FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is Britain the equivalent of....
Is Britain the equivalent of....
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Oh, dear. You have been drinking in the wrong pubs. " lol that’s Cumbria for ya | |||
 | |||
"No, Britain is the equivalent of the d*unk, loud mouthed old bloke in the corner of the pub who used to be a hard man but now would struggle to punch his way out of a paper bag." Lol  | |||
| |||
| |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries." Well said 
We have people amongst us who want the country to be everything other than what it is or was, I wouldn't be surprised if it ties into the other thread about Russian and Chinese influence  | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries."
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
| |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
" | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
"Some heavy restrictions on protesting now though. | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries." Incredibly accurate post and the reason why so many want to illegally invade us. Lefties talk about the UK having been 'destroyed' by the Tories, yet surely 'destroyed' and 'brutal' (another adjective frequently wheeled out to describe the Conservative party) are better used to describe a lot of Ukraine and Putin respectively. I know Labour desperately want power, but can't they at least keep things in proportion? Otherwise, what is Putin if he is not brutal and what is much of Ukraine, if not 'destroyed'? | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
Some heavy restrictions on protesting now though. "Have you not seen Georgia lately? Proportionality? | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
Some heavy restrictions on protesting now though.
Have you not seen Georgia lately?
"The country or the state in the US? " Proportionality? " Can you elaborate on the his question? I don't understand what you're asking. | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
Some heavy restrictions on protesting now though.
Have you not seen Georgia lately?
The country or the state in the US?
Proportionality?
Can you elaborate on the his question? I don't understand what you're asking."The country. As if. There's been numerous instances where non-violent protesters have been snatched by hooded police and brutally pummelled. Watch the videos. Then come back and tell us if you've ever seen restrictions on protests in the UK play out like Georgia. | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
Some heavy restrictions on protesting now though.
Have you not seen Georgia lately?
The country or the state in the US?
Proportionality?
Can you elaborate on the his question? I don't understand what you're asking.
The country. As if. "So the country, or does the "as if" indicate sarcasm and you're referring to the US state? " There's been numerous instances where non-violent protesters have been snatched by hooded police and brutally pummelled. " So cracking down on non-violent protests is a bad thing. I'm with you so far. " Watch the videos. " I don't need to, I'm not disputing that this happens around the world. " Then come back and tell us if you've ever seen restrictions on protests in the UK play out like Georgia. " Why? This this our bar, to be better than Georgia? | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries." Ok so you've taken what I posted as a tongue in cheek jab at the government and their sucking up to the USA and made it: I'm a privileged entitled complainer who doesn't know how lucky he is living in this country? Wow talk about twisting stuff. We have been a lap dog for the USA for a long time and currently we seem to be in a situation where the Russians are afraid to point the finger at the USA so they are going for us as the alternative. Yes we are a powerful country but we do tend to stick our noses in where it's not welcome politically based on the fact that the USA " got our backs " how this relates to privilege and well stocked shops and protests I have no idea? The world is in my opinion sitting on a knife edge and our politicians seem to be poking the Bear ,in any escalation we are going to be first to get it I think to set an example, so my analogy of us being a mouthy kid backed up by the hardest kid in school stands. This has nothing to do with me hating the country it's the reverse. But as long as we are talking about it for the working class this country has gone to shit how many homeless? How many rely on food banks? How many waiting for treatment? How many public buildings are falling apart? Public money being used for unwanted schemes such as smart motorways? The list goes on and on.... So whilst we are born into a environment of freedom it's really not that free we are all slxves to the system. | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
Some heavy restrictions on protesting now though.
Have you not seen Georgia lately?
The country or the state in the US?
Proportionality?
Can you elaborate on the his question? I don't understand what you're asking.
The country. As if.
So the country, or does the "as if" indicate sarcasm and you're referring to the US state?
There's been numerous instances where non-violent protesters have been snatched by hooded police and brutally pummelled.
So cracking down on non-violent protests is a bad thing. I'm with you so far.
Watch the videos.
I don't need to, I'm not disputing that this happens around the world.
Then come back and tell us if you've ever seen restrictions on protests in the UK play out like Georgia.
Why? This this our bar, to be better than Georgia?"Please can you clarify 'this this our bar'? I'm confused. | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
Some heavy restrictions on protesting now though.
Have you not seen Georgia lately?
The country or the state in the US?
Proportionality?
Can you elaborate on the his question? I don't understand what you're asking.
The country. As if.
So the country, or does the "as if" indicate sarcasm and you're referring to the US state?
There's been numerous instances where non-violent protesters have been snatched by hooded police and brutally pummelled.
So cracking down on non-violent protests is a bad thing. I'm with you so far.
Watch the videos.
I don't need to, I'm not disputing that this happens around the world.
