Traffic Chaos Trafalger Square - Wednesday Mornings

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

And you don't consider yourself extreme?

Still, you did say that you'd do whatever it takes. I presume that involves violence too?

It seems than anarchism is in fact just an excuse to act like a yob, interrupt people's lives, smash things up and waste police resources.

is it extreme to cover your face when being video'd illegally?

How were you being videoed illegally. Police amnd anyone else can video people. It is not illegal to film someone.

Or to tresspass onto land bought illegally for the purpose of building a road that breaks European environmental legislation? ....:

How was the land bought illegally?

If monies were paid, transfer deeds signed and transfer registered at Land Registry it is a legal deal.

The fact you don't like the purpose of the deal does not make it illegal

Spen - I'm not getting into a legal argument with you - you can find out about all of this through normal channels - it was fought out in the courts at the time - environmentalists won some cases and lost others. Much of it was to do with planning law....I'm not a lawyer - I was on the planning/ drumming up support/ taking part in action end of things.

Beleiev it or not spen - but we had a few barristers on our side. :roll:

Planning law is different from saying land is purchased illegally.

As I have already asked how was land purchased illegally?

Or is it a case of you throwing out allegations you ccannot support?

Can oyou point to the judgement in the case if you don't understand the law and I will read it myself?

i have made no allegations.

I direct you to the bit where I said I wasn't going to get into a legal argument with you.

I was being deliberately general and not refering to a particular case - but if you wish to look up the history of Twyford Down and various other road protests of that era you will find that legal action was brought by protesters against developers and won some, lost some, as I said.

apolgies if I made a terrible legal faux pas saying it was illegally bought and but meant planning. :roll: As I said, I'm not a lawyer. are you so starved of intellectual fodder that you have to keep picking on me for an argument. Go to the pub with your legal mates and talk to them. I find you and your style rather disturbing.

Porgy

PBo wrote:

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Your list of misdemeaours suggests otherwise..

So which of my demenour do you consider most serious - saying f*ck or covering my face?


You won;t here about the peaceful demos on the news - they don;t get reported. I've only been on about 2 in my whole 20 years of activism that turned nasty and both of those were due to police action. and those who fought back were not anarchists - they were just normal people who had been at the demo and wanted to be left alone - we're not all anarchists you know. successful demos bring in all sorts - even lib dems on occasion.

Ah, it's the police's fault - I wonder why they needed to be in attendance? Just to watch all those peaceful anarchists going for a stroll? I wonder why they were videoing - and I wonder why you were scared to show your face in support of your cause?

We have the ability to alter laws should we not like them through legal and legitimate means. It is clear that you think that you have the right to try to change things through generally being a nuisance and inconveniencing others, not to mention the wasted resources in dealing with your actions.

Still, writing a letter to your MP isn't as much fun as smashing up McDonalds, is it?

didn't we ascertain that a march is legal and legitimate?

I think you are out a bit out of order here - you've seen the word anarchist and gone into some kind of "daily mail' mode......

i think so too. Still if all I've succeeded in doing is wind up a daily Mail reader, then I've had a day well spent.

W1

PBo wrote:

didn't we ascertain that a march is legal and legitimate?

I think you are out a bit out of order here - you've seen the word anarchist and gone into some kind of "daily mail' mode......

PBo,

I was commenting on Porgy's list of "interactions" with the police -

"Well I've been held, moved on or warned for tresspass, taking part in an illegally organised demo, suspicion of intent to breach of the peace, suspicion of criminal damage, breach of the peace, causing an obstruction while giving out leaflets on an unusally wide pavement on a Sunday afternoon, swearing (i said f*ck once), covering my face while being video camera'd, not moving on when asked, standing on the road, going through a red light on a bike, not going through a red light on a bike, being stopped on a yellow grid on a bike when being told to move there by a diffeent ossifer, etc etc. - and that's just for starters"

- and as he said, that's just for starters. That's pretty in line with my view of anarchists, yes. I don't know if that's Daily Mail or not, but as it's Porgy's own words it's a moot point and by no means out of order.

Some marches are legal and legitimate - others, including ones that Porgy has been on - most certainly aren't. He considers that getting what he wants takes too long to do legally, so he does it illegally instead.

I was also commenting on his statement that he'd do "whatever it takes" - which obviously includes a pretty broad range of actions.

