(06-08-2020, 11:37 AM)fuzzbox Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 11:36 AM)Remi_Moses Wrote: [ -> ]Let me just clarify something before mass hysteria sets in. I never mentioned shooting anyone. Being armed and shooting are different things.
Ramming a bicycle into a police horse causing injuries to many people is acceptable as is mass demonstrations putting thousands of people in danger of getting the Covid virus.
I do not agree with this on any level.
Just to clarify further. Are you saying give them a gun, but tell them not to shoot? I think that's fair enough. What could possibly go wrong?
How many armed police do you think are in and around London already. Publicaly armed police is a deterrent.
Sometimes civil disobedience is justified, most of the time it isn't. I think that's essentially the argument, no? To say no act of law breaking is justified would result in a very static, and dare I say it, non-functioning democracy.
The law will be applied to some of the demonstrators as it may well be that they are identifiable - but to claim that their act was "unjust" as opposed to "illegal" is the nub of the matter. And there the defence rests your honour.
Should the Michael Jackson statue be pulled down outside Craven Cottage? Can’t see too many being comfortable with it being there.
(06-08-2020, 11:46 AM)Pragmatist Wrote: [ -> ]Should the Michael Jackson statue be pulled down outside Craven Cottage? Can’t see too many being comfortable with it being there.
That's a public reminder of why you shouldn't support Fulham - it has it's place
(06-08-2020, 11:46 AM)Pragmatist Wrote: [ -> ]Should the Michael Jackson statue be pulled down outside Craven Cottage? Can’t see too many being comfortable with it being there.
Should our errors of the past be destroyed and hidden is an important question?
Give the Elgin Marbles back to Greece.
(06-08-2020, 11:46 AM)Pragmatist Wrote: [ -> ]Should the Michael Jackson statue be pulled down outside Craven Cottage? Can’t see too many being comfortable with it being there.
It went ages ago.
(06-08-2020, 08:43 AM) pid=\179544' Wrote: (06-08-2020, 11:36 AM)Remi_Moses Wrote: [ -> ]Let me just clarify something before mass hysteria sets in. I never mentioned shooting anyone. Being armed and shooting are different things.
Ramming a bicycle into a police horse causing injuries to many people is acceptable as is mass demonstrations putting thousands of people in danger of getting the Covid virus.
I do not agree with this on any level.
Remi_Moses
(06-08-2020, 08:37 AM)baggy1 Wrote: [ -> ]The offendati are out in force this morning - the lockdown has been breaking at the seams for weeks and the actions of one individual meant that all of those that needed an excuse to get out had it. Within large protests like this there will always be groups that want to take it beyond what the vast majority of the protest would do - they are idiots and should be identified and dealt with by the law.
The calls for water cannons and rubber bullets is stupid, it gives the agitators what they want because it will fire up many more to break the peaceful protest.
Then you replace rubber bullets with real ones. If the law in society is breached we have nothing.
Remi here, not advocating shooting anyone...
(06-08-2020, 11:43 AM)Remi_Moses Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 11:37 AM)fuzzbox Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 11:36 AM)Remi_Moses Wrote: [ -> ]Let me just clarify something before mass hysteria sets in. I never mentioned shooting anyone. Being armed and shooting are different things.
Ramming a bicycle into a police horse causing injuries to many people is acceptable as is mass demonstrations putting thousands of people in danger of getting the Covid virus.
I do not agree with this on any level.
Just to clarify further. Are you saying give them a gun, but tell them not to shoot? I think that's fair enough. What could possibly go wrong?
How many armed police do you think are in and around London already. Publicaly armed police is a deterrent.
So you are saying they can shoot? A gun isn't a deterrent if you're not allowed to use it - It's a liability! The police in this country aren't allowed to shoot in this country except for very specific reasons. Even then, they then have to get high level authority. How would that work in this scenario? Or are you saying arm them and leave it up to the policeman involved?
When would they be allowed to use them - legally? Nobody died, so there was no life-threatening situations, so I'm guessing nobody would have used them. Unless you advocate shooting for 'swearing in an aggressive manner' or 'looking at them funny?' or even maybe for pushing a statue over?
(06-08-2020, 11:52 AM)Duffers Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 11:46 AM)Pragmatist Wrote: [ -> ]Should the Michael Jackson statue be pulled down outside Craven Cottage? Can’t see too many being comfortable with it being there.
It went ages ago.
(06-08-2020, 08:43 AM)pid=\179544 Wrote: (06-08-2020, 11:36 AM)Remi_Moses Wrote: [ -> ]Let me just clarify something before mass hysteria sets in. I never mentioned shooting anyone. Being armed and shooting are different things.
Ramming a bicycle into a police horse causing injuries to many people is acceptable as is mass demonstrations putting thousands of people in danger of getting the Covid virus.
I do not agree with this on any level.
Remi_Moses
(06-08-2020, 08:37 AM)baggy1 Wrote: [ -> ]The offendati are out in force this morning - the lockdown has been breaking at the seams for weeks and the actions of one individual meant that all of those that needed an excuse to get out had it. Within large protests like this there will always be groups that want to take it beyond what the vast majority of the protest would do - they are idiots and should be identified and dealt with by the law.
The calls for water cannons and rubber bullets is stupid, it gives the agitators what they want because it will fire up many more to break the peaceful protest.
Then you replace rubber bullets with real ones. If the law in society is breached we have nothing.
Remi here, not advocating shooting anyone...
Duffers here, story telling again. Doesn't understand the word deterrent.
(06-08-2020, 11:21 AM)rsbaggy2 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 11:17 AM)Kit Kat Chunky Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 11:08 AM)WWHO Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 10:54 AM)Kit Kat Chunky Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 10:19 AM)fuzzbox Wrote: [ -> ]What will be more interesting is who will want to put it back up again? In a way, that in itself 'almost' justifies tearing it down.
It shouldn't go back up, in my opinion.
But whatever happens it needs to be decided in a lawful way, not because an out of control mob decided upon itself to take the law into it's own hands.
What next, vigilantes? Summary execution by the mob for walking on the cracks in the pavement?
We have to have law enforcement otherwise we end up with anarchy and civil war. And I'm no apologist for the Police, far from it. But someone has to enforce the law.
I think you're being a little harsh in your criticism of Tory Councillor Richard Eddy and the Society of Merchant Venturers ...
I was going to make a post on the relative merits of both peaceful and violent direct action, forms of protest I personally have participated in; but instead I'm going to reflect on the fact that a poster on this thread has advocated the army shooting his/her fellow citizens. Wow.
What would have happened if the tumbling statue had crushed someone??
HASAW would have had a field day!!
I suggest it would do a lot less physical harm than allowing the police to fire bullets at a protest march.
I would suggest that the only aggressors here were the people breaking the law.
Churchill statue has been damaged now