Then come back and tell us if you've ever seen restrictions on protests in the UK play out like Georgia.
Why? This this our bar, to be better than Georgia?
Please can you clarify 'this this our bar'? I'm confused.
"You seem to be suggesting that because the UK doesn't clamp down as hard on protesters as one of the Georgia's does, that we should be happy? As if one of the Georgia's has set the bar, as as long as we're not as bad as that, everything is fine. | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
Some heavy restrictions on protesting now though.
Have you not seen Georgia lately?
The country or the state in the US?
Proportionality?
Can you elaborate on the his question? I don't understand what you're asking.
The country. As if.
So the country, or does the "as if" indicate sarcasm and you're referring to the US state?
There's been numerous instances where non-violent protesters have been snatched by hooded police and brutally pummelled.
So cracking down on non-violent protests is a bad thing. I'm with you so far.
Watch the videos.
I don't need to, I'm not disputing that this happens around the world.
Then come back and tell us if you've ever seen restrictions on protests in the UK play out like Georgia.
Why? This this our bar, to be better than Georgia?
Please can you clarify 'this this our bar'? I'm confused.
You seem to be suggesting that because the UK doesn't clamp down as hard on protesters as one of the Georgia's does, that we should be happy?
As if one of the Georgia's has set the bar, as as long as we're not as bad as that, everything is fine. "Define "bad" and "fine". I see little evidence of a 'clampdown' on protests in the UK at the moment. Every Gaza protest (and there've been many) is policed with a very light touch, despite what many see as inflammatory chants being loudly and frequently voiced. | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
Some heavy restrictions on protesting now though.
Have you not seen Georgia lately?
The country or the state in the US?
Proportionality?
Can you elaborate on the his question? I don't understand what you're asking.
The country. As if.
So the country, or does the "as if" indicate sarcasm and you're referring to the US state?
There's been numerous instances where non-violent protesters have been snatched by hooded police and brutally pummelled.
So cracking down on non-violent protests is a bad thing. I'm with you so far.
Watch the videos.
I don't need to, I'm not disputing that this happens around the world.
Then come back and tell us if you've ever seen restrictions on protests in the UK play out like Georgia.
Why? This this our bar, to be better than Georgia?
Please can you clarify 'this this our bar'? I'm confused.
You seem to be suggesting that because the UK doesn't clamp down as hard on protesters as one of the Georgia's does, that we should be happy?
As if one of the Georgia's has set the bar, as as long as we're not as bad as that, everything is fine.
Define "bad" and "fine".
"I dunno mate. This is your point I'm trying to get clarification on. " I see little evidence of a 'clampdown' on protests in the UK at the moment. " You being unaware of something, isn't evidence of it not happening. " Every Gaza protest (and there've been many) is policed with a very light touch, despite what many see as inflammatory chants being loudly and frequently voiced. " So you think they should be policed with a less "light touch"? | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
Some heavy restrictions on protesting now though.
Have you not seen Georgia lately?
The country or the state in the US?
Proportionality?
Can you elaborate on the his question? I don't understand what you're asking.
The country. As if.
So the country, or does the "as if" indicate sarcasm and you're referring to the US state?
There's been numerous instances where non-violent protesters have been snatched by hooded police and brutally pummelled.
So cracking down on non-violent protests is a bad thing. I'm with you so far.
Watch the videos.
I don't need to, I'm not disputing that this happens around the world.
Then come back and tell us if you've ever seen restrictions on protests in the UK play out like Georgia.
Why? This this our bar, to be better than Georgia?
Please can you clarify 'this this our bar'? I'm confused.
You seem to be suggesting that because the UK doesn't clamp down as hard on protesters as one of the Georgia's does, that we should be happy?
As if one of the Georgia's has set the bar, as as long as we're not as bad as that, everything is fine.
Define "bad" and "fine".
I see little evidence of a 'clampdown' on protests in the UK at the moment. Every Gaza protest (and there've been many) is policed with a very light touch, despite what many see as inflammatory chants being loudly and frequently voiced.
"Great example, it will be interesting hear a counter to this | |||
| |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
Some heavy restrictions on protesting now though.
Have you not seen Georgia lately?
The country or the state in the US?
Proportionality?
Can you elaborate on the his question? I don't understand what you're asking.
The country. As if.
So the country, or does the "as if" indicate sarcasm and you're referring to the US state?
There's been numerous instances where non-violent protesters have been snatched by hooded police and brutally pummelled.
So cracking down on non-violent protests is a bad thing. I'm with you so far.
Watch the videos.
I don't need to, I'm not disputing that this happens around the world.
Then come back and tell us if you've ever seen restrictions on protests in the UK play out like Georgia.
Why? This this our bar, to be better than Georgia?
Please can you clarify 'this this our bar'? I'm confused.