I'm struggling a bit because Porgy's once again busy contradicting himself and editing his posts. He does want to hear more about my politics [Edit - he's just changed that bit] but doesn't want to talk to me anymore.

spen666

Porgy wrote:

....
i have made no allegations.

Apart from saying land was purchased illegally. Which is precisely the allegation I am asking you about.

You are unable or unwilling to say how this land was purchased illegally and unable or unwilling to give details of the court case

I direct you to the bit where I said I wasn't going to get into a legal argument with you.

I was being deliberately general and not refering to a particular case - but if you wish to look up the history of Twyford Down and various other road protests of that era you will find that legal action was brought by protesters against developers and won some, lost some, as I said.

In none of the court cases brought over Twyford Down was it ever upheld that land was purchased illegally

apolgies if I made a terrible legal faux pas saying it was illegally bought and but meant planning. :roll: As I said, I'm not a lawyer. are you so starved of intellectual fodder that you have to keep picking on me for an argument. Go to the pub with your legal mates and talk to them. I find you and your style rather disturbing.

There is a huge difference between alleging land was developed without planning permission and alleging land was purchased illegally.

Its no wonder you appear to get yourself into so many scrapes with the law if you are unable to know what it is you are objecting about

Porgy

W1 wrote:

I was commenting on Porgy's list of "interactions" with the police -

"Well I've been held, moved on or warned for tresspass, taking part in an illegally organised demo, suspicion of intent to breach of the peace, suspicion of criminal damage, breach of the peace, causing an obstruction while giving out leaflets on an unusally wide pavement on a Sunday afternoon, swearing (i said f*ck once), covering my face while being video camera'd, not moving on when asked, standing on the road, going through a red light on a bike, not going through a red light on a bike, being stopped on a yellow grid on a bike when being told to move there by a diffeent ossifer, etc etc. - and that's just for starters"

- and as he said, that's just for starters. That's pretty in line with my view of anarchists, yes. I don't know if that's Daily Mail or not, but as it's Porgy's own words it's a moot point and by no means out of order.

i'll talk to you more if you explain your politics to me - sorry if I upset you ducky.

My editting style is all my own - yes I edit after I've posted - the best thing for you is to wait a couple of minutes - it's not personal and I'm not trying to trick you - it's just my way.

shall we go through all my terrible crimes then?
Well I've been held, moved on or warned for tresspass - a civil offense, and not terrible serious. At least no charges were ever brought.

taking part in an illegally organised demo - well this was CM - and Spen takes part in this too - so ask him about it.

suspicion of intent to breach of the peace - suspicion - no actual offense was committed - and this is such a woolly offense anyway - it can be applied to almost anyone taking part in a protest, legitimate or otherwise.

suspicion of criminal damage - I hadn't done anything

Oh - I missed suspicion of burglary - I hadn't done that either

breach of the peace - see under suspicion (above)

,causing an obstruction while giving out leaflets on an unusally wide pavement on a Sunday afternoon - you should be able to tell this was not a legitimate offense - they just didn't want me giving out leaflets - obviously a terrible crime in a democracy

swearing (i said f*ck once) - bang to rights on this one - what a terrible c*nt I am


covering my face while being video camera'd - I believe it was later established that the police should not have been filming every person who went on this (legal) demo regardless of whether they'd committed a crime or not. but never mind.

,not moving on when asked, standing on the road, going through a red light on a bike, not going through a red light on a bike, being stopped on a yellow grid on a bike when being told to move there by a diffeent ossifer - critical mass again - i came very close to being arrested though in the end one copper intervened and told his collegue to calm the f*ck down.

so there you go - I am a terrible serial criminal.

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

....
i have made no allegations.

Apart from saying land was purchased illegally. Which is precisely the allegation I am asking you about.

You are unable or unwilling to say how this land was purchased illegally and unable or unwilling to give details of the court case

I direct you to the bit where I said I wasn't going to get into a legal argument with you.

I was being deliberately general and not refering to a particular case - but if you wish to look up the history of Twyford Down and various other road protests of that era you will find that legal action was brought by protesters against developers and won some, lost some, as I said.

