Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

shortfall

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. He kept bleating on about the government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, and the dangers of the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was being.

ballysmate

There are already stiff sentences available for criminal damage, 10 years or 14 years if racially or religiously motivated.
The level of sentence is determined by the severity of the damage caused, or if by fire. This new offence will be the same.
Not immediately apparent why a seperate offence is thought to be required though.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/criminal-damage-other-than-by-fire-value-not-exceeding-5000-racially-or-religiously-aggravated-criminal-damage/

rjsterry

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. Government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was.

Yes, I do remember 🙂. I don't think I called you a pr1ck, and I think I agreed that they have an authoritarian streak but yes, you told us so.

To be clear, I was referring to the likes of the Covid Recovery Group, not you @shortfall.

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

There are already stiff sentences available for criminal damage, 10 years or 14 years if racially or religiously motivated.
The level of sentence is determined by the severity of the damage caused, or if by fire. This new offence will be the same.
Not immediately apparent why a seperate offence is thought to be required though.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/criminal-damage-other-than-by-fire-value-not-exceeding-5000-racially-or-religiously-aggravated-criminal-damage/

Sends a message doesn't it. Why govern when you can just endlessly campaign?

shortfall

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. Government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was.

Yes, I do remember 🙂. I don't think I called you a pr1ck, and I think I agreed that they have an authoritarian streak but yes, you told us so.

Well I know I quoted you but I wasn't referring to anything particular that you had said. Whilst we disagree on many things you're always civil in debate.

kingstongraham

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. He kept bleating on about the government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, and the dangers of the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was being.

Don't remember people doing that, I remember saying it was important for it to only be used as emergency powers and that you should look at the lib dems for how they were addressing it.

rjsterry

Interesting that my local MP was bragging about this legislation on social media the other day, but was last night tweeting about how appalled he was at the policing of the Clapham vigil. Perhaps he might re-read the Bill and reconsider before voting.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. He kept bleating on about the government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, and the dangers of the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was being.

Don't remember people doing that, I remember saying it was important for it to only be used as emergency powers and that you should look at the lib dems for how they were addressing it.

There was certainly some scepticism.

shortfall

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. He kept bleating on about the government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, and the dangers of the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was being.

Don't remember people doing that, I remember saying it was important for it to only be used as emergency powers and that you should look at the lib dems for how they were addressing it.

Nobody actually called me a pr1ck no but there was plenty of condescension and that was the implication from a lot of the replies I was getting. Then there were the David Icke references............
Anyway, the proposals are bl00dy terrifying and I'm glad you've flagged this up.

pangolin

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. He kept bleating on about the government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, and the dangers of the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was being.

Don't remember people doing that, I remember saying it was important for it to only be used as emergency powers and that you should look at the lib dems for how they were addressing it.

Nobody actually called me a pr1ck no but there was plenty of condescension and that was the implication from a lot of the replies I was getting. Then there were the David Icke references............
Anyway, the proposals are bl00dy terrifying and I'm glad you've flagged this up.

Short weren't you annoyed the police weren't more heavy handed with the blm protesters? Apologies if I'm mis-remembering.

tailwindhome

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. He kept bleating on about the government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, and the dangers of the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was being.

Don't remember people doing that, I remember saying it was important for it to only be used as emergency powers and that you should look at the lib dems for how they were addressing it.

Nobody actually called me a pr1ck no but there was plenty of condescension and that was the implication from a lot of the replies I was getting. Then there were the David Icke references............
Anyway, the proposals are bl00dy terrifying and I'm glad you've flagged this up.

Regretting voting for this Government yet?

shortfall

pangolin said:

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. He kept bleating on about the government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, and the dangers of the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was being.

Don't remember people doing that, I remember saying it was important for it to only be used as emergency powers and that you should look at the lib dems for how they were addressing it.

Nobody actually called me a pr1ck no but there was plenty of condescension and that was the implication from a lot of the replies I was getting. Then there were the David Icke references............
Anyway, the proposals are bl00dy terrifying and I'm glad you've flagged this up.