You seem to be suggesting that because the UK doesn't clamp down as hard on protesters as one of the Georgia's does, that we should be happy?
As if one of the Georgia's has set the bar, as as long as we're not as bad as that, everything is fine.
Define "bad" and "fine".
I dunno mate. This is your point I'm trying to get clarification on.
I see little evidence of a 'clampdown' on protests in the UK at the moment.
You being unaware of something, isn't evidence of it not happening.
Every Gaza protest (and there've been many) is policed with a very light touch, despite what many see as inflammatory chants being loudly and frequently voiced.
So you think they should be policed with a less "light touch"?"I'm not your mate and never will be. I think the Gaza protests have generally been handled well, seeing no evidence of 'heavy restrictions'. I often see clips of JSO protestors unencumbered by 'heavy restrictions'. You however opined to the contrary that there are 'some heavy restrictions on protesting now though' - I'm unaware of them. If you are, what have they been? Given that everyone in the UK has the right to protest and to organise protests, rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, why are you confused and upset about 'heavy restrictions' /'brutal' Tory policies all the time? | |||
"Britain used to be the kid in class who told everyone what to do and foisted their way of thinking on others. They used to think they were great. Gradually one by one it lost friends and others made their own direction in life. Next it went its own direction and left the gang and is now trying to get in with other mates but they're not so plentiful. It's muscle isn't what it used to be. They keep boasting how great they still are but are becoming a much diminished voice in a playground of bigger hitters." As an ex-pat I've lived all over the world. Brits are amongst the least boastful and self-depreciating people I've encountered. So who's doing the boasting or is it a convenient stereotype to feed your bitterness? | |||
"Britain used to be the kid in class who told everyone what to do and foisted their way of thinking on others. They used to think they were great. Gradually one by one it lost friends and others made their own direction in life. Next it went its own direction and left the gang and is now trying to get in with other mates but they're not so plentiful. It's muscle isn't what it used to be. They keep boasting how great they still are but are becoming a much diminished voice in a playground of bigger hitters." . A bizarre post without a single piece of supporting evidence..Just look at the number of people who want to be educated in the UK or the net contribution that the UK made to the EU when it was a member. | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
Some heavy restrictions on protesting now though.
Have you not seen Georgia lately?
The country or the state in the US?
Proportionality?
Can you elaborate on the his question? I don't understand what you're asking.
The country. As if.
So the country, or does the "as if" indicate sarcasm and you're referring to the US state?
There's been numerous instances where non-violent protesters have been snatched by hooded police and brutally pummelled.
So cracking down on non-violent protests is a bad thing. I'm with you so far.
Watch the videos.
I don't need to, I'm not disputing that this happens around the world.
Then come back and tell us if you've ever seen restrictions on protests in the UK play out like Georgia.
Why? This this our bar, to be better than Georgia?
Please can you clarify 'this this our bar'? I'm confused.
You seem to be suggesting that because the UK doesn't clamp down as hard on protesters as one of the Georgia's does, that we should be happy?
As if one of the Georgia's has set the bar, as as long as we're not as bad as that, everything is fine.
Define "bad" and "fine".
I dunno mate. This is your point I'm trying to get clarification on.
I see little evidence of a 'clampdown' on protests in the UK at the moment.
You being unaware of something, isn't evidence of it not happening.
Every Gaza protest (and there've been many) is policed with a very light touch, despite what many see as inflammatory chants being loudly and frequently voiced.
So you think they should be policed with a less "light touch"?
I'm not your mate and never will be. I think the Gaza protests have generally been handled well, seeing no evidence of 'heavy restrictions'. I often see clips of JSO protestors unencumbered by 'heavy restrictions'.
You however opined to the contrary that there are 'some heavy restrictions on protesting now though' - I'm unaware of them. If you are, what have they been? Given that everyone in the UK has the right to protest and to organise protests, rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, why are you confused and upset about 'heavy restrictions' /'brutal' Tory policies all the time?
"Public Order act 2023. I'm not confused, just aware. | |||
 | |||
"There is NOTHING in the 2023 Act that I personally would ever worry about as a law-abiding citizen - nor would I worry that people's rights are being trampled-over by some kind of Government Police State Power (unlike those of Georgia currently) If you can find one, please do point it out. To compare what's happening in Georgia and the 2023 Act here, is well, quite frankly ludicrous really. "I haven't compared them. The other chap brought Georgia into the conversation suggesting that was the bar we should be measuring ourselves against. | |||
| |||
"It wasn't in answer to anything you said. Otherwise, I would have quoted. " | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
Some heavy restrictions on protesting now though.
Have you not seen Georgia lately?
The country or the state in the US?
Proportionality?
Can you elaborate on the his question? I don't understand what you're asking.
The country. As if.
So the country, or does the "as if" indicate sarcasm and you're referring to the US state?