In none of the court cases brought over Twyford Down was it ever upheld that land was purchased illegally

apolgies if I made a terrible legal faux pas saying it was illegally bought and but meant planning. :roll: As I said, I'm not a lawyer. are you so starved of intellectual fodder that you have to keep picking on me for an argument. Go to the pub with your legal mates and talk to them. I find you and your style rather disturbing.

There is a huge difference between alleging land was developed without planning permission and alleging land was purchased illegally.

Its no wonder you appear to get yourself into so many scrapes with the law if you are unable to know what it is you are objecting about

give it a rest Spen - you're in your mad pedantic mode again. :roll:

Porgy

OK - arguing on the internet is for w*ankers and I'm going to stop being one now.

any of you have anything to say about me say it to my face - I'll be at some function or other this summer.

Spen - I have never been charged wiith a criminal act - I've barely even broken a law - except civil laws such as tresspass.
All I'm guilty off on this thread is having a bad memory - how can I be expected to remember the legal ins and outs of something I was involved with 15 years ago? I'm not a robot like you. Nor am I a lawyer - i told you if you want to know look it up...but I certainly remember breaches of planning and environmental laws - and some issue with the way the government purchased the land - which may have come to nothing.

You are the one making allegations my friend and I suggest you stop.

W1

Porgy wrote:

OK - arguing on the internet is for w*ankers and I'm going to stop being one now.

any of you have anything to say about me say it to my face - I'll be at some function or other this summer.

Spen - I have never been charged wiith a criminal act - I've barely even broken a law - except civil laws such as tresspass.

You are the one making allegations my friend and I suggest you stop.

Quoted for posterity.

And, for the record, I also hate the Daily Wail.

Porgy

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

OK - arguing on the internet is for w*ankers and I'm going to stop being one now.
any of you have anything to say about me say it to my face - I'll be at some function or other this summer.

Spen - I have never been charged wiith a criminal act - I've barely even broken a law - except civil laws such as tresspass.

You are the one making allegations my friend and I suggest you stop.

Quoted for posterity.

.

I posted it for posterity - are you going to stop being a w*anker any time soon?

unlike you (I suspect) I don;t have any inflated false sense of self-worth or importance.

So it's the Telegraph you read then?

Actually - i reckon you sound more like a po-faced Guardian reader. Self important ponces the lot of them.

W1

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

OK - arguing on the internet is for w*ankers and I'm going to stop being one now.
any of you have anything to say about me say it to my face - I'll be at some function or other this summer.

Spen - I have never been charged wiith a criminal act - I've barely even broken a law - except civil laws such as tresspass.

You are the one making allegations my friend and I suggest you stop.

Quoted for posterity.

.

I posted it for posterity - are you going to stop being a w*anker any time soon?

I haven't started yet - it slows down my typing.

I thought you'd gone? Like you always say you will, before coming back for more?

Just wanted to make sure you weren't going to edit it (again - and again).

Porgy

No - I reckon I'll let you get one more nasty little snipe in before I go.

W1

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

OK - arguing on the internet is for w*ankers and I'm going to stop being one now.
any of you have anything to say about me say it to my face - I'll be at some function or other this summer.

Spen - I have never been charged wiith a criminal act - I've barely even broken a law - except civil laws such as tresspass.

You are the one making allegations my friend and I suggest you stop.

Quoted for posterity.

.

I posted it for posterity - are you going to stop being a w*anker any time soon?

unlike you (I suspect) I don;t have any inflated false sense of self-worth or importance.

So it's the Telegraph you read then?

Actually - i reckon you sound more like a po-faced Guardian reader. Self important ponces the lot of them.

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more absurd......

To recap from your own admissions - you like to trespass, to attend illegal protests, inconvenience people going about their lawful business, waste god knows how much time and money in police resources and then contend that you don't have any inflated false sense of self-worth or importance? But you think you're above the law and should break it when you feel like it? And you don't think you should have to go down the legitimate and legal channels to change what you want to change?

And as for being closed-minded and having ill conceived pre-conceptions - that's you again, isn't it? Just from another perspective (one I'm not so closed-minded as to be able to see).

I do find the broadsheets difficult to read on the bike - the wind resistance is terrible.

Edit - and there it is.

Ciao.

Porgy

and you haven't disapointed me. Let's try a different recap.

I believe there are multiple facets to a democracy - and much of the establishment including law lords, mps and judges would agree with me.

The law is too slow in many cases to respond appropriately - and how does changing the law stop an illegal act anyway?

