they claim, how family are on the payroll, how living outside the M25 but still in the home counties allows a second home to be required, and why noone else can claim the number of things as "expenses" against tax that pollies do with impunity.

always_tyred

cee wrote:

As for the BNP stuff. it is actually outrageous that your political beliefs mean that your name and address is spurted all over the intertubes, no matter how many others find your beliefs distasteful.

I think the point with the BNP is that membership does not indicate political beliefs at all, unless you believe that simplistic extensions of racist views to political issues such as immigration, immigration or immigration somehow qualifies.

Didn't someone once say that freedom of speech does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre?

DonDaddyD

cee wrote:

I think I agree with spen.....

If my thoughts on his post are correct, why should 1 person be allowed to demonstrate their right to free speech, when another would not be tolerated, just because of the particular group they support.

If we can march to support the Tamil Tigers, then why not Al-Q, or IRA etc.

If we follow this logic, is it ok then to grant the BNP, Klu Klux Klan, National Front the right to march? Surely the right to march should be dependant on the cause and ideology of the group being supported and not the fact that "Others have a right so why don't we?"

As for the BNP stuff. it is actually outrageous that your political beliefs mean that your name and address is spurted all over the intertubes, no matter how many others find your beliefs distasteful.

Outrageous, why? Isn't there a law or something that states that Doctors, Police, teachers etc and generally those charged with the responsiblity of handling someone elses life are expected to be impartial and fair.

For years people have complained about the racist UK institutions (namely the police force) finally some of them have been outed. OK it was intrusion. I still say 'Chapeaux!' If the races were reversed and it outed ethnic minorities as racists I'd still say 'Chapeaux!'

always_tyred

DonDaddyD wrote:

cee wrote:

I think I agree with spen.....

If my thoughts on his post are correct, why should 1 person be allowed to demonstrate their right to free speech, when another would not be tolerated, just because of the particular group they support.

If we can march to support the Tamil Tigers, then why not Al-Q, or IRA etc.

If we follow this logic, is it ok then to grant the BNP, Klu Klux Klan, National Front the right to march? Surely the right to march should be dependant on the cause and ideology of the group being supported and not the fact that "Others have a right so why don't we?"

As for the BNP stuff. it is actually outrageous that your political beliefs mean that your name and address is spurted all over the intertubes, no matter how many others find your beliefs distasteful.

Outrageous, why? Isn't there a law or something that states that Doctors, Police, teachers etc and generally those charged with the responsiblity of handling someone elses life are expected to be impartial and fair.

For years people have complained about the racist UK institutions (namely the police force) finally some of them have been outed. OK it was intrusion. I still say 'Chapeaux!' If the races were reversed and it outed ethnic minorities as racists I'd still say 'Chapeaux!'

The slight caveat to all of this is that, as I recall, the accuracy of the lists were questionable.

DonDaddyD

Always Tyred wrote:

cee wrote:

As for the BNP stuff. it is actually outrageous that your political beliefs mean that your name and address is spurted all over the intertubes, no matter how many others find your beliefs distasteful.

I think the point with the BNP is that membership does not indicate political beliefs at all, unless you believe that simplistic extensions of racist views to political issues such as immigration, immigration or immigration somehow qualifies.

OK let me get this straight. Being a member of the BNP, a political party, doesn't indicate political belifes. So why else would a person become a member of said political party. I mean, yes, sure there are some instances where there might be a school kid who joined to get some information for his school project for his teacher who is also a member of the BNP party, who knew? But those cases are rare.

Lets be honest now as far right as the BNP party is you would have to share most or some of their political views to want to join the party.

Of course racist views can extend to political issues on immigration...

Hold on.. are you being sarcastic. If you are use emoticons dude!

DonDaddyD

The slight caveat to all of this is that, as I recall, the accuracy of the lists were questionable.

