Westminster Politics

villain said:
That again doesn't condemn the violence brought upon the protesters, you're suggesting that violence is a natural occurrence in a riot (I agree with you), however you only seem to be condemning one side who are inflicting the violence.
Am I right or wrong in that? For some reason you seem to think i'm out to target you, all i'm asking for is clarification on your stance.
Do you condemn the violence brought upon by the protestors, or not.

My stance is that until there's justice, there's unlikely to be peace - and very few societal changes happen without civil unrest & violence.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you're just waffling now to avoid what I asked. I've explained my view and I want everyone to go home safely. I can only assume you're deliberately looking past that.

Do you feel the level of violence last night was acceptable?
 
TheReligion said:
Sorry but you're just waffling now to avoid what I asked. I've explained my view and I want everyone to go home safely. I can only assume you're deliberately looking past that.

Do you feel the level of violence last night was acceptable?
Click to expand...

I'm really not waffling at all. You said you want everyone to go home safely - we all understood that, there's no need to repeat it again.
You've said at least 3x how despicable it is that these police officers have been hurt, what I was trying to get at was do you also feel the same way that the police officers have inflicted hurt on the protestors or not.
You seem to refuse to want to answer that, only saying that all forms of violence is bad.

I believe that societal change only tends to happen when members of society disrupt & cause chaos for a prolonged period of time, so yes violence is an ends to a means. However, i'm also under no illusions that the general British public gasp & clutch their pearls at the first sight of any violence that they deem unacceptable (because like I said earlier in the thread, economic, racial & sexual violence is normalised).

If you are expecting me to say that the police officers shouldn't have gotten hurt, and those bad protestors are too violent - you're not going to get that from me. Would I prefer that society can change without violence? Yes of course, i'm not a psychopath - but history has proven that to be unlikely, and there's nothing to suggest that, that will change any time soon.
 
villain said:
I'm really not waffling at all. You said you want everyone to go home safely - we all understood that, there's no need to repeat it again.
You've said at least 3x how despicable it is that these police officers have been hurt, what I was trying to get at was do you also feel the same way that the police officers have inflicted hurt on the protestors or not.
You seem to refuse to want to answer that, only saying that all forms of violence is bad.

I believe that societal change only tends to happen when members of society disrupt & cause chaos for a prolonged period of time, so yes violence is an ends to a means. However, i'm also under no illusions that the general British public gasp & clutch their pearls at the first sight of any violence that they deem unacceptable (because like I said earlier in the thread, economic, racial & sexual violence is normalised).

If you are expecting me to say that the police officers shouldn't have gotten hurt, and those bad protestors are too violent - you're not going to get that from me. Would I prefer that society can change without violence? Yes of course, i'm not a psychopath - but history has proven that to be unlikely, and there's nothing to suggest that, that will change any time soon.
Click to expand...

Sadly you are waffling. You're doing so to try and muddy the water of the actual point being made.

20 officers have been injured, one with a broken arm, another was stamped on and now has a collapsed lung. Two other officers had a vehicle they were sat in set on fire. They are facts as to what happened and you seem unwilling, or unable, to say that is wrong. What's even more baffling is you then avoid this by demanding I "condemn' 15 seconds of Twitter footage showing some officers using their batons on a crowd. That's despite me having said quite clearly I would rather there was no serious violence and that everyone went home safely.

Come on. You're clearly brighter than that.
 
TheReligion said:
Sadly you are waffling. You're doing so to try and muddy the water of the actual point being made.

20 officers have been injured, one with a broken arm, another was stamped on and now has a collapsed lung. Two other officers had a vehicle that were sat in set on fire. They are facts as to what happened and you seem unwilling, or unable, to say that is wrong. What's even more baffling is you then avoid this by demanding I "condemn' 15 seconds of Twitter footage showing some officers using their batons on a crowd. That's despite me having said quite clearly I would rather there was no serious violence and that everyone went home safely.

Come on. You're clearly brighter than that.
Click to expand...

I am bright you're right, but there's no need for condescension especially since I don't think I've spoken to you without respect.

And like I said, society doesn't change unless there's civil unrest & chaos for a prolonged period of time, violence can be part of that - is that right? No of course not.
But so much of our basic freedoms have come about as a result of much more violent expressions than last night.
 