I am a thoughtful and enthusiastically politicised person who took inspiration from history and those great politicians who also believed that driect action and breaking the law were soemtimes necessary.

No - I am not above the law - but am willing to break the law and take the consequences knowing that many environmentalists and other protesters have been given lenient sentences because of their just aims.

I am ultimately peaceful and would do anything non-violent to help save a life or an environmental habitat.

You'd be petitioning parliament while paradise itself was being paved over. Oooh quick - let's write another amendment to sub-paragraph b2 about the importance of not concreting over that pond - oh - too late.

Meanwhile the poltiicans are taking back-handers and industry jobs while plotting out their magnificent careers and learning how not to rock the boat.

your turn - do you really wan tto keep trying to assassinate my character and make yurself look silly and petty. I want to go home.

rjsterry

Why don't the pair of you jump on a train to Bristol, and see if you can sneak on as the warm-up act for Gordon, Dave and Nick?

Porgy

rjsterry wrote:

Why don't the pair of you jump on a train to Bristol, and see if you can sneak on as the warm-up act for Gordon, Dave and Nick?

another reason why i didn't want to be in party politics - the endless petty and pointless arguments about nothing. What a waste of energy this all is? Better we work out where we agree and get something done for change. Can anyone honestly say that our party political system has achieved anything in the last 40 years?

W1

Porgy wrote:

and you haven't disapointed me. Let's try a different recap.

I believe there are multiple facets to a democracy - and much of the establishment including law lords, mps and judges would agree with me.

The law is too slow in many cases to respond appropriately - and how does changing the law stop an illegal act anyway?

I am a thoughtful and enthusiastically politicised person who took inspiration from history and those great politicians who also believed that driect action and breaking the law were soemtimes necessary.

No - I am not above the law - but am willing to break the law and take the consequences knowing that many environmentalists and other protesters have been given lenient sentences because of their just aims.

I am ultimately peaceful and would do anything non-violent to help save a life or an environmental habitat.

You'd be petitioning parliament while paradise itself was being paved over. Oooh quick - let's write another amendment to sub-paragraph b2 about the importance of not concreting over that pond - oh - too late.

Meanwhile the poltiicans are taking back-handers and industry jobs while plotting out their magnificent careers and learning how not to rock the boat.

your turn - do you really wan tto keep trying to assassinate my character and make yurself look silly and petty. I want to go home.

What makes you so sure that what you want is "right"? What if someone disagrees with your view? Is it fair for them to also step outside the law to do what they think is right even if it contradicts your view? What gives you the right to enforce your view on someone else via your direct action? Nothing.

The reason that there are systems in place to change things legally and legitimately is to protect people's rights from being trampled over - whether that's by some large conglomerate or by some ill informed "activists" who think that they are right and attempt to enforce that opinion on others via illegal means. Sometimes the law is wrong, sometimes it's right and yes sometimes it's slow - but I'd trust it over some mis-informed and misguided "protesters".

Otherwise there would just be anarchy.....

W1

rjsterry wrote:

Why don't the pair of you jump on a train to Bristol, and see if you can sneak on as the warm-up act for Gordon, Dave and Nick?

We wouldn't want to raise the level of debate too high.

rjsterry

Trouble is even if you start off with no parties at all, they will tend to form as people who share similar ideas decide to group together for a particular cause - usually, an organised group can achieve more than the sum of their individual efforts. If that group starts to repeatedly meet up, then they start thinking, "Well, we should call ourselves something." And hey presto you've got a political party. It's easier for those in control to ignore a small number of unorganised dissenters than a large well organised group. A good example would be the Labour party, which (as I'm sure you will know) grew out of workers banding together to force their employers to provide better working conditions. Sorry if this is stating the obvious.

As to your closing question, yes. Not all of it good, obviously, but then that's only in line with human nature in general. To give an example at random, a lot more children go to school in new buildings now than when I was at school (when 'temporary' classrooms were ubiquitous).

Porgy

W1 wrote:

What makes you so sure that what you want is "right"?

exisiting laws and treaties, or party commitments that were never delivered. sometimes being in an organisation like FoE with many thousands of members who support us is enough - after all we were bigger than any political party - probably all of them put together...and politics were ignoring us. Our actions put us on the agenda - or as Gregg put it - we sold out. :?