There's been numerous instances where non-violent protesters have been snatched by hooded police and brutally pummelled.
So cracking down on non-violent protests is a bad thing. I'm with you so far.
Watch the videos.
I don't need to, I'm not disputing that this happens around the world.
Then come back and tell us if you've ever seen restrictions on protests in the UK play out like Georgia.
Why? This this our bar, to be better than Georgia?
Please can you clarify 'this this our bar'? I'm confused.
You seem to be suggesting that because the UK doesn't clamp down as hard on protesters as one of the Georgia's does, that we should be happy?
As if one of the Georgia's has set the bar, as as long as we're not as bad as that, everything is fine.
Define "bad" and "fine".
I dunno mate. This is your point I'm trying to get clarification on.
I see little evidence of a 'clampdown' on protests in the UK at the moment.
You being unaware of something, isn't evidence of it not happening.
Every Gaza protest (and there've been many) is policed with a very light touch, despite what many see as inflammatory chants being loudly and frequently voiced.
So you think they should be policed with a less "light touch"?
I'm not your mate and never will be. I think the Gaza protests have generally been handled well, seeing no evidence of 'heavy restrictions'. I often see clips of JSO protestors unencumbered by 'heavy restrictions'.
You however opined to the contrary that there are 'some heavy restrictions on protesting now though' - I'm unaware of them. If you are, what have they been? Given that everyone in the UK has the right to protest and to organise protests, rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, why are you confused and upset about 'heavy restrictions' /'brutal' Tory policies all the time?
Public Order act 2023.
I'm not confused, just aware. "But you must be confused because the Public Order Act 2023 made some sensible changes to the law of public protest. It doesn't interfere with the right to peaceful protest at all. Yes, it's problematic where the protestors’ aim is not peacefully to persuade the public or the authorities. Rather, the object of their tactics is to impose their point of view by severely inconveniencing or actually harming others, or by otherwise interfering with the enjoyment of their lawful rights and freedoms. The 'heavy restrictions' you contend this Act has introduced have led to : 6 x arrests in Westminster in May 2023 for being equipped to lock-on (S2 POA 2023). No further action was taken. - 1 x arrest in Southwark in July 2023 for articles to commit criminal damage and being equipped for locking-on (s2 POA 2023). The defendant was charged. One charge. So why are you so confused and upset by the 2023 Act and what elements of it do you think should be repealed so that hundreds of thousands of protestors each time can attend the Gaza marches in London without being arrested, instead of being forced to stay at home by 'heavy restrictions'? | |||
"It wasn't in answer to anything you said. Otherwise, I would have quoted.
"So you support "There is NOTHING in the 2023 Act that I personally would ever worry about as a law-abiding citizen - nor would I worry that people's rights are being trampled-over by some kind of Government Police State Power (unlike those of Georgia currently) If you can find one, please do point it out" ?? | |||
"It wasn't in answer to anything you said. Otherwise, I would have quoted.
So you support
"There is NOTHING in the 2023 Act that I personally would ever worry about as a law-abiding citizen - nor would I worry that people's rights are being trampled-over by some kind of Government Police State Power (unlike those of Georgia currently) If you can find one, please do point it out"
?? "What? | |||
"It's a shame that some of those privileged to have been born into this beautiful country have such a downer on it. There are far worse places in the world - I've lived and worked in a few. The people, in general, are polite and pleasant, the countryside is beautiful and you have a huge number of well-stocked shops, lit streets and public services unprecedented in most countries.
And the freedom to whine without being arrested or poisoned.
Some heavy restrictions on protesting now though.
Have you not seen Georgia lately?
The country or the state in the US?
Proportionality?
Can you elaborate on the his question? I don't understand what you're asking.
The country. As if.
So the country, or does the "as if" indicate sarcasm and you're referring to the US state?
There's been numerous instances where non-violent protesters have been snatched by hooded police and brutally pummelled.
So cracking down on non-violent protests is a bad thing. I'm with you so far.
Watch the videos.
I don't need to, I'm not disputing that this happens around the world.
Then come back and tell us if you've ever seen restrictions on protests in the UK play out like Georgia.
Why? This this our bar, to be better than Georgia?
Please can you clarify 'this this our bar'? I'm confused.
You seem to be suggesting that because the UK doesn't clamp down as hard on protesters as one of the Georgia's does, that we should be happy?
As if one of the Georgia's has set the bar, as as long as we're not as bad as that, everything is fine.
Define "bad" and "fine".
I dunno mate. This is your point I'm trying to get clarification on.
I see little evidence of a 'clampdown' on protests in the UK at the moment.
You being unaware of something, isn't evidence of it not happening.
Every Gaza protest (and there've been many) is policed with a very light touch, despite what many see as inflammatory chants being loudly and frequently voiced.
