PDA

View Full Version : G20 protesters held; UK Police State?


fireflybob
13th Apr 2009, 11:05
Hundred held over 'power protest' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/7996394.stm)

I am in no way a supporter of these "protesters" but can't help thinking this is more evidence that we now live in a Police State in the UK.

Surely peaceful protest has always been a part of our democracy?

tony draper
13th Apr 2009, 11:34
peaceful?,a bunch of airhead wankers determined to black out a large area of the country? hope they take em somewhere and give them a good kicking,to much to hope for in this fluffocracy.
:suspect:

fireflybob
13th Apr 2009, 11:49
Yes I quite agree with those comments but apparently they hadn't even started a protest - to what extent should we as a society arrest people who are intending or suspected of intending to commit criminal acts as opposed to actually doing so?

Sir Lee B´stard
13th Apr 2009, 12:06
I don't think there is any protest in the sense of lawful demonstration with banners and noise suggested here but rather a very large conspiracy to cause criminal damage. If that is the case then the police were right to nip it in the bud.

tony draper
13th Apr 2009, 12:08
Yer it's only fair, the police should have let those feckers they arrested the other day blow up a shopping precinct or two before they arrested them,
:uhoh:

Checkboard
13th Apr 2009, 12:22
Now if you could only get them to respond like this for Raves - when they destroy farmer's lands. Guess power companies have more clout. :bored:

heli-cal
13th Apr 2009, 12:44
Let's see how many actual, solid criminal convictions result from this 'event' before throwing out verbal chaff. :oh:

OFSO
13th Apr 2009, 13:53
omit the question mark

AMF
13th Apr 2009, 13:53
fireflybob quote.. Yes I quite agree with those comments but apparently they hadn't even started a protest - to what extent should we as a society arrest people who are intending or suspected of intending to commit criminal acts as opposed to actually doing so?

Last time I checked, planning a protest isn't a crime, but conspiring with others to commmit certain crimes, whether under the auspices of a legal "protest" or not, is a crime itself. Or does this distinction not exist in the UK?

Your average sign-waving "protester" probably doesn't understand the difference, however. They think they can change the world with silly costumes or cardboard and magic markers.

Krystal n chips
13th Apr 2009, 14:40
blow up a shopping precinct or two before they arrested them,

Erm, actually Mr D,if said precinct was the Trafford Centre, not such a bad idea really ( it's overpriced, the night lights are :yuk: and it causes gridlock on the M60 on a near permanent basis....that's :mad: why )

And er, it's a policed state, not a police state.... a subtle and tangible difference.... other than for Daily Mail readers of course. :E

Avitor
13th Apr 2009, 14:44
peaceful?,a bunch of airhead wankers determined to black out a large area of the country? hope they take em somewhere and give them a good kicking,to much to hope for in this fluffocracy.
:suspect:

:D

Well said, Count Draper. :cool:

heli-cal
13th Apr 2009, 16:27
Your average sign-waving "protester" probably doesn't understand the difference, however. They think they can change the world with silly costumes or cardboard and magic markers.

The Women's Peace Camp at Greenham Common saw the removal of the airbase!

That was quite a change.

qwertyplop
13th Apr 2009, 17:51
Interesting letter in The Times today.

Sir, The police, and particularly the Metropolitan Police, have no one to blame but themselves for the difficulties experienced recently resulting in the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson (letters, April 10).

The police strategy that resulted in his death is, in modern management- speak, “proactive policing”. This involves facing a crowd of demonstrators with riot shields, body armour, helmets and truncheons rather than, about 30 or so years ago, when they would link arms and create a good-humoured barrier that did not provoke violent confrontation.

The function of the police in most circumstances can only be reactive and not proactive, otherwise we are in danger of becoming a police state.

Fair point - let's hope we see some convictions of note.

Storminnorm
13th Apr 2009, 18:09
Can anyone explain what the protests were About?
A coal-fired electrical generation site?
Why? Would we be better off without power stations?
It would make for some long, cold and miserable
winters if we didn't have coal fired power stations.
Does anyone know WHY they were protesting?
I think I've missed some important snippet of info!
Has the World finally fallen into the hands of the LOONIES?

I'm afraid the answer may be in the Affirmative!!!!!!

jayteeto
13th Apr 2009, 20:37
The womens peace camp didn't get rid of Greenham Common Base!! They were a boil on the backside. Irritating but not fatal.
The end of the cold war was the reason, the missiles did their job without going bang ie A DETERRENT. They were useful......