What if someone disagrees with your view?

debate and find common ground

Is it fair for them to also step outside the law to do what they think is right even if it contradicts your view?

everyone has a natural right to protest even those i disagree with.

What gives you the right to enforce your view on someone else via your direct action?

As i said - i don;t force my views on others - i'm normally involved with upholding existing law or international treaties, etc etc.

The reason that there are systems in place to change things legally and legitimately is to protect people's rights from being trampled over - whether that's by some large conglomerate or by some ill informed "activists" who think that they are right and

again - i have never trampled over anyone's rights. the reason why protest is accepted as legitimate is becasue sometimes - and you may not believe it - corporations do bad things - often illegal and governments can oppress people.

Another reason for protest is when a minority get looked over - i speak in particular of a spate of actions by disabled persons who felt that govenrment weren't doing enough for them....back in the 1990s.

Of course if you believe that disabled people should be overlooked or that exisitng legislation can be broken by those with enough clout to avoid or ride out legal action then you have a right to be upset, but don;t expect many to have sympathy with you.

attempt to enforce that opinion on others via illegal means.

As I've explained - the courts have ofen been sympathetic to protesters - protest isn't illegal - even if the law is broken - that's like saying traffic is illegal because someone went through a red light. It is extra legal and can even lead to the law being changed. Protest does not exist in a vacuum - most protests I have been involved with have had a barrister or two on board to ensure that the broader legal picture is looked at and by both sides - and not trivial offences carried out by individual protesters.

Sometimes the law is wrong, sometimes it's right and yes sometimes it's slow - but I'd trust it over some mis-informed and misguided "protesters".

Otherwise there would just be anarchy.....

Protesters are rarely misinformed - often they are experts in their fields....and if you think it's misguided then that's your prerogitative, luckily ebnough key legal and political figures don;t agree with you.

I'm a little upset by all this as I have done nothing wrong and ahve been nothing less than decent and honest with you.

Porgy

rjsterry wrote:

Trouble is even if you start off with no parties at all, they will tend to form as people who share similar ideas decide to group together for a particular cause - usually, an organised group can achieve more than the sum of their individual efforts. If that group starts to repeatedly meet up, then they start thinking, "Well, we should call ourselves something." And hey presto you've got a political party. It's easier for those in control to ignore a small number of unorganised dissenters than a large well organised group. A good example would be the Labour party, which (as I'm sure you will know) grew out of workers banding together to force their employers to provide better working conditions. Sorry if this is stating the obvious.

you're dead right about parties - and no I don;t think we'll ever have the perfect system - and no I don;t have a perfect system up my sleeve. The answer is to keep changing. Keep evolving. Technology is so vastly improved from the 19th century why have we still got the same flawed old system?

the whole subject is absolutely fascinating but people remained bored by politics - so something's wrong right there. Why aren't we having a national debate about all of this and teaching it to our kids so they can make more informed decisions in life? why aren't we constantly throwing around new ideas for improving democracy instead of just sticking with the old flawed system that works for the wealthy - oh yeah just answered my own quesiton.

Not all of it good, obviously, but then that's only in line with human nature in general. To give an example at random, a lot more children go to school in new buildings now than when I was at school (when 'temporary' classrooms were ubiquitous).

some things get better, some things get worse and so on and on as we get this revolving door of left wing then right wing govenrments which now seems to have become right wing then a bit less right wing.

I am an anarchist not becasue I want anarchy but becasue I'm interested in the philosophical arguments for anarchism. I am also a great believer in personal liberty and freedom - I may have called myself a libertarian if that word hadn't been hijacked by the far right.

I'm not even interested in revolution as revolutions only lead to a new oppressor. in many ways we do have a good system but outdated and abused - I'm appalled by the corrpution and abuse carried out - government lies and threats and conditions imposed on parliament and mps - that parliament can call a war he people don;t want - or impose an economic system that if people truly understood they would be appalled by.

There's secrecy, dishonesty and corrpution, none of which help democracy function.

I believe in getting something done, personal responsiblity, community based people power, harnessing the people for making change - new models for a better democracy in fact. I'm fed up with this institutionalised apathy

So I decalred myself an anarchist about 5 years ago - though had been interested in the subject since i was a lad.

btw I'm writing this quickly - imagine i'd said it in the pub - it gives an overall picture of where i'm coming from, but i don;t want to be pinned down to phrases taken out of context thankyou.