Short weren't you annoyed the police weren't more heavy handed with the blm protesters? Apologies if I'm mis-remembering.

Who was it who said the recollections may vary? I was angry at the inconsistent policing. On the one hand minor infractions of the government's dictats on travel etc were being egregiously enforced and during peaceful anti lockdown protests the police dished out some real shoeings to demonstrators and handed Piers Corbyn several £10,000 fixed penalty fines for organising them. Then on the other hand, come the BLM marches where some pretty nasty violence took place and several statues and public buildings were vandalised and the actual LAW was being broken, we sometimes saw the police either stood by and watching, or taking the knee, or in at least one instance caught on camera running away from the protestors.

To be clear I absolutely defend people's right to peaceful protest and I abhor the way the police have sometimes over zealously enforced covid rules that were nodded through parliament without debate and look set to be extended for another 6 months. So no inconsistency from me.

Pross

Feels like the sort of thing right of centre politicians would push for if only someone would let them have a voice.

ballysmate

ballysmate said:

There are already stiff sentences available for criminal damage, 10 years or 14 years if racially or religiously motivated.
The level of sentence is determined by the severity of the damage caused, or if by fire. This new offence will be the same.
Not immediately apparent why a seperate offence is thought to be required though.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/criminal-damage-other-than-by-fire-value-not-exceeding-5000-racially-or-religiously-aggravated-criminal-damage/

On reflection, the removal of the restriction could stop crowd funding to pay any fine of an individual who is willing to damage property if they believe they are immune from any consequence.

pangolin

shortfall said:

pangolin said:

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. He kept bleating on about the government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, and the dangers of the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was being.

Don't remember people doing that, I remember saying it was important for it to only be used as emergency powers and that you should look at the lib dems for how they were addressing it.

Nobody actually called me a pr1ck no but there was plenty of condescension and that was the implication from a lot of the replies I was getting. Then there were the David Icke references............
Anyway, the proposals are bl00dy terrifying and I'm glad you've flagged this up.

Short weren't you annoyed the police weren't more heavy handed with the blm protesters? Apologies if I'm mis-remembering.

Who was it who said the recollections may vary? I was angry at the inconsistent policing. On the one hand minor infractions of the government's dictats on travel etc were being egregiously enforced and during peaceful anti lockdown protests the police dished out some real shoeings to demonstrators and handed Piers Corbyn several £10,000 fixed penalty fines for organising them. Then on the other hand, come the BLM marches where some pretty nasty violence took place and several statues and public buildings were vandalised and the actual LAW was being broken, we sometimes saw the police either stood by and watching, or taking the knee, or in at least one instance caught on camera running away from the protestors.

To be clear I absolutely defend people's right to peaceful protest and I abhor the way the police have sometimes over zealously enforced covid rules that were nodded through parliament without debate and look set to be extended for another 6 months. So no inconsistency from me.

Sure, I'm not having a pop I'm trying to understand your point of view. The covid 'rules' in question were law too by that point weren't they?

Is it the manner in which the current gov are making these new laws that bothers you? Or the laws themselves? Or both? Both would be fair, thinking about it!

shortfall

pangolin said:

shortfall said:

pangolin said:

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. He kept bleating on about the government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, and the dangers of the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was being.

Don't remember people doing that, I remember saying it was important for it to only be used as emergency powers and that you should look at the lib dems for how they were addressing it.

Nobody actually called me a pr1ck no but there was plenty of condescension and that was the implication from a lot of the replies I was getting. Then there were the David Icke references............
Anyway, the proposals are bl00dy terrifying and I'm glad you've flagged this up.

Short weren't you annoyed the police weren't more heavy handed with the blm protesters? Apologies if I'm mis-remembering.