AMF
14th Apr 2009, 01:08
heli-cal quote...
The Women's Peace Camp at Greenham Common saw the removal of the airbase!

That was quite a change.

They may have "seen" it's closure after camping out there for 20 years, but they certainly didn't cause it.....unless of course you claim that the Women's Peace Camp somehow ended the Cold War.

If so, then I'm responsible for bringing rain if I go out and do a Lakota Rain Dance once a day, every day, until some spring thunderstorms eventually pass through sometime 2 weeks from now. You can chalk it up to my doings, just like the Women for Peace getting rid of an airbase.

Question though, who was responsible for all the other hundreds of army/navy/marine corps bases/camps/depot closings during the early 90's military draw-downs since there were no Women for Peace camps outside those?

parabellum
14th Apr 2009, 01:32
After the poll tax riots in London I don't think the police can allow themselves the luxury of only reactive policing, not when faced with a mob of screaming and armed rioters.

The hard part is knowing exactly when a peaceful protest that deserves police protection degenerates into a riot that requires positive police action. There will always be those who will claim it was still a peaceful protest long after the missiles started to be thrown at the police line.

Solar
14th Apr 2009, 03:13
To follow on Mr D's theme I recall a few years back when the "troubles" were in progress in NI and people were protesting about everything to anybody.
The town of Strabane on the Tyrone/Donegal border was being trashed on a regular basis by local groups for any number rights or whatever.
The local heros decided that it wasn't enough to just wreck Strabane but that Lifford in the ROI just across the border river deserved it's share of destruction but what they didn't bargain on was the slightly different atitude from southern police (Garda). The "protest" came to a standoff on the recently completely Lifford/Strabane bridge with a substantial number of the Garda blocking any further progress. The local yobs then proceeded to start tearing up paving stones and venting their displeasure at the Garda ranks when suddenly the Garda ranks parted and half a dozen or so of what we used to call Connemara Garda (in other words large) legged it into the mob grabbed a few "innocent protester" and dragged them over the border behind their own ranks. Poetic justice was delivered and the chastized protesters then allowed to limp/crawl back.
Suffice to say the protest ended and there never was another protest march from Strabane to Lifford in the history of the troubles.
Can't help but think that Mr D would approve.

frostbite
14th Apr 2009, 12:07
Perhaps things would proceed a little more smoothly at some of these events if the police did not accompany/direct the march right from the start but stayed in the background in case of trouble?

If stewards from within the group were allowed to oversee proceedings might that not be preferable?

CargoMatatu
14th Apr 2009, 12:17
Maybe filtering-out the soapless, dread-locked hoodies before the start of hostilities would help? :ugh:

Storminnorm
14th Apr 2009, 13:04
I'm having a senior moment I think!!
What were they protesting ABOUT? Just Power Stations???
Or have I missed the point entirely???
Groping in the dark, as usual. Or as we all would be.

Overdrive
14th Apr 2009, 21:15
"alleged conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass and criminal damage "


Doesn't sound like 'peaceful' protest to me. Suppose it was your car being damaged by environmental protesters? Bet you'd want the police to act pretty quickly then.



Well let's see eh? Don't know I trust the police and other authorities' opinions/PR press releases like I once might've.

Usual use of the "safety" angle as ever too.

I think the whole climate thing is total balls, but one day, I might wish to lawfully and harmlessly protest about something I do believe in. I'd like to think the police and others weren't snooping on me and my private business in advance.

Overdrive
14th Apr 2009, 21:19
Yer it's only fair, the police should have let those feckers they arrested the other day blow up a shopping precinct or two before they arrested them,
http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/worry.gif



Yeah, I'm sick to the back teeth of exploding precincts. Going down like ninepins they are.

hellsbrink
14th Apr 2009, 21:32
Hmmm........ "Peaceful protest"?

What sort of "peaceful protest" group goes armed with things like bolt cutters?

fireflybob
16th Apr 2009, 00:44
I think the whole climate thing is total balls, but one day, I might wish to lawfully and harmlessly protest about something I do believe in. I'd like to think the police and others weren't snooping on me and my private business in advance.

Overdrive, my sentiments too and from this event it seems fairly obvious that the police are already doing so. Currently we have a fairly benign government in power but with some of the draconian laws which have recently been passed I shudder to think what could happen with a less friendly regime or persona in power. The whole thing just seems far too heavy handed to me. And on another tack were the police aware that protesters were intending to break through the perimeter fence at Stansted and stop operations for several hours and if so why did they not take similar action in this case to stop any potential criminal action?