Personal identification

[joinerjohn]

Or perhaps remove the reasons for protests?

Mind you, successive governments have moved towards the first of your 'suggestions'

Which then leads to more violence!

It doesn't matter which lot are in power though. There will always be some reason to protest.
Protests don't necessarily have to be violent. I'd stick my neck out and say most people would be quite happy to take part in non violent protest. It's a case of the few spoiling it for the majority. Problem is, if all protesters cover their faces, how do the police single out the violent ones from the passive ones?

 

[ellal]

Protests don't necessarily have to be violent. I'd stick my neck out and say most people would be quite happy to take part in non violent protest. It's a case of the few spoiling it for the majority. Problem is, if all protesters cover their faces, how do the police single out the violent ones from the passive ones?

In reply to the above, I'll reiterate my point regarding UK Uncut and the police reation to peaceful protest..

Link

Not only are they attempting to put people off peaceful protest, but the videos show in stark detail the (not unusual) intimidation and lies the police use...the Stasi would have been so proud!

And I bet they have just made some of those falsely arrested think about becoming violent next time, since they were treated just the same way when they were peaceful...

This will rebound big time, and quite right too!

Oh and expect most, if not all, of those charges to be quietly dropped after April 29th!

Meanwhile:
Link

Could it be that the police themselves ignored/encouraged the violence for their own reasons?...

 

[joinerjohn]

The law is quite clear on trespass though. If you enter a building or property and are asked to leave, you commit trespass. If you don't leave, the owners of the property can ask the police to attend and either eject the trespassers or arrest them. So,, who's right in this instance?. Fortnum and Masons, would be quite within their rights to ask the police for the names and addresses of all those charged with criminal trespass and bring their own prosecution. They would be entitled to claim loss of business. Perhaps this would be acceptable to those involved. What has F&M's got to do with the protests against the cuts anyway? Another soft target?. F&M's claim to have lost £80,000 in trading losses and have had an unspecified amount of wine and champagne stolen.
Are you now going to tell us that during "peaceful protest." it's ok to snaffle some champers to keep your spirits up? And stop shoppers and traders going about their lawful business?
138 people charged with criminal trespass in one store. Almost £600 per person in loss of revenue for the store. And you think this is OK for protesters to do?

 

[ellal]

The law is quite clear on trespass though. If you enter a building or property and are asked to leave, you commit trespass. If you don't leave, the owners of the property can ask the police to attend and either eject the trespassers or arrest them. So,, who's right in this instance?. Fortnum and Masons, would be quite within their rights to ask the police for the names and addresses of all those charged with criminal trespass and bring their own prosecution. They would be entitled to claim loss of business. Perhaps this would be acceptable to those involved. What has F&M's got to do with the protests against the cuts anyway? Another soft target?. F&M's claim to have lost £80,000 in trading losses and have had an unspecified amount of wine and champagne stolen.
Are you now going to tell us that during "peaceful protest." it's ok to snaffle some champers to keep your spirits up? And stop shoppers and traders going about their lawful business?
138 people charged with criminal trespass in one store. Almost £600 per person in loss of revenue for the store. And you think this is OK for protesters to do?

I note you sidestepped the points I made, but no surprise there!...So I guess you approve of the police tactics.

And the law is not 'quite clear' in this instance. Trespass is actually a civil offence...hence why plod used a trumped up charge of criminal damage. Aggravated trespass is also a trumped up charge in this respect (and instances in buildings were included in Section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, amended section 68, by removing the words "in the open air"), and nearly every case is dropped!

As for the alleged theft, do you arrest everyone in a store if something goes missing? That's a hell of a precedant don't you think?

I'll answer your specific question though - yes I think it's perfectly ok to do this to highlight the £28k per person there that is lost lost through tax evasion by F&M!

So in return, I'll ask again - do you approve of the police's deceitful tactics?

 

[joinerjohn]

Obviously, your not well read in law then are you? Aggravated Trespass was introduced by the Labour Govt. It means the trespass on land where trespassers carry out any act which disrupts the lawful business of the owner. This is exactly what these protesters have done. It is Not a civil matter either, it is subject to criminal law.

Notice the word land. Very important this, because the law will not differentiate between open land and built up land. The ground the building stands on , belongs to F&M therefore it is their land these protesters have trespassed on and stopped F&M going about their lawful business.