Who was it who said the recollections may vary? I was angry at the inconsistent policing. On the one hand minor infractions of the government's dictats on travel etc were being egregiously enforced and during peaceful anti lockdown protests the police dished out some real shoeings to demonstrators and handed Piers Corbyn several £10,000 fixed penalty fines for organising them. Then on the other hand, come the BLM marches where some pretty nasty violence took place and several statues and public buildings were vandalised and the actual LAW was being broken, we sometimes saw the police either stood by and watching, or taking the knee, or in at least one instance caught on camera running away from the protestors.

To be clear I absolutely defend people's right to peaceful protest and I abhor the way the police have sometimes over zealously enforced covid rules that were nodded through parliament without debate and look set to be extended for another 6 months. So no inconsistency from me.

Sure, I'm not having a pop I'm trying to understand your point of view. The covid 'rules' in question were law too by that point weren't they?

Is it the manner in which the current gov are making these new laws that bothers you? Or the laws themselves? Or both? Both would be fair, thinking about it!

It's both. I was against them at the time for the way they were drafted and rammed through with no scrutiny and virtually no dissent. Then I was against the way some police forces enforced them and basically acted as a state militia rather than in the traditions of British policing. I can't remember the exact position with regards to whether the various lockdown rules were actual law.

pangolin

shortfall said:

pangolin said:

shortfall said:

pangolin said:

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. He kept bleating on about the government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, and the dangers of the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was being.

Don't remember people doing that, I remember saying it was important for it to only be used as emergency powers and that you should look at the lib dems for how they were addressing it.

Nobody actually called me a pr1ck no but there was plenty of condescension and that was the implication from a lot of the replies I was getting. Then there were the David Icke references............
Anyway, the proposals are bl00dy terrifying and I'm glad you've flagged this up.

Short weren't you annoyed the police weren't more heavy handed with the blm protesters? Apologies if I'm mis-remembering.

Who was it who said the recollections may vary? I was angry at the inconsistent policing. On the one hand minor infractions of the government's dictats on travel etc were being egregiously enforced and during peaceful anti lockdown protests the police dished out some real shoeings to demonstrators and handed Piers Corbyn several £10,000 fixed penalty fines for organising them. Then on the other hand, come the BLM marches where some pretty nasty violence took place and several statues and public buildings were vandalised and the actual LAW was being broken, we sometimes saw the police either stood by and watching, or taking the knee, or in at least one instance caught on camera running away from the protestors.

To be clear I absolutely defend people's right to peaceful protest and I abhor the way the police have sometimes over zealously enforced covid rules that were nodded through parliament without debate and look set to be extended for another 6 months. So no inconsistency from me.

Sure, I'm not having a pop I'm trying to understand your point of view. The covid 'rules' in question were law too by that point weren't they?

Is it the manner in which the current gov are making these new laws that bothers you? Or the laws themselves? Or both? Both would be fair, thinking about it!

It's both. I was against them at the time for the way they were drafted and rammed through with no scrutiny and virtually no dissent. Then I was against the way some police forces enforced them and basically acted as a state militia rather than in the traditions of British policing. I'll stand corrected but I think most of not all the new rules under the coronavirus act weren't actually law and thankfully nearly all.of them have been overturned when the people brave enough to challenge them went to court (hopefully someone with a better knowledge can clarify this.

Yeah you could be right about that, I don't know.

I find it odd how open to interpretation it seems to have been to different police forces. Derbyshire for example seemed to absolutely love the excuse to stop random walkers. Others seem pretty relaxed.

Pross

So basically it was as I said at the time when you were calling it a police state - anyone feeling the laws have been incorrectly applied can appeal to the independent judiciary in the country and have it rectified. So we're agreeing it is nothing like a police state?

rick_chasey

Pross said:

So basically it was as I said at the time when you were calling it a police state - anyone feeling the laws have been incorrectly applied can appeal to the independent judiciary in the country and have it rectified. So we're agreeing it is nothing like a police state?

In all seriousness who has the time to go through that process?

Often more expensive and hassle than to pay the fine for sitting on a bench or whatever the rozzer fined you for.

ballysmate

pangolin said:

shortfall said:

pangolin said:

shortfall said:

pangolin said:

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. He kept bleating on about the government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, and the dangers of the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was being.