So you think they should be policed with a less "light touch"?
I'm not your mate and never will be. I think the Gaza protests have generally been handled well, seeing no evidence of 'heavy restrictions'. I often see clips of JSO protestors unencumbered by 'heavy restrictions'.
You however opined to the contrary that there are 'some heavy restrictions on protesting now though' - I'm unaware of them. If you are, what have they been? Given that everyone in the UK has the right to protest and to organise protests, rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, why are you confused and upset about 'heavy restrictions' /'brutal' Tory policies all the time?
Public Order act 2023.
I'm not confused, just aware.
But you must be confused because the Public Order Act 2023 made some sensible changes to the law of public protest. It doesn't interfere with the right to peaceful protest at all. Yes, it's problematic where the protestors’ aim is not peacefully to persuade the public or the authorities. Rather, the object of their tactics is to impose their point of view by severely inconveniencing or actually harming others, or by otherwise interfering with the enjoyment of their lawful rights and freedoms.
The 'heavy restrictions' you contend this Act has introduced have led to :
6 x arrests in Westminster in May 2023 for being equipped to lock-on (S2 POA 2023). No further action was taken.
- 1 x arrest in Southwark in July 2023 for articles to commit criminal damage and being equipped for locking-on (s2 POA 2023). The defendant was charged.
One charge.
So why are you so confused and upset by the 2023 Act and what elements of it do you think should be repealed so that hundreds of thousands of protestors each time can attend the Gaza marches in London without being arrested, instead of being forced to stay at home by 'heavy restrictions'?
"What? | |||
| |||
"I'll take it you're stumped "*********************************** Exit strategy well used. | |||
"There is NOTHING in the 2023 Act that I personally would ever worry about as a law-abiding citizen - nor would I worry that people's rights are being trampled-over by some kind of Government Police State Power (unlike those of Georgia currently) If you can find one, please do point it out. To compare what's happening in Georgia and the 2023 Act here, is well, quite frankly ludicrous really. "So. Is there anything in the 2023 Act that is Draconian. Machiavellian. Orwellian. Or just plain old controlling without cause or need? Maybe we can move the conversation on by saying so? | |||
| |||
"It wasn't in answer to anything you said. Otherwise, I would have quoted.
So you support
"There is NOTHING in the 2023 Act that I personally would ever worry about as a law-abiding citizen - nor would I worry that people's rights are being trampled-over by some kind of Government Police State Power (unlike those of Georgia currently) If you can find one, please do point it out"
??
"If this was for me . . . Yes. Absolutely, I support the Act. Most of it was an update to acts of, quite frankly, annoying public behaviour that wasn't on the statute book previously. Particularly for those who think that they can hold the rest of the country to ransom for an idea that they have in their heads, whether laudable or not. They have no right to terminate the mobility of the country to go about its lawful day-to-day business. | |||
"Britain used to be the kid in class who told everyone what to do and foisted their way of thinking on others. They used to think they were great. Gradually one by one it lost friends and others made their own direction in life. Next it went its own direction and left the gang and is now trying to get in with other mates but they're not so plentiful. It's muscle isn't what it used to be. They keep boasting how great they still are but are becoming a much diminished voice in a playground of bigger hitters.. A bizarre post without a single piece of supporting evidence..Just look at the number of people who want to be educated in the UK or the net contribution that the UK made to the EU when it was a member. " U shud listen to prime ministers and ministers boasting about how Britain is greatest in the world at everything. I think I'm allowed to message my view like everyone else on here | |||
"It wasn't in answer to anything you said. Otherwise, I would have quoted.
So you support
"There is NOTHING in the 2023 Act that I personally would ever worry about as a law-abiding citizen - nor would I worry that people's rights are being trampled-over by some kind of Government Police State Power (unlike those of Georgia currently) If you can find one, please do point it out"
??
If this was for me . . .
Yes. Absolutely, I support the Act.
Most of it was an update to acts of, quite frankly, annoying public behaviour that wasn't on the statute book previously. Particularly for those who think that they can hold the rest of the country to ransom for an idea that they have in their heads, whether laudable or not. They have no right to terminate the mobility of the country to go about its lawful day-to-day business.
"Brilliantly put and I am in full agreement with you. | |||
"It wasn't in answer to anything you said. Otherwise, I would have quoted.
So you support
"There is NOTHING in the 2023 Act that I personally would ever worry about as a law-abiding citizen - nor would I worry that people's rights are being trampled-over by some kind of Government Police State Power (unlike those of Georgia currently) If you can find one, please do point it out"
??
If this was for me . . .
Yes. Absolutely, I support the Act.
Most of it was an update to acts of, quite frankly, annoying public behaviour that wasn't on the statute book previously. Particularly for those who think that they can hold the rest of the country to ransom for an idea that they have in their heads, whether laudable or not. They have no right to terminate the mobility of the country to go about its lawful day-to-day business.