By mentioning this apparent £28k per person that F&M are supposedly costing everyone, all you do is cloud the actual issue of aggravated trespass.
Problem is though, these people go to protests without knowing much about the laws they may break, therefore putting their liberty at risk. I'm willing to bet that not one protest organiser from the TUC told one of these 138 people that they could even be arrested for their action. I'm further willing to bet that not one organiser told any of the thousands that turned up, anything about the law, pertaining to protest in this country.
What a shambles.

You think protester are quite right to target F&M because of tax evasion? Wrong. The protesters should highlight the tax evasion, not stop F&M going about their business. There are legal ways to bring this to the attention of the tax authorities. If F&M have been evading tax at the amount you say, then it must have been going on for years. Why did the previous Labour Govt not raise this? Hmmmmm Perhaps some Labour MP's have deeper pockets than we first thought.

 

[ellal]

Obviously, your not well read in law then are you? Aggravated Trespass was introduced by the Labour Govt. It means the trespass on land where trespassers carry out any act which disrupts the lawful business of the owner. This is exactly what these protesters have done. It is Not a civil matter either, it is subject to criminal law.

Notice the word land. Very important this, because the law will not differentiate between open land and built up land. The ground the building stands on , belongs to F&M therefore it is their land these protesters have trespassed on and stopped F&M going about their lawful business.

Obviously you havn't noticed when the definition of 'land' as regards 'aggravated trespass' changed have you. I did point it out, but then you have ignored it as you usual... And I did point out the differences between trespass and 'aggravated' trespass...

By mentioning this apparent £28k per person that F&M are supposedly costing everyone, all you do is cloud the actual issue of aggravated trespass.

Just putting the issue into perspective!

You think protester are quite right to target F&M because of tax evasion? Wrong. The protesters should highlight the tax evasion, not stop F&M going about their business. There are legal ways to bring this to the attention of the tax authorities.

you're a laugh a minute...

Problem is though, these people go to protests without knowing much about the laws they may break, therefore putting their liberty at risk. I'm willing to bet that not one protest organiser from the TUC told one of these 138 people that they could even be arrested for their action. I'm further willing to bet that not one organiser told any of the thousands that turned up, anything about the law, pertaining to protest in this country.
What a shambles.

And I'm willing to bet these trumped up charges will be dropped...


But you still refuse to answer a direct question...

So let's try again shall we...

do you approve of the police's deceitful tactics?

Yes or no will suffice...

 

[joinerjohn]

OK then, do you approve of the violence that always seems to accompany these protests?
Deceit can and has been used to useful purpose in the past. I approve of any tactics used to bring lawbreakers to justice. Why would I not? We want to see lawbreakers behind bars, or if not, we want lawbreakers up in front of a magistrate. Unless your quite happy with people breaking the law?


I did notice you didn't comment on Labour MP's having deeper pockets than we first thought though.
Is this a tacit approval of them?

PS, I have highlighted the operative word for you. Enjoy.

 

[ellal]

Actually JJ they weren't breaking any laws, as at present they have just been charged - I'm sure we'll find out the falsehoods when the charges are dropped/thrown out of court...

And just for your information, a 'lawbreaker' is someone who has been convicted, not someone who is a suspect

I've put the actual relevant bits in bold for you...

But then I guess you don't actually make a distinction do you...'Any tactics' you say?... a few beatings, a bit of torture, and a false confession?...where does your warped sense of justice end?

Oh, I know..."just move over there, we're not going to kettle you, just give you a nice shower!"

I did notice you didn't comment on Labour MP's having deeper pockets than we first thought though.

As do the majority of politicians, and no doubt the members of acpo!

 

[Mickymoody]

When the weather heats up, and more people come out, and the cuts cut in...then there are riots. The current riots, are nothing, I believe.

The Olympics are going to be a farce, as there is going to be, at present, lots of riots.

 

[ellal]

As usual JJ just slinks out of another topic when challenged...

 

[joinerjohn]

As usual JJ just slinks out of another topic when challenged...

Ellal, I don't see any challenges in your post of the 2nd April. In my previous post I mentioned lawbreakers. Obviously you conveniently forgot that they had actually broke the law of aggravated trespass (which they have been charged with) I never mentioned that they were suspects. You have mentioned suspects (I'm sure just to cloud the issue, but what the hey)
You obviously approve wholeheartedly of violent protest and all that it entails, including, hiding behind masks, scarves and balaclavas. You so obviously approve of the tactics used by protesters to stop legitimate businesses from conducting their business. You obviously approve of the theft from businesses too.
I thought this discussion has run it's course, but obviously you feel so aggrieved at the apparent injustice of lawbreakers being arrested, that you want to carry on. Ahh well...
Theoretical question,,, What tactics would you use to protect your property/business in the event of a violent protest by some lunatic fringe movement ? (which although your property/business wasn't anything to do with the protests, somehow became involved)

 

[JohnD]

OK then, do you approve of the violence that always seems to accompany these protests?

