Bristol

[hudds]

Borin' Baggie

I bet they couldn't even tell you what the Bill proposes.

I really haven't got th words for them.

You support the bill that bans protests for the extremely vague offence of "serious annoyance"?


When did I say that? How is my condemnation of ignorant thuggery in any way indicative of support for what they are rioting against?

No, I am not in favour of it, not least because it is vague and poewrs contingent on vague conditions precedent tend to be rope for abuse.

The law to deal with disruptive protests is already in place. The issue is Police not using them.

So those protesting may have grounds for protesting provsions of the bill?  You imply otherwise.

[Borin' Baggie]

Borin' Baggie

I bet they couldn't even tell you what the Bill proposes.

I really haven't got th words for them.

You support the bill that bans protests for the extremely vague offence of "serious annoyance"?


When did I say that? How is my condemnation of ignorant thuggery in any way indicative of support for what they are rioting against?

No, I am not in favour of it, not least because it is vague and poewrs contingent on vague conditions precedent tend to be rope for abuse.

The law to deal with disruptive protests is already in place. The issue is Police not using them.

Then what was the point in saying "I bet they couldn't even tell you what the Bill proposes", or even bring up the policing bill at all, when you could have just criticised the conduct of the protestors and the policing of the protests?

[hudds]

Borin' Baggie

I bet they couldn't even tell you what the Bill proposes.

I really haven't got th words for them.

You support the bill that bans protests for the extremely vague offence of "serious annoyance"?


When did I say that? How is my condemnation of ignorant thuggery in any way indicative of support for what they are rioting against?

No, I am not in favour of it, not least because it is vague and poewrs contingent on vague conditions precedent tend to be rope for abuse.

The law to deal with disruptive protests is already in place. The issue is Police not using them.

Then what was the point in saying "I bet they couldn't even tell you what the Bill proposes", or even bring up the policing bill at all, when you could have just criticised the conduct of the protestors and the policing of the protests?

You got him bang to rights, lid.

[SW4Baggie]

I feel for the police on the ground in this scenario. Whatever their political allegiances they’re having to deal with an issue that isn’t of their making, and the mindless damage caused to an already underfunded and overstretched service will cause little to no harm to those creating this mess.

You try to take away people’s right to protest peacefully and then get shocked when they riot? This will get worse before it gets better. Think we’re in for a repeat of the summer riots from a few years ago.

[Jack Halford]

The pond life setting light to police vans and smashing windows should thank their lucky stars that our police don’t deal with protestors like them with far more vigour like some other European countries.

As said above a long hot summer and it could turn nasty.

[Bortolazzi's Barnet]

Borin' Baggie

I bet they couldn't even tell you what the Bill proposes.

I really haven't got th words for them.

You support the bill that bans protests for the extremely vague offence of "serious annoyance"?


When did I say that? How is my condemnation of ignorant thuggery in any way indicative of support for what they are rioting against?

No, I am not in favour of it, not least because it is vague and poewrs contingent on vague conditions precedent tend to be rope for abuse.

The law to deal with disruptive protests is already in place. The issue is Police not using them.

So those protesting may have grounds for protesting provsions of the bill?  You imply otherwise.

You mean you inferred otherwise.

I implied nothing. I can criticise the actions of these utter thugs and yet agree with the issue over which they were ostensibly supposed to be protesting. Note the 'ostensibly', because it was just an excuse in reality. I would imagine that the real protestors and campaigners on this issue are devestated.

---

Borin' Baggie

I bet they couldn't even tell you what the Bill proposes.

I really haven't got th words for them.

You support the bill that bans protests for the extremely vague offence of "serious annoyance"?


When did I say that? How is my condemnation of ignorant thuggery in any way indicative of support for what they are rioting against?

No, I am not in favour of it, not least because it is vague and poewrs contingent on vague conditions precedent tend to be rope for abuse.

The law to deal with disruptive protests is already in place. The issue is Police not using them.

Then what was the point in saying "I bet they couldn't even tell you what the Bill proposes", or even bring up the policing bill at all, when you could have just criticised the conduct of the protestors and the policing of the protests?

You got him bang to rights, lid.

He really hasn't. In fact, I don't even know what point he is trying to make or prove with his strange response. I'd have thought it was abundatly clear why I mentioned the Bill, but if it isn't to some people, I'll help them out.

The protest today was a protest against the Bill voted upon in Parliament last week which, inter alia, provides for more enforcement powers against protests. That was the purpose of this protest, to protest against those measures.

That is why the Bill was mentioned. ****TODAY'S EVENTS WERE AT A PROTEST AGAINST THE BILL.****

So there is the first relevance of the Bill and why it was mentioned.

I make a point in pursuance of that, saying that these people acting so violently in a protest against these provisions in the Bill probably don't even know what it is proposing, and are just using the issue to act like thugs.  Here is the second relevance of the Bill and why it was mentioned.

I further postulate that the impugned measures in the, you know, Bill thing, are not really needed as there are already the powers via statute and common law to deal with disruptive protests. Here is the third relevance of the Bill and why it was mentioned.

I also responded with broad agreement to a poster who was concerned about the vague langauge in the Bill. So there's a 4th relevance of it.

I hope you can know see that the Bill is integral to this discussion.

I can't explain it any more simply. I literally can't.

---

I feel for the police on the ground in this scenario. Whatever their political allegiances they’re having to deal with an issue that isn’t of their making, and the mindless damage caused to an already underfunded and overstretched service will cause little to no harm to those creating this mess.

You try to take away people’s right to protest peacefully and then get shocked when they riot? This will get worse before it gets better. Think we’re in for a repeat of the summer riots from a few years ago.

Again, I'd love to know the level of knowledge of the content of the Bill amongst the rioters. I bet they have all read it judiciously.

[baggiebloke]

The Bill was killed years ago.

Burnside was my favourite character.

[DJPunkRoc]

Loved it when Reg Holdsworth went all dark, myself.

[Lillwall's left foot]

A day of measured and peaceful protest is now ignored and all focus is on the later actions of violent agitators. If I was a cynical man and prone to conspiracy theories I would be wondering what the motivation of such agitators might be? But I'm not, so let's just put it down to a bunch of fucking idiot's shall we?

I haven't looked but I can only imagine what fun our right wing press are having with this and I'm sure Patel was up bright and early with her statement. Too easy really isn't it.

[baggiebloke]

Loved it when Reg Holdsworth went all dark, myself.

Yes.

Tucker Jenkins was a dodgy fucker n all.