It's kicking off in Bristol...

My take from what I've seen and read is the following.

1 Legislation is going through which will diminish peoples long-standing DEMOCRATIC rights
2. A protest against this bill took place
3 The protest started off peacefully but became violent/aggressive
4. Riot police were brought in to deal with the violence and the whole thing was not very nice (for want of a better phrase).

Anyone who commits violence undercover of a peaceful protest is a complete nob. They jeopardise the cause and give the police more license to act in aggressive ways, further undermining the event and simply drawing attention to the violence. It's then harder to criticise the police if that is what one is wanting to do. The message of the protest gets lost. The police sometimes are complete arseholes as well sometimes. They just are. In this case however I'm not so clear how much a set of dic.ks they were or even if they weren't in the context of events.
However the key issue we should be focussing on here is the potential Act of Parliament. This is a serious threat to all of our liberties. All peaceful protest could, in theory, be abolished. If you deny that point then you're burying your head. Yet, what will happen now is that the Government will claim the moral high ground -'Look at all those left-wing, anarchist scumballs. This is exactly why we need more power to the police.' And, as usual, the headline-grabbing mainstream media and the typical bloke in the street who tends to be largely influenced by gut-reaction instant impression politics will react with horror and tacitly accept that the police do indeed need more power to stop these nasty violent thugs.
The key issue will therefore be lost. We lose more of our rights and more of our protections and we continue sliding down a slippery slope. Just my view of course

 

Thanks like but I'm still a first class you know what ...... ask mi mam

 

Great post by the way.

It's crazy that the most memorable protest was one man stood in front of 4-5 tanks. It's a proper symbolic moment in history. Nobody talks about riots in the same way. There's more than one way to crack a nut.

 

But do you accept that very few memorials or statues were ever vandalised at the time despite the headlines, thus, they were never in danger so didn't need protecting.

It was quite simply the media blowing it up out of all proportion to satisfy their agenda.

 

And people wonder why we're still in lockdowns. It's ok though, lets just do what's right for us though and **** everyone else and the sacrifices they've made over the past year.

Genius.

 

From gov.uk website…

The ‘Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill’ gives Priti Patel the power through secondary legislation (law-making without parliamentary approval) to define what ‘serious disruption’ to communities and organisation in the vicinity of ‘procession/ assembly/ one-person protest.’ This will enable the police to make full use of their powers with the confidence they are doing so legally.

This is dictatorship.

 

Dictatorship as in Cameroon, Sudan , Rwanda.... or dictatorship as in you don't like some of the laws of the land?

 

Yes of course I do. I'm not thick. It wasn't protection. It was support against people who act wrongly and vandalise and desecrate monuments or statues.

Maybe you should concentrate your opinions on the people who commit the aforementioned acts rather than questioning me on mine. I did no harm to others. Never shouted, abused or vandalised anything.

I look forward to your "what a total set of xxxxxx that destroyed statues" post or who burned cars and attacked police stations ........ I'll not hold my breath.

I'm quite happy with my actions. I don't hide behind a computer. I stand up for what I believe in.

 

Not questioning you, more the media and their motives.

I dont agree with any sort of vandalism or violence from any side of the debate, it's how it's reported to stir things up I have issue with.

 

No. Dictatorship as in the dictionary definition of dictatorship.

Dictatorship: form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations.

 

hence the name!!!

 

I agree. But what I did and others never caused a riot. No violence or trouble. So no matter what the media may or may not have done...... it didn't matter. Branded by 'some' as right wing thugs and Union Jack knuckle draggers couldn't have been further from the truth.

The media is another story.

I had a debate and asked a well known Barnsley based ex teacher and political activist to talk as he published a photo of me and declared me as a racist thug. He never replied. He'd worked with my Mum for 30 years in education and knows me.

They're the sort of people who are on a par with the media.

 

Sorry I missed Mr off

 

That doesn't take us any further? So you think we are comparable to dictatorships around the world. I'm glad I don't live in you're world

 

Wonder if the tactic Agent Provocateur played any role in this. That is not to deny that there are those definitely out to cause mayhem. I first came across this term and saw this tactic in action with my own eyes at Orgreave. A large group of men probably between 20 to 30 years old. They were constantly walking down the road within throwing distance and unleashing volleys of bricks at the police. Pleas for them to stop were ignored and threatened anyone that went near them. The way they were dressed suggested they weren’t the usual anarchist type, having short cropped hair, and not having local accents. It was strange that by the time the main police charge happened with the horses they were gone without trace. Many suspected they were either army or Police.

 

I'm not comparing us with dictatorships around the world. You did that. I was just pointing out that Patel wants to make her own laws without recourse to parliament. And that's not an indication of democracy but dictatorship. As defined by the dictionary.

 

Thing is people don’t see this as a cause celebre but the outrage ( violent or otherwise) against is to be condemned. You can get the tone with some of the replies that choose whatever this Govt do, or don’t do for that matter, is ok because they were elected. Pretty much the same attitude that allowed Thatcherism to destroy for many the notion of society.

 

I take your point albeit rather dramatic.

 

.

 

Thank you. And I can see how it looks dramatic to label us a dictatorship. But it all starts somewhere and before we realise it, it’s too late.

This bloke knew what he was talking about….

“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”

US Supreme Court Justice William O Douglas