So you mean all those peoples houses i visited weren't may not have been BNP after all.... :shock:

I better buy many many 'sorry cards'...

spen666

jashburnham wrote:

A close mate of mine is married to a Tamil - I've got no issue with their protesting, the Tigers are no saints but what is going on over there is tantamount to genocide. Sadly this government gives not a to$$ about human rights etc - just look at their track record in Iraq, collusion with Guantánamo and lack response to Zimbabwe and Sudan. So these protests are unlikely to make the slightest bit of difference.

Good thing about being on a bike - we can alter our travel to avoid disruption and are less likely to be caught in snarls so I fail to see the problem here.

What I do have a problem with is inciting hatred - those anti army protestors in Luton carrying banners with message like "Anglian soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists" should have been arrested. For me that goes beyond free speech. I'm sure if I turned up sporting an equally hateful banner with the words "Muslims: cowards, killers, extremists" I'd have been promptly banged up, and rightly so.

What's needed is consistency.

I actually have more sympathy with the scum in luton than theis mob.

At least the ones in luton are protesting about something that has a connection with the UK. I object to a foreign mob coming here and being allowed to disrupt our way of life to protest about something that has no connection with the UK. i object even more so when we are not allowed to protest in this country- eg the example I game, about things that do affect us

Stone Glider

So how many of these protesters came by bike?

What proportion fixies, hybrids, roadies?

I have no interest in the rest.

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

....

If we follow this logic, is it ok then to grant the BNP, Klu Klux Klan, National Front the right to march? Surely the right to march should be dependant on the cause and ideology of the group being supported and not the fact that "Others have a right so why don't we?"

Its interesting how you link a legitimate lawful political party with an illegal organisation in another country.

One party espouses a political solution, one espouses murder.

however- please do not let truth get in the way of your trying to keep free speech only for those whose views you support

verloren

spen666 wrote:

At least the ones in luton are protesting about something that has a connection with the UK. I object to a foreign mob coming here and being allowed to disrupt our way of life to protest about something that has no connection with the UK.

I think the fact that we owned the country for 133 years, and that it's still a member of the Commonwealth, is a little bit of a connection.

spen666

verloren wrote:

spen666 wrote:

At least the ones in luton are protesting about something that has a connection with the UK. I object to a foreign mob coming here and being allowed to disrupt our way of life to protest about something that has no connection with the UK.

I think the fact that we owned the country for 133 years, and that it's still a member of the Commonwealth, is a little bit of a connection.

I think you will find we did not "own" any country.


Being a member of the Commonwealth gives us no ability to change what is happening in that country. It is not ruled by us directly or indirectly or did it not get independence many years ago?

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

....

If we follow this logic, is it ok then to grant the BNP, Klu Klux Klan, National Front the right to march? Surely the right to march should be dependant on the cause and ideology of the group being supported and not the fact that "Others have a right so why don't we?"

Its interesting how you link a legitimate lawful political party with an illegal organisation in another country.

One party espouses a political solution, one espouses murder.

however- please do not let truth get in the way of your trying to keep free speech only for those whose views you support

I used the Klu Klux Klan and National Front (both groups shaped around prejudice/racism) as examples to highlight the point at which we stop and say "hang on, I know there is free speech and all but that's just not right".

Yes every one has the right to free speech but at what point do we say "stop" when that right begins to intrude upon the safety of others?

The values of the BNP, any way you dress it up in a political suit, is that of prejudice, they envoke fear and play on frustration to incite hate so save me the egotisical sanctimony and condescending posts. You're speaking as if the existence of the BNP is OK. Beliefs or a political system based on prejudice and a lack of understanding should not be tolerated or accepted.

If the BNP got into power would that be OK? You would only say yes because their beliefs don't directly affect you and that's what you claim I'm doing here:

however- please do not let truth get in the way of your trying to keep free speech only for those whose views you support

Fact is freedom of speech is often abused. Freedom of speech should only be allowed when what is being said isn't a tool to spread hate, fear, prejudice, racism, sexism and a whole other bunch of isms that limit a persons right to exist equally.

So no I don't think the legitamate and legal BNP has a right to exist as a political party, let alone the right to march of speak publicly.

If you're advocating the BNP's right to exist then lets not speak on the matter anymore.