Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Is Incitement To Mass Murder A Crime??
109 Answers
https:/
Who do these morons call when their car is stolen, their house is burgled, they or their family are mugged?
Who do these morons call when their car is stolen, their house is burgled, they or their family are mugged?
Answers
//...an authoritaria
17:47 Mon 05th Apr 2021
"often involves curtailing the freedoms of many more people trying to go about their lawful business"
Being inconvenienced is not the same thing as having freedoms curtailed... not remotely. I'm afraid if you believe that then you have very little idea of what actual oppression looks like...
The right to protest peacefully is - indisputably - an essential part of any democracy and I notice that neither you nor your cheerleaders have disputed that the tories are effectively abolishing it...
Being inconvenienced is not the same thing as having freedoms curtailed... not remotely. I'm afraid if you believe that then you have very little idea of what actual oppression looks like...
The right to protest peacefully is - indisputably - an essential part of any democracy and I notice that neither you nor your cheerleaders have disputed that the tories are effectively abolishing it...
I'm slightly puzzled that 'left-leaning' ABers are against this and amazed the 'right-leaning' ones are for it.
Our Common Purpose police have demonstrated their two-tier approach to policing repeatedly.
Black, green, Muslim, protest your *** off and the shirt-sleeved police will provide an escort.
Middle-aged/elderly, middle class, white, (often) women and you get the truncheon wielding, modern day equivalent of the SPG.
Anyway, I thought the police, even before using Covid as cover, got to decide who could and couldn't protest. Perhaps this bill just gives them the stamp of legitimacy.
Our Common Purpose police have demonstrated their two-tier approach to policing repeatedly.
Black, green, Muslim, protest your *** off and the shirt-sleeved police will provide an escort.
Middle-aged/elderly, middle class, white, (often) women and you get the truncheon wielding, modern day equivalent of the SPG.
Anyway, I thought the police, even before using Covid as cover, got to decide who could and couldn't protest. Perhaps this bill just gives them the stamp of legitimacy.
Is Incitement To Mass Murder A Crime?
Yes it is. The fact that no one has been arrested for incitement is because no incitement has taken place.
If you bothered to look at the photo in your own link, it clearly explains what the protest is about.
https:/
Obviously Tora is not so stupid as to think that mass murder is being encouraged. He is being deliberately provocative, but making himself look a bit silly in the process.
Yes it is. The fact that no one has been arrested for incitement is because no incitement has taken place.
If you bothered to look at the photo in your own link, it clearly explains what the protest is about.
https:/
Obviously Tora is not so stupid as to think that mass murder is being encouraged. He is being deliberately provocative, but making himself look a bit silly in the process.
//Being inconvenienced is not the same thing as having freedoms curtailed.//
It depends on your definitions. Being able to go about your lawful business is as much a right (and I would say more so) than being able to protest when it "inconveniences" others. Some of the so-called protests that have occurred in the last couple of years have been nothing short of concerted attempts to shut down parts of large cities. What you're suggesting is that protesters should be allowed to continue their activities unmolested by State interference, whereas those who have no particular views on the subject of the protest must suffer the "inconvenience" that such a protest brings.
//I'm afraid if you believe that then you have very little idea of what actual oppression looks like...//
I haven't read the full proposals for the Bill but as far as I can see from a cursory glance, as far as protests go, it simply aims to align the provisions currently in place to control mobile protests to be extended to static protests.
That may well be true. But then nor, I imagine, do most of the people who obstructed Oxford Circus in 2019. Preventing people from fabricating severe inconvenience is not, in my view, oppression. If it is, then I can only say "bring it on." The idea that groups of people with a particular point of view on a topic can seriously inconvenience others who have no particular interest in it is, to say the least, somewhat arrogant. e.g. "My protest is far more important that you being able to get to work/hospital/doctors/shops/whatever, so you'll just have to put up with it."
It depends on your definitions. Being able to go about your lawful business is as much a right (and I would say more so) than being able to protest when it "inconveniences" others. Some of the so-called protests that have occurred in the last couple of years have been nothing short of concerted attempts to shut down parts of large cities. What you're suggesting is that protesters should be allowed to continue their activities unmolested by State interference, whereas those who have no particular views on the subject of the protest must suffer the "inconvenience" that such a protest brings.
//I'm afraid if you believe that then you have very little idea of what actual oppression looks like...//
I haven't read the full proposals for the Bill but as far as I can see from a cursory glance, as far as protests go, it simply aims to align the provisions currently in place to control mobile protests to be extended to static protests.
That may well be true. But then nor, I imagine, do most of the people who obstructed Oxford Circus in 2019. Preventing people from fabricating severe inconvenience is not, in my view, oppression. If it is, then I can only say "bring it on." The idea that groups of people with a particular point of view on a topic can seriously inconvenience others who have no particular interest in it is, to say the least, somewhat arrogant. e.g. "My protest is far more important that you being able to get to work/hospital/doctors/shops/whatever, so you'll just have to put up with it."
It is a dreadfully named protest. I think that it is deliberately provocative.
"Kill the Bill" ... everything that goes through parliament is a bill. So which one bill is it referring to? Oh, it's the "Police and Crime Bill" ... and the police are also conveniently known as "the Bill".
The name is just an excuse to have people walking the streets chanting "Kill the Bill". It lost my sympathy straight away.
"Kill the Bill" ... everything that goes through parliament is a bill. So which one bill is it referring to? Oh, it's the "Police and Crime Bill" ... and the police are also conveniently known as "the Bill".