Porgy

I should have gone home an hour ago :roll:

woodford2barbican

some people have far too much time on their hands.

gordon861

iPete wrote:

Off Topic but why can't cyclists organise similar protests, to things like the encouragement of HGV use during rush hour etc. that was raised recently, except poorly executed through critical mass.

In an attempt to bring the thread somewhere towards back on topic.

I was thinking about this since it was posted and I think I know the answer. It's to do with speed and range.

A motorcyclist can easily go 15 miles out of his way and still get to work fairly rapidily without arriving dripping wet and knackered. With that facility we can bring motorcycles in from a very large area that can turn up, do the demo and then head off to work maybe a little later than normal. Once we reach one of the radial main roads we can easily leave the city at 50mph(most cycles are limited to 15mph), this increases our catchment area a lot and makes us more flexible on timings.

My normal trip to work is 23 miles, on a demo day it's 33 miles with the detour to Westminster, and I still get to work on time or early due to often being later normally.

To run this sort of event with pushbikes I think you would be limited to riders that work within a mile of the demo, or that ride past the location on the way to work. This is why most of the big pushbike demos are either a very big, planned in advance event where people miss work or (what normally happens) they happen at the weekend or a Bank Holiday. And as the weather gets worse the turnout can drop, in theory you can sit on a bike and stay fully waterproof no matter the weather (but it's not fun).

---

W1

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

What makes you so sure that what you want is "right"?

exisiting laws and treaties, or party commitments that were never delivered. sometimes being in an organisation like FoE with many thousands of members who support us is enough - after all we were bigger than any political party - probably all of them put together...and politics were ignoring us. Our actions put us on the agenda - or as Gregg put it - we sold out. :?

It's ironic that you step outside the law to defend the law. I also like the irony that you think that the fact that you belong to a large organisation intrinsically makes you right - even though you go on to comment how you defend minorities!

If you are right, and you're just upholding the law, use your barristers.

Porgy wrote:

What if someone disagrees with your view?

debate and find common ground

Well you admit to taking illegal direct action - that's not quite the same thing.

Porgy wrote:

Is it fair for them to also step outside the law to do what they think is right even if it contradicts your view?

everyone has a natural right to protest even those i disagree with.

That hasn't answered my question - are you happy for others to step outside the law to do what they think is right, even against you?

Porgy wrote:

What gives you the right to enforce your view on someone else via your direct action?

As i said - i don;t force my views on others - i'm normally involved with upholding existing law or international treaties, etc etc.

You do enforce your views, by avoiding the legal means of changing what you disagree with and instead using illegal means. The whole point of having a legal process is to allow both sides to be considered in public and a decision to be made, not for one side to force their views on others by "direct action". If you can't win using proper process, tough, it's there to protect both sides.

Porgy wrote:

The reason that there are systems in place to change things legally and legitimately is to protect people's rights from being trampled over - whether that's by some large conglomerate or by some ill informed "activists" who think that they are right and

again - i have never trampled over anyone's rights. the reason why protest is accepted as legitimate is becasue sometimes - and you may not believe it - corporations do bad things - often illegal and governments can oppress people.

What about the rights of the land-owners on whose property you trespass? Please read again - I accept that is sometimes done by large companies, but I also believe that it's done by people stepping outside of the law.

Porgy wrote:

Of course if you believe that disabled people should be overlooked or that exisitng legislation can be broken by those with enough clout to avoid or ride out legal action then you have a right to be upset, but don;t expect many to have sympathy with you.

That's a low shot.

Porgy wrote:

attempt to enforce that opinion on others via illegal means.

As I've explained - the courts have ofen been sympathetic to protesters - protest isn't illegal - even if the law is broken - that's like saying traffic is illegal because someone went through a red light. It is extra legal and can even lead to the law being changed. Protest does not exist in a vacuum - most protests I have been involved with have had a barrister or two on board to ensure that the broader legal picture is looked at and by both sides - and not trivial offences carried out by individual protesters.

I've never said that protest is illegal. I've even been on protests myself. I think the right to protest is essential, and for the record I think the limitations on protest around Parliament are a disgrace.

I've commented on your admission that some of the protests you attend are illegal.