Don't remember people doing that, I remember saying it was important for it to only be used as emergency powers and that you should look at the lib dems for how they were addressing it.

Nobody actually called me a pr1ck no but there was plenty of condescension and that was the implication from a lot of the replies I was getting. Then there were the David Icke references............
Anyway, the proposals are bl00dy terrifying and I'm glad you've flagged this up.

Short weren't you annoyed the police weren't more heavy handed with the blm protesters? Apologies if I'm mis-remembering.

Who was it who said the recollections may vary? I was angry at the inconsistent policing. On the one hand minor infractions of the government's dictats on travel etc were being egregiously enforced and during peaceful anti lockdown protests the police dished out some real shoeings to demonstrators and handed Piers Corbyn several £10,000 fixed penalty fines for organising them. Then on the other hand, come the BLM marches where some pretty nasty violence took place and several statues and public buildings were vandalised and the actual LAW was being broken, we sometimes saw the police either stood by and watching, or taking the knee, or in at least one instance caught on camera running away from the protestors.

To be clear I absolutely defend people's right to peaceful protest and I abhor the way the police have sometimes over zealously enforced covid rules that were nodded through parliament without debate and look set to be extended for another 6 months. So no inconsistency from me.

Sure, I'm not having a pop I'm trying to understand your point of view. The covid 'rules' in question were law too by that point weren't they?

Is it the manner in which the current gov are making these new laws that bothers you? Or the laws themselves? Or both? Both would be fair, thinking about it!

It's both. I was against them at the time for the way they were drafted and rammed through with no scrutiny and virtually no dissent. Then I was against the way some police forces enforced them and basically acted as a state militia rather than in the traditions of British policing. I'll stand corrected but I think most of not all the new rules under the coronavirus act weren't actually law and thankfully nearly all.of them have been overturned when the people brave enough to challenge them went to court (hopefully someone with a better knowledge can clarify this.

Yeah you could be right about that, I don't know.

I find it odd how open to interpretation it seems to have been to different police forces. Derbyshire for example seemed to absolutely love the excuse to stop random walkers. Others seem pretty relaxed.

Comes from not having a national police force.
Chief Constables under different Commissioners and councils are given and operate towards different priorities

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

So basically it was as I said at the time when you were calling it a police state - anyone feeling the laws have been incorrectly applied can appeal to the independent judiciary in the country and have it rectified. So we're agreeing it is nothing like a police state?

In all seriousness who has the time to go through that process?

Often more expensive and hassle than to pay the fine for sitting on a bench or whatever the rozzer fined you for.

I agree. Puts the onus on the person getting fined. Given the option to have the police do the right thing in the first place, or do the wrong thing and me having to launch a social media campaign or go to court to get it corrected, I know which I'd choose.

It also doesn't treat people fairly, plenty of folk wont have the balls to challenge it and so will end up paying a potentially unfair fine.

shortfall

Pross said:

So basically it was as I said at the time when you were calling it a police state - anyone feeling the laws have been incorrectly applied can appeal to the independent judiciary in the country and have it rectified. So we're agreeing it is nothing like a police state?

I seem to remember saying that we were in danger of sliding into a police state or that the police were acting as though we were, not that we were actually in a police state just yet. But in any case, if you're happy with the way things are headed then perhaps you can justify the Rozzers man handling a group of women who were peacefully protesting about male violence and attitudes against women? Or care to comment on the frightening proposed laws highlighted by Kingston Graham earlier that give them even more sweeping power to ban protest and fine and punish demonstrators?

orraloon

shortfall said:

pangolin said:

shortfall said:

pangolin said:

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. He kept bleating on about the government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, and the dangers of the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was being.

Don't remember people doing that, I remember saying it was important for it to only be used as emergency powers and that you should look at the lib dems for how they were addressing it.

Nobody actually called me a pr1ck no but there was plenty of condescension and that was the implication from a lot of the replies I was getting. Then there were the David Icke references............
Anyway, the proposals are bl00dy terrifying and I'm glad you've flagged this up.