The name is just an excuse to have people walking the streets chanting "Kill the Bill". It lost my sympathy straight away.
The right to protest is more important than convenience... It is one of the most important things that separates democracies from authoritarian states which you will find share your philosophy on protesting New Judge...
If you think ministers should be able to shut down peaceful protests that they decide are "inconvenient" or "annoying" - it's possible to be peaceful and both those things - then this bill is for you... If you want to live in a civil society where freedoms are protected then it isn't.
If you think ministers should be able to shut down peaceful protests that they decide are "inconvenient" or "annoying" - it's possible to be peaceful and both those things - then this bill is for you... If you want to live in a civil society where freedoms are protected then it isn't.
//Being able to go about your lawful business is as much a right //
Absolutley, and I understand that aim. However I understand it The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill would give forces in England and Wales more power to impose conditions on non-violent protests, that includes those deemed too noisy or a nuisance, with fines or jail for those convicted. And its the too noisy or a nuisance being decided by Plod that gets me.
This wouls put us in a position of Plod (who are becoming increasingly political) deciding who should protest. I know these powers already exist for mobile marches but that is understandable given the difficulty in policing them and at present there is the option of static protest (which htis bill aims to remove).
I think if they thought about it a bit more it could be a good bill, but I would like to see any such actions approved by a Judge, not the Police.
Absolutley, and I understand that aim. However I understand it The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill would give forces in England and Wales more power to impose conditions on non-violent protests, that includes those deemed too noisy or a nuisance, with fines or jail for those convicted. And its the too noisy or a nuisance being decided by Plod that gets me.
This wouls put us in a position of Plod (who are becoming increasingly political) deciding who should protest. I know these powers already exist for mobile marches but that is understandable given the difficulty in policing them and at present there is the option of static protest (which htis bill aims to remove).
I think if they thought about it a bit more it could be a good bill, but I would like to see any such actions approved by a Judge, not the Police.
//The right to protest is more important than convenience.//
In your opinion.
The majority of people in this country haven't got too much to protest about. In fact, they are usually more concerned with being able to get to work to earn a living so as to support themselves and their families. Given the choice between being able to take to the streets unmolested or being able to get to work unfettered, I think most of them would choose the latter.
It seems very odd that those who usually make the most noise about state oppression are those who often benefit most from the state's (i.e. the taxpayers') largesse. Marching down the streets may have been appropriate 200 years ago but things have moved on. People can make their protests online now in all sorts of ways and if they genuinely only want to influence politicians (and after all they are the only people empowered to address their grievance) there's plenty of ways they can do that without everybody ese being put out.
We won't agree on this because I don't believe people should have the right to inconvenience others unnecessarily. I see being able to go about my business as far more important than marching down the streets in support of a perceived grievance. That's my opinion, and it's equally valid to your opposing view.
In your opinion.
The majority of people in this country haven't got too much to protest about. In fact, they are usually more concerned with being able to get to work to earn a living so as to support themselves and their families. Given the choice between being able to take to the streets unmolested or being able to get to work unfettered, I think most of them would choose the latter.
It seems very odd that those who usually make the most noise about state oppression are those who often benefit most from the state's (i.e. the taxpayers') largesse. Marching down the streets may have been appropriate 200 years ago but things have moved on. People can make their protests online now in all sorts of ways and if they genuinely only want to influence politicians (and after all they are the only people empowered to address their grievance) there's plenty of ways they can do that without everybody ese being put out.
We won't agree on this because I don't believe people should have the right to inconvenience others unnecessarily. I see being able to go about my business as far more important than marching down the streets in support of a perceived grievance. That's my opinion, and it's equally valid to your opposing view.
> the organisers are mostly younger people for whom the phrase 'old bill' is very old-fashioned and probably isn't part of their vocabulary...
I think you're being very indulgent. It's not "old bill", it's "the bill" which was the name of a long-running police soap opera until 2010 and it is still in young people's vocabularies. Unprompted, I think more young people would understand "Kill the Bill" to mean "Kill the Police" than "Kill a proposed Act of Parliament".
I think you're being very indulgent. It's not "old bill", it's "the bill" which was the name of a long-running police soap opera until 2010 and it is still in young people's vocabularies. Unprompted, I think more young people would understand "Kill the Bill" to mean "Kill the Police" than "Kill a proposed Act of Parliament".
Referring to the police as "The Bill" or "Old Bill" certainly predates the TV programme of that name (which began in 1984 following a pilot called "Woodentop" aired in 1983).
There are a number of explanations for its origin, one dating back as far as 1830, when William IV came to the throne, a year after the Metropolitan Police Force was formed. Other explanations include the fact that many police officers sported "Old Bill" style moustaches and that the original "Flying Squad" vehicles had registration plates with the letters BYL.
There are a number of explanations for its origin, one dating back as far as 1830, when William IV came to the throne, a year after the Metropolitan Police Force was formed. Other explanations include the fact that many police officers sported "Old Bill" style moustaches and that the original "Flying Squad" vehicles had registration plates with the letters BYL.
The Bill and Old Bill became popular in the 1960s. Before that the phrase was not used.
The TV series was named 38 years ago, and the phrase has just about died out. It certainly is not widely used by youths today.
https:/
The TV series was named 38 years ago, and the phrase has just about died out. It certainly is not widely used by youths today.
https:/
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Masterchef - The Professionals
Film, Media & TV37 mins ago
ChatterBank62 mins ago
Crosswords100 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.