Porgy wrote:

Sometimes the law is wrong, sometimes it's right and yes sometimes it's slow - but I'd trust it over some mis-informed and misguided "protesters".

Otherwise there would just be anarchy.....

Protesters are rarely misinformed - often they are experts in their fields....and if you think it's misguided then that's your prerogitative, luckily ebnough key legal and political figures don;t agree with you.

I'm a little upset by all this as I have done nothing wrong and ahve been nothing less than decent and honest with you.

I think some of your comments have been far from decent - as to honesty, I don't for one moment think you are a bad person, and I appreciate (and empasise) with what you are trying to achieve. But I also believe that the way that many direct action protesters go attempt to achieve their aims is poorly considered, lacks thought and by stepping outside of the law lacks legitimacy - and that undermines each cause which is represented in such a way.

I'm sure we can bat this back and forward all day to the frustration and boredom of the few people who are following this thread (still), or we can agree to disagree. I don't really mind either way.

spen666

Porgy wrote:

OK - arguing on the internet is for w*ankers and I'm going to stop being one now.

any of you have anything to say about me say it to my face - I'll be at some function or other this summer.

Spen - I have never been charged wiith a criminal act - I've barely even broken a law - except civil laws such as tresspass.

Erm no one , certainly not me is accusing you of breaking the law, so that is a bit of an irrelevant comment to make, or is it made to deflect from the false allegations you make above

All I'm guilty off on this thread is having a bad memory

No, you are guilty of making allegations and not having anything to support them

You allege land was purchased illegally.

So come on then tell us:
a0)what land was purchased illegally OR
b) who purchaed land illegally OR
c) how it was purchased illegally OR
d) provide anything at all to back up wehat appears to be a baseless allegation


Remember its you making this allegation. No one else is making it.


If its untrue, then why not avoid losing more face and admit you were either wrong, lying or whatever

- how can I be expected to remember the legal ins and outs of something I was involved with 15 years ago?

You can remember enough to make allegations without even being able to give any details at all.

Its a bit like me saying (falsely I believe) you are a sex offender but I can't remember any details of what why where or when. Complete nonsense

I'm not a robot like you.

Ahhh now we are into personal insults - always a sign that the insulter is rattled and losing the debate

Nor am I a lawyer - i told you if you want to know look it up...but I certainly remember breaches of planning and environmental laws - and some issue with the way the government purchased the land - which may have come to nothing.

Breaches of environmental and planning law are nothing to do with the allegation you made that the land was PURCHASED illegally.

Its a bit like me saying you are a sex offender and then later justifying it by saying I do remember you getting a parking ticket once, but I can't be expected to remember the details.

Ahh now its not purchasing land illegally, its some issues with the way the land was purchased that came to nothing. That is a million miles away from your allegation that land was purchased illegally

You know enough in your mind to make these allegations, but when challenged on them you try to plead I'm not a lawyer.

Well, if you don't understand the law, then stop making allegations regarding it.

You can't have it both ways

You are the one making allegations my friend and I suggest you stop.

I'm not making any allegations other than asking you for the details of the illegal land purchase(s) you claim happened

gordon861

Just a quick bump to remind people, we'll be back again tomorrow morning.

So the Westminster traffic may be a little clogged tomorrow morning.

kurako

gordon861 wrote:

Just a quick bump to remind people, we'll be back again tomorrow morning.

So the Westminster traffic may be a little clogged tomorrow morning.

What time does the fun begin?

gordon861

It should be between 8-9am, unless WCC send a traffic warden to move us on from the rallying location again this time. In which case it'll be a bit earlier.

northstar

Good luck with it

gordon861

Well we had a good event, turnout keeps getting better. Most of the public are friendly, cyclists seem to be able to weave between the stationary traffic easily and get that rarest of London things afterwards ... a road mostly clear of cars, because they are stuck at the roundabout. TfL/Arriva have there people at the event but seem to cause more problems when they start trying to direct the buses, they'd be better to leave it to the helpful police instead.

We did have one idiot in a van who thought it was a good idea to mouth off to some people alongside him whilst driving into the back of a bike. Might be an expensive mistake too. Here's the vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwgoWyzxKnE

And here's some regular footage of the event for anyone interested http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDQ6zHIKoVs

There is a big event planned for Saturday 1st May which should be interesting, but I'm gonna miss it.

---