President Trump's Visit To The Uk.

[anotheoldgit]

Anyone know the real reason why there is an organised mass protest against the President of the United States visit to the UK, and what organisations are behind these protests?

[retrocop]

Doug
As the thin blue line (security detail). I have eaten,many a time ,in Claridges,Dorchester and Hyde Park Hotel staff restaurants when the principal has given a reciprical banquet to HMQ and invited government guests. Alas POTUS usually give their reciprical banquets at Winfield House, home of the US ambassadeur and we went hungry.

[spathiphyllum]

ROFL.

[retrocop]

Spath
ROFL ? What does that represent please.

[andres]

And there was I thinking it was ok to use 'free speech'.Apparently not!

[youngmafbog]

Rolling on the floor laughing Retro.

You know, its what you do when Spath posts something :-)

[retrocop]

Thanks ymb. I now see but don't understand in what context.

[youngmafbog]

That's because there isnt one.

[Mamyalynne]

Andres, check Site Rules re personal insults etc.

Remember you have a report option if something irks you enough.

[spathiphyllum]

Retro the "ROFL" applies to a now.. "Answer Removed". There for it is now moot and can be removed itself if someone see's fit.

[Jackdaw33]

Here ROFL clearly refers to the deleted post.

[andres]

Mamyalynne---thank you I will bear that in mind next time he is being both obnoxious and discourteous towards other abers .

[retrocop]

OK. Thanks.

[spathiphyllum]

Andres, you may find i've not been rude, but topical. Maybe you could comment on the topic, instead of me.

[spathiphyllum]

"I hope the Eco d....s get a knock on their door with an arrest warrant for criminal damage."

Would it be criminal damage? Or seen in a similar light to those who clean dirty away from walls leaving a photo created from clean wall in contrast to the dirt.

I do agree it's an offensive image (to some) which could surface laws but i'm unsure criminal damage would be one.

[dannyk13]

Spath, for your edification:-
S.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides that a person is guilty of criminal damage if they intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage property belonging to another without lawful excuse.

[spathiphyllum]

it's arguable that the grass isn't destroyed or damaged

[andres]

SPATH---I have already posted on the 1/6 @17.33 re Donald Trump's vist and have no need to re-iterate again. I don't think that you had an any input on that topic. Perhaps when you get time you should read it. Doesn't stop me from reading other posts but to answer the question--No I don't know the real reason behind this mass protest or what organisations are behind them. There you are -post answered. Happy?

[spathiphyllum]

"I don't think that you had an any input on that topic."

I think re-reading is a good idea Andres. Maybe it will calm your hysteria over my answers.

[retrocop]

//it's arguable that the grass isn't destroyed or damaged//

Try doing something like that on someone's land without permission
and see if it is arguable in a magistrates court.