Brilliantly put and I am in full agreement with you. "Earlier on you were arguing we don't have restrictions. Now you're saying we do, and you agree with them. | |||
| |||
"It wasn't in answer to anything you said. Otherwise, I would have quoted.
So you support
"There is NOTHING in the 2023 Act that I personally would ever worry about as a law-abiding citizen - nor would I worry that people's rights are being trampled-over by some kind of Government Police State Power (unlike those of Georgia currently) If you can find one, please do point it out"
??
If this was for me . . .
Yes. Absolutely, I support the Act.
Most of it was an update to acts of, quite frankly, annoying public behaviour that wasn't on the statute book previously. Particularly for those who think that they can hold the rest of the country to ransom for an idea that they have in their heads, whether laudable or not. They have no right to terminate the mobility of the country to go about its lawful day-to-day business.
Brilliantly put and I am in full agreement with you.
Earlier on you were arguing we don't have restrictions. Now you're saying we do, and you agree with them.
"Where was I "arguing we don't have restrictions"? The words I used were "policed with a very light touch". It is you who first introduced the word "restrictions" and "heavy" ones at that! All apparently courtesy of the Public Order Act 2023. There's been just one charge so far under this new law, despite many more protests than usual re Gaza, all of them significantly attended. You seem very upset by the introduction of this Act - did you protest against it as it was passing through Parliament? Lobby your MP? What made you believe there are "heavy restrictions" in it? You seem confused about peaceful protest compared to illegal, highly disruptive affairs, defacing statues, smashing shop and bank windows, pelting the Police with missiles and attacking them, setting squad cars on fire, stopping ambulances and so on. Which of these practices do you think qualifies as "peaceful"? If the Police try to prevent such illegal acts, or arrest those who so transgress, do you think that is evidence of "heavy restrictions"? | |||
"It wasn't in answer to anything you said. Otherwise, I would have quoted.
So you support
"There is NOTHING in the 2023 Act that I personally would ever worry about as a law-abiding citizen - nor would I worry that people's rights are being trampled-over by some kind of Government Police State Power (unlike those of Georgia currently) If you can find one, please do point it out"
??
If this was for me . . .
Yes. Absolutely, I support the Act.
Most of it was an update to acts of, quite frankly, annoying public behaviour that wasn't on the statute book previously. Particularly for those who think that they can hold the rest of the country to ransom for an idea that they have in their heads, whether laudable or not. They have no right to terminate the mobility of the country to go about its lawful day-to-day business.
Brilliantly put and I am in full agreement with you.
Earlier on you were arguing we don't have restrictions. Now you're saying we do, and you agree with them.
Where was I "arguing we don't have restrictions"? The words I used were "policed with a very light touch".
It is you who first introduced the word "restrictions" and "heavy" ones at that! All apparently courtesy of the Public Order Act 2023. There's been just one charge so far under this new law, despite many more protests than usual re Gaza, all of them significantly attended.
You seem very upset by the introduction of this Act - did you protest against it as it was passing through Parliament? Lobby your MP? What made you believe there are "heavy restrictions" in it? You seem confused about peaceful protest compared to illegal, highly disruptive affairs, defacing statues, smashing shop and bank windows, pelting the Police with missiles and attacking them, setting squad cars on fire, stopping ambulances and so on. Which of these practices do you think qualifies as "peaceful"? If the Police try to prevent such illegal acts, or arrest those who so transgress, do you think that is evidence of "heavy restrictions"?