Short weren't you annoyed the police weren't more heavy handed with the blm protesters? Apologies if I'm mis-remembering.

Who was it who said the recollections may vary? I was angry at the inconsistent policing. On the one hand minor infractions of the government's dictats on travel etc were being egregiously enforced and during peaceful anti lockdown protests the police dished out some real shoeings to demonstrators and handed Piers Corbyn several £10,000 fixed penalty fines for organising them. Then on the other hand, come the BLM marches where some pretty nasty violence took place and several statues and public buildings were vandalised and the actual LAW was being broken, we sometimes saw the police either stood by and watching, or taking the knee, or in at least one instance caught on camera running away from the protestors.

To be clear I absolutely defend people's right to peaceful protest and I abhor the way the police have sometimes over zealously enforced covid rules that were nodded through parliament without debate and look set to be extended for another 6 months. So no inconsistency from me.

Sure, I'm not having a pop I'm trying to understand your point of view. The covid 'rules' in question were law too by that point weren't they?

Is it the manner in which the current gov are making these new laws that bothers you? Or the laws themselves? Or both? Both would be fair, thinking about it!

It's both. I was against them at the time for the way they were drafted and rammed through with no scrutiny and virtually no dissent. Then I was against the way some police forces enforced them and basically acted as a state militia rather than in the traditions of British policing. I can't remember the exact position with regards to whether the various lockdown rules were actual law.

SF my views on dUK politicians may vary from yours, and I'm definitely no fanboi of Spaffer and his gang of crooks and incompetents, but neither do I like the push towards authoritarianism, the imposition of hastily and arbitrarily drafted laws with zero scrutiny and the attempted undermining of an independent judiciary. This is not a happy time in a country where divisiveness and engineered conflict is the chosen model of our political wankpots.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

So basically it was as I said at the time when you were calling it a police state - anyone feeling the laws have been incorrectly applied can appeal to the independent judiciary in the country and have it rectified. So we're agreeing it is nothing like a police state?

In all seriousness who has the time to go through that process?

Often more expensive and hassle than to pay the fine for sitting on a bench or whatever the rozzer fined you for.

When the talk at the time was about the police having the power to issue £10k fines I would certainly find the time to do it. Of course, the reality is that despite the huge amount of people breaking the rules very few fines were issued and the big ones were only used for people doing something particularly stupid like organising a rally or large house party / rave so again, hardly a police state.

shortfall

orraloon said:

shortfall said:

pangolin said:

shortfall said:

pangolin said:

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

New law going before parliament increasing the max sentence for criminal damage of “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose” from 3 months to 10 years, regardless of the amount of damage caused.

And good to see the Met field testing their soon to be new powers to restrict protests last night. Will be interesting to see if any of the purported libertarians who objected so strongly to lockdown restrictions will think twice before voting through this authoritarian Bill.

I seem to remember a bloke from around this parish flagging up similar issues to this many months ago. He kept bleating on about the government ruling by decree and ignoring parliament, using the police as a militia to enforce diktat rather than uphold the law, and the dangers of the state granting itself huge powers to boss us around and interfere in our daily lives. What a mad conspiracy theorist he was. It was a good job we all laughed at him and told him what a pr1ck he was being.

Don't remember people doing that, I remember saying it was important for it to only be used as emergency powers and that you should look at the lib dems for how they were addressing it.

Nobody actually called me a pr1ck no but there was plenty of condescension and that was the implication from a lot of the replies I was getting. Then there were the David Icke references............
Anyway, the proposals are bl00dy terrifying and I'm glad you've flagged this up.

Short weren't you annoyed the police weren't more heavy handed with the blm protesters? Apologies if I'm mis-remembering.