From what I have read, the police stayed behind their line through a few hours of protest and ignored graffiti on their vehicles and windows being smashed. They engaged when one of their vehicles was set on fire and the order was given to break up the demonstration as it was becoming too volatile. This was when a lot of the protestors had left over the duration.

That might be one side of the story, but the pictures from the first couple of hours suggest there is some truth to that.
 
I read that somebody had a poo in front of the officers but that might just be a protest at the lack of public toilet facilities. I can get behind that kind of demonstration.
 
Grinner said:
I read that somebody had a poo in front of the officers but that might just be a protest at the lack of public toilet facilities. I can get behind that kind of demonstration.
Click to expand...

honestly from my time in Bristol that is 100% believable:lol:
 
Balljy said:
From what I have read, the police stayed behind their line through a few hours of protest and ignored graffiti on their vehicles and windows being smashed. They engaged when one of their vehicles was set on fire and the order was given to break up the demonstration as it was becoming too volatile. This was when a lot of the protestors had left over the duration.

That might be one side of the story, but the pictures from the first couple of hours suggest there is some truth to that.
Click to expand...
The vehicle was just two days away from retirement!
 
Grinner said:
I was there a year ago actually at a Half Man Half Biscuit gig. It has some cracking pubs and I'd love to go back and explore more. I also had a fantastic kebab after the gig.
Click to expand...

it really is a great city apart from all the kids from Stroud who pretend to be poor and fight the power on their parents dime
 
Snowjoe said:
it really is a great city apart from all the kids from Stroud who pretend to be poor and fight the power on their parents dime
Click to expand...

I went for a night out in Stroud once and I thought I had seen everything, but that evening in the pub is burned into my memory. It's definitely got some unique characters has Stroud.
 
Snowjoe said:
it really is a great city apart from all the kids from Stroud who pretend to be poor and fight the power on their parents dime
Click to expand...


Well that's most kids these days. I like the gritty edge to the place too. It's about time their footy teams sorted themselves out and got back to the big time.
 
villain said:
You've been clear about violence against police officers and violent protests yes, but I haven't seen you condemn the violence brought upon the protestors.
If i've missed it, can you show me?

I'm not trying to catch you out at all, I'm just asking a pretty straightforward question.
Click to expand...

Calm down you're not AOC
 
Snowjoe said:
Surely more than a clipped Twitter video is needed before we condemn police using their batons. Bodycam them all up
Click to expand...
Unfortunately all of the cameras suffered from an intermittent fault after a magical hand moved towards it seconds before they stopped working.
 
sun_tzu said:
Yes... but perhaps smashing things up isn't the best way of preserving the rights of peaceful protests as they currently stand

Though it will be framed as something that in the midst of a global death lurgy was a bad idea ... that will overshadow even the irony of a violent protest about peaceful protests
Click to expand...
I'm not saying smashing things up is the best way.

But in principle, your initial objection was aimed at people gathering in groups, outside during the pandemic.

If that is your position then what would it take for you to approve of a protest? Or do the government have a free pass from you? What if they try to pass legislation that has long term, post covid impacts on freedom? Is your solution a strongly worded email?
 
Drifter said:
Priti Patel to announce ‘biggest overhaul of asylum system in decades’

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...cades/ar-BB1eTqJY?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBoPWjQ
Click to expand...
Ms Patel said: “If people arrive illegally, they will no longer have the same entitlements as those who arrive legally, and it will be harder for them to stay.

“If, like over 60% of illegal arrivals, they have travelled through a safe country like France to get here, they will not have immediate entry into the asylum system – which is what happens today.
Click to expand...

I think that's going to have some pretty big implications ... I mean what will they do with people and how?

The other implication is it will probably give the conservatives a boost for being tough on immigruntz ...

Shes probably wet at the thought of the misery she can inflict... and eyeing up a run at no10
 
sun_tzu said:
I think that's going to have some pretty big implications ... I mean what will they do with people and how?

The other implication is it will probably give the conservatives a boost for being tough on immigruntz ...

Shes probably wet at the thought of the misery she can inflict... and eyeing up a run at no10
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

World beating! Yet more international laws broken.

Priti Patel accused of breaking Geneva Convention with plans to deny asylum rights to refugees crossing Channel
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-asylum-rights-geneva-b1821562.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.