"If you want to find out about the act, feel free to read up. There may be a point in your life where you want to protest, and I will 100% support your right to do so, regardless if I agree with the cause. | |||
| |||
"There've already been two points in my life where I attended a protest. Since they were both peaceful (one of them was almost carnival-like in atmosphere) I never for one moment felt 'heavy restrictions'. I most definitely do not require permission or support from you. The right to peaceful protests is protected under the European Convention of Human Rights. Having dealt with your points, can you please go back and answer mine? Thanks " You haven't dealt with any points. Just gave an anecdote, and then got angry with me. What points of yours do you want addressing? | |||
| |||
"Certainly not "angry"! I specifically used the words "please" and "thank you". I say again to you calmly and politely where was I "arguing we don't have restrictions"? " Where you started arguing with me when I said we had restrictions. " The words I used were "policed with a very light touch". It is you who first introduced the word "restrictions" and "heavy" ones at that! " Yeah, but this happened the other way around. You were responding to me. " All apparently courtesy of the Public Order Act 2023. There's been just one charge so far under this new law, despite many more protests than usual re Gaza, all of them significantly attended. " I couldn't find any stats for how many people were arrested or charged under this act. If you're saying it's one person, let's go with that. That only tells you one person was charged, doesn't give any indication how many people weren't able to protest because of the new legislation. " You seem very upset and angry by the introduction of this Act - did you protest against it as it was passing through Parliament? " Yes " Lobby your MP?" No because my local MP was vocal about being against this piece of legislation, and then voted against it. What's this got to do with anything though? How are my personal actions related to this act? " What made you believe there are "heavy restrictions" in it? " For example, you can be arrested for having a padlock, duck tape, on your person. The police can search you without reasonable suspicion. The UN human rights high commissioner agrees with me perspective on this. " You do seem confused about peaceful protest compared to illegal, " This act makes certain acts of protest illegal, that were once legal. No confusion. " highly disruptive affairs, " This is the nature of protesting. " defacing statues, smashing shop and bank windows, pelting the Police with missiles and attacking them, setting squad cars on fire, stopping ambulances and so on. " These things are all illegal regardless of the Public Order Act. Why are you trying to bring them into the conversation? " Which of these practices do you think qualifies as "peaceful"? " None. Why did you think I do? " If the Police try to prevent such illegal acts, or arrest those who so transgress, do you think that is evidence of "heavy restrictions"?" You're so far down the rabbit hole of getting angry about the incorrect assumptions you made about me that by the end these questions are so far from the point it's impossible to even attempt to answer. I withdraw any previous questions I asked you. You don't seem to want to make any kind of point related to the topic. | |||
"That loudmouth kid at school who stick's their nose in everything pushes and shoves all because they happen to be close friends with the biggest hardest kid in school (USA)" No I wouldn't say that at all. It's not perfect, then what country is, but there are far worse places to be and off the top of my head, apart from an improvement in the weather I can't think of where I would rather be living. | |||
| |||
"Certainly not "angry"! I specifically used the words "please" and "thank you". I say again to you calmly and politely where was I "arguing we don't have restrictions"? Where you started arguing with me when I said we had restrictions. The words I used were "policed with a very light touch". It is you who first introduced the word "restrictions" and "heavy" ones at that! Yeah, but this happened the other way around. You were responding to me. All apparently courtesy of the Public Order Act 2023. There's been just one charge so far under this new law, despite many more protests than usual re Gaza, all of them significantly attended. I couldn't find any stats for how many people were arrested or charged under this act. If you're saying it's one person, let's go with that. That only tells you one person was charged, doesn't give any indication how many people weren't able to protest because of the new legislation. You seem very upset and angry by the introduction of this Act - did you protest against it as it was passing through Parliament? Yes Lobby your MP? No because my local MP was vocal about being against this piece of legislation, and then voted against it. What's this got to do with anything though? How are my personal actions related to this act? What made you believe there are "heavy restrictions" in it? For example, you can be arrested for having a padlock, duck tape, on your person. The police can search you without reasonable suspicion. The UN human rights high commissioner agrees with me perspective on this. You do seem confused about peaceful protest compared to illegal, This act makes certain acts of protest illegal, that were once legal. No confusion. highly disruptive affairs, This is the nature of protesting. defacing statues, smashing shop and bank windows, pelting the Police with missiles and attacking them, setting squad cars on fire, stopping ambulances and so on. These things are all illegal regardless of the Public Order Act. Why are you trying to bring them into the conversation? Which of these practices do you think qualifies as "peaceful"? None. Why did you think I do? If the Police try to prevent such illegal acts, or arrest those who so transgress, do you think that is evidence of "heavy restrictions"? You're so far down the rabbit hole of getting angry about the incorrect assumptions you made about me that by the end these questions are so far from the point it's impossible to even attempt to answer. I withdraw any previous questions I asked you. You don't seem to want to make any kind of point related to the topic. " Total comedy gold. "The UN human rights high commissioner agrees with me" lol "This act makes certain acts of protest illegal" - yes, acts that are not peaceful! You seem upset that people can't take padlocks to a protest. How odd. "people weren't able to protest because of the new legislation" Really? It has had no obvious effects on the numbers attending the Gaza protests. You seem very confused by the legislation, this thread and somehow have it in your head that the "UN human rights high commissioner" follows you around on here, which is weird, and agrees with you. How did he tell you this, by phone or in writing? His proper title by the way is UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Tell him to do one when he next contacts you to agree with your latest views. Most reasonable law abiding citizens feel the eco yobs et al have had it too good for too long and abused the right to protest by their consistently obstructive protests, blocking roads, haranguing workers going about their day to day business, constant shouting through PA systems all day and through the night in many cases, graffiti on monuments and statues, destruction of property, foul and abusive language at the police and authorities and so on. Not to mention the cost to the taxpayer to fund extra police and to repair needless vandalism.They have no one to blame but themselves. This Act was overdue and won't affect you if you protest peacefully. | |||