I certainly don't

especially when that violence is an assault on a member of the public resulting in his death.

You don't approve either, surely?

 

[joinerjohn]

JohnD, I have already made my feelings clear about the Ian Tomlinson case. The policeman who attacked him and ultimately caused his death should be brought to justice. He should face a manslaughter charge as a minimum , if not murder charge. He is a disgrace to the Metropolitan Police Force.

I'm talking of the violence and mayhem caused by members of the public attending these protests, hell bent on causing trouble. Surely you don't agree with this either? Anyone who breaks the law, deserves to be caught and punished, to the full extent of the,( increasingly impotent) system.

Back to the original topic now. I don't believe that anyone should cover their face at any demonstration or protest.
Anyone includes protesters and police. If the police are expecting a riot, then by all means let them wear helmets, just as long as their faces and service numbers are clearly visible. Not covered by a scarf or tunic/hi viz vest.
Or am I now being unreasonable?

 

[Mickymoody]

JohnD, I have already made my feelings clear about the Ian Tomlinson case. The policeman who attacked him and ultimately caused his death should be brought to justice. He should face a manslaughter charge as a minimum , if not murder charge. He is a disgrace to the Metropolitan Police Force.

I'm talking of the violence and mayhem caused by members of the public attending these protests, hell bent on causing trouble. Surely you don't agree with this either? Anyone who breaks the law, deserves to be caught and punished, to the full extent of the,( increasingly impotent) system.

Back to the original topic now. I don't believe that anyone should cover their face at any demonstration or protest.
Anyone includes protesters and police. If the police are expecting a riot, then by all means let them wear helmets, just as long as their faces and service numbers are clearly visible. Not covered by a scarf or tunic/hi viz vest.
Or am I now being unreasonable?

Yes, because you bring in the argument of free speech, and human rights. If someone is protesting, and they are famous, why not cover their face to preserve their anonymity; also, if Muslims have a demo, where is the law to stop them wearing the habib? The full dress, with only the eyes showing? There isn't a law to prevent that. So what is suggested, one law for British Whites protesting, and another for British Muslims protesting? Are or you saying make all Muslims conform to British standards, and ignore their own culture?

 

[ellal]

As usual JJ just slinks out of another topic when challenged...

Ellal, I don't see any challenges in your post of the 2nd April. In my previous post I mentioned lawbreakers. Obviously you conveniently forgot that they had actually broke the law of aggravated trespass (which they have been charged with) I never mentioned that they were suspects. You have mentioned suspects (I'm sure just to cloud the issue, but what the hey)
You obviously approve wholeheartedly of violent protest and all that it entails, including, hiding behind masks, scarves and balaclavas. You so obviously approve of the tactics used by protesters to stop legitimate businesses from conducting their business. You obviously approve of the theft from businesses too.
I thought this discussion has run it's course, but obviously you feel so aggrieved at the apparent injustice of lawbreakers being arrested, that you want to carry on. Ahh well...
Theoretical question,,, What tactics would you use to protect your property/business in the event of a violent protest by some lunatic fringe movement ? (which although your property/business wasn't anything to do with the protests, somehow became involved)

Actually it's the injustice towards those that havn't been proved to have broken any laws that needs pointing out to you...It appears it's guilty unless proven innocent in your book...

And if/when the charges are dropped, will you still call them 'lawbreakers'? Will they still be 'guilty' in your eyes?

They were originally arrested for criminal damage, but those charges were dropped - but according to you they must have broken that law at the time, since that was what they were charged with initially...Are they still 'guilty' of criminal damage in your eyes?

And you can ask any theoretical question you like in order to get away from the issue...Because this was not a violent protest by a 'lunatic fringe movement'...there was no damage done, and it has been admitted by F&M that customers were not impeded and that their restaurant was operating as usual!

Maybe you ought to direct your diversionary question to the police who were happy to let those intent on real violence just get on with it!

The 'property' was a legitimate target of the peaceful protest due to tax evasion issues...

And I don't believe anyone has been charged with theft, so on what basis do you make this claim?...

Please do keep up with the facts, instead of making things up to suit your opinions!

And do try and refrain from assuming things about people, based purely on your prejudiced point of view - because you are 'so obviously' wrong!...