Who was it who said the recollections may vary? I was angry at the inconsistent policing. On the one hand minor infractions of the government's dictats on travel etc were being egregiously enforced and during peaceful anti lockdown protests the police dished out some real shoeings to demonstrators and handed Piers Corbyn several £10,000 fixed penalty fines for organising them. Then on the other hand, come the BLM marches where some pretty nasty violence took place and several statues and public buildings were vandalised and the actual LAW was being broken, we sometimes saw the police either stood by and watching, or taking the knee, or in at least one instance caught on camera running away from the protestors.

To be clear I absolutely defend people's right to peaceful protest and I abhor the way the police have sometimes over zealously enforced covid rules that were nodded through parliament without debate and look set to be extended for another 6 months. So no inconsistency from me.

Sure, I'm not having a pop I'm trying to understand your point of view. The covid 'rules' in question were law too by that point weren't they?

Is it the manner in which the current gov are making these new laws that bothers you? Or the laws themselves? Or both? Both would be fair, thinking about it!

It's both. I was against them at the time for the way they were drafted and rammed through with no scrutiny and virtually no dissent. Then I was against the way some police forces enforced them and basically acted as a state militia rather than in the traditions of British policing. I can't remember the exact position with regards to whether the various lockdown rules were actual law.

SF my views on dUK politicians may vary from yours, and I'm definitely no fanboi of Spaffer and his gang of crooks and incompetents, but neither do I like the push towards authoritarianism, the imposition of hastily and arbitrarily drafted laws with zero scrutiny and the attempted undermining of an independent judiciary. This is not a happy time in a country where divisiveness and engineered conflict is the chosen model of our political wankpots.

I agree.

ballysmate

shortfall said:

Pross said:

So basically it was as I said at the time when you were calling it a police state - anyone feeling the laws have been incorrectly applied can appeal to the independent judiciary in the country and have it rectified. So we're agreeing it is nothing like a police state?

I seem to remember saying that we were in danger of sliding into a police state or that the police were acting as though we were, not that we were actually in a police state just yet. But in any case, if you're happy with the way things are headed then perhaps you can justify the Rozzers man handling a group of women who were peacefully protesting about male violence and attitudes against women? Or care to comment on the frightening proposed laws highlighted by Kingston Graham earlier that give them even more sweeping power to ban protest and fine and punish demonstrators?

Tbh I don't find the proposals frightening at all.
As I posted upthread I can see a reason for the removal of the restrictions for criminal damage <5k.
As I said in the intrigue thread, I am OK with people being held responsible if they do harm to the public.
We are nowhere near a police state.
Regarding yesterday's demo, I haven't seen the footage so can't comment.

shortfall

ballysmate said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

So basically it was as I said at the time when you were calling it a police state - anyone feeling the laws have been incorrectly applied can appeal to the independent judiciary in the country and have it rectified. So we're agreeing it is nothing like a police state?

I seem to remember saying that we were in danger of sliding into a police state or that the police were acting as though we were, not that we were actually in a police state just yet. But in any case, if you're happy with the way things are headed then perhaps you can justify the Rozzers man handling a group of women who were peacefully protesting about male violence and attitudes against women? Or care to comment on the frightening proposed laws highlighted by Kingston Graham earlier that give them even more sweeping power to ban protest and fine and punish demonstrators?

Tbh I don't find the proposals frightening at all.
As I posted upthread I can see a reason for the removal of the restrictions for criminal damage <5k.
As I said in the intrigue thread, I am OK with people being held responsible if they do harm to the public.
We are nowhere near a police state.
Regarding yesterday's demo, I haven't seen the footage so can't comment. </p>

Sometimes revolutions take place and freedoms are lost overnight, and sometimes freedoms are lost salami slice by salami slice over years and nobody notices or cares enough to stand up for it until the day you wake up and it's too late and you're no longer free.

kingstongraham

What problem is it solving?

ballysmate

kingstongraham said:

What problem is it solving?

Is that addressed to me re the crim dam. If so, from above.

On reflection, the removal of the restriction could stop crowd funding to pay any fine of an individual who is willing to damage property if they believe they are immune from any consequence.

kingstongraham

Why only memorials then?