"Certainly not "angry"! I specifically used the words "please" and "thank you". I say again to you calmly and politely where was I "arguing we don't have restrictions"? Where you started arguing with me when I said we had restrictions. The words I used were "policed with a very light touch". It is you who first introduced the word "restrictions" and "heavy" ones at that! Yeah, but this happened the other way around. You were responding to me. All apparently courtesy of the Public Order Act 2023. There's been just one charge so far under this new law, despite many more protests than usual re Gaza, all of them significantly attended. I couldn't find any stats for how many people were arrested or charged under this act. If you're saying it's one person, let's go with that. That only tells you one person was charged, doesn't give any indication how many people weren't able to protest because of the new legislation. You seem very upset and angry by the introduction of this Act - did you protest against it as it was passing through Parliament? Yes Lobby your MP? No because my local MP was vocal about being against this piece of legislation, and then voted against it. What's this got to do with anything though? How are my personal actions related to this act? What made you believe there are "heavy restrictions" in it? For example, you can be arrested for having a padlock, duck tape, on your person. The police can search you without reasonable suspicion. The UN human rights high commissioner agrees with me perspective on this. You do seem confused about peaceful protest compared to illegal, This act makes certain acts of protest illegal, that were once legal. No confusion. highly disruptive affairs, This is the nature of protesting. defacing statues, smashing shop and bank windows, pelting the Police with missiles and attacking them, setting squad cars on fire, stopping ambulances and so on. These things are all illegal regardless of the Public Order Act. Why are you trying to bring them into the conversation? Which of these practices do you think qualifies as "peaceful"? None. Why did you think I do? If the Police try to prevent such illegal acts, or arrest those who so transgress, do you think that is evidence of "heavy restrictions"? You're so far down the rabbit hole of getting angry about the incorrect assumptions you made about me that by the end these questions are so far from the point it's impossible to even attempt to answer. I withdraw any previous questions I asked you. You don't seem to want to make any kind of point related to the topic. Total comedy gold. "The UN human rights high commissioner agrees with me" lol " Yes comedy gold that the UN human rights commissioner thinks the legislation has gone too far. " "This act makes certain acts of protest illegal" - yes, acts that are not peaceful! " Nope. You're not paying attention. " You seem upset that people can't take padlocks to a protest. How odd. " Nope, please try to pay attention to the points being made. " "people weren't able to protest because of the new legislation" Really? It has had no obvious effects on the numbers attending the Gaza protests. " How do you know? And why is this anecdote relevant? " You seem very confused by the legislation, this thread and somehow have it in your head that the "UN human rights high commissioner" follows you around on here, which is weird, and agrees with you. How did he tell you this, by phone or in writing? " If you're not even going to attempt to understand the subject matter, the conversation, the points being made, why are you here? " His proper title by the way is UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Tell him to do one when he next contacts you to agree with your latest views. Most reasonable law abiding citizens feel the eco yobs et al have had it too good for too long and abused the right to protest by their consistently obstructive protests, blocking roads, haranguing workers going about their day to day business, constant shouting through PA systems all day and through the night in many cases, graffiti on monuments and statues, destruction of property, foul and abusive language at the police and authorities and so on. Not to mention the cost to the taxpayer to fund extra police and to repair needless vandalism.They have no one to blame but themselves. This Act was overdue and won't affect you if you protest peacefully. " This last bit tells everything about your position. No further questions. | |||
| |||
"My position is that peaceful protesting is fine but unlawful protesting is just that and should be a crime. Hardly contentious! " You seem to have missed the point, the law was changed to make some peaceful things illegal. As mentioned above. " If I were you, I'd be concerned nobody seems to have rushed forward to support your hostility towards peaceful protest and the rule of law. " Aside from the UN having the same perspective as me of course. " This and your approach re Hamas, a terrorist organisation, tells people everything they need to know. " I haven't expressed an approach re Hamas. You have me mixed up with someone else maybe? " No further debate on this from me either. " Phew. Thank fuck. | |||
| |||
"7 hours ago : No further questions A few minutes ago : A question Lol This debate's closed, but you seem confused about what 'no further questions' means. Why are you here again when you said 'no further questions'? Why are you following me around? It's weird and creepy. " In fairness, you haven't answered anything I've asked. So I agree. Let's leave it.
"Following you around" by replying on a thread that we've both been posting on seems like a silly thing to say. | |||
| |||
"You said "no further questions" and I said "no further debate" which taken together should have been the end of the matter. You then decided to copy and paste a previous post of mine (not sure why you can't do this with your options to solve the Hamas/Israel situation, but there we go). You then went through it, making 4 further confused and mistaken points. That's following me around and weirdly reigniting things. We have different views on the Public Order Act 2023, let's agree to disagree. But I doubt you will..... " so do I lol | |||
