ChatterBank2 mins ago
Well Done Plod.....
80 Answers
Answers
and what about the vast majority who were there and dont want the event disrupted by these loony leftie scum, what about their rights ?
19:00 Mon 08th May 2023
I don't care, they are stupid to carry them at all the day before the coronation. You don't do something that you know at the time will get you arrested. They knew what they were doing. Now this post is about the other morons who went equipped to disrupt. If you want to talk about something else start another thread.
on what basis do you believe that they "knew what they were doing"? the night stars distribute those alarms for a purpose and London is their city - it was the king and his entourage who was imposing upon them...
the arrest of the night stars is in your link toratoratira so if you don't want to discuss the fact that they were unjustly arrested - and that you approve of it - then you ought to have posted another one
the arrest of the night stars is in your link toratoratira so if you don't want to discuss the fact that they were unjustly arrested - and that you approve of it - then you ought to have posted another one
//…the act includes "serious distress" and "serious annoyance" as examples of the offense "intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance"... it also empowers ministers - party politicians all of whom are presently Tory - to change these definitions at will... the relevant ministers thus have the power to treat any protest they dislike as criminal because it is "annoying" or "distressing" and are not accountable to parliament for doing so.//
Which section of the new act makes those definitions and which section provides for politicians to amend them?
The Act makes provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to police chiefs when they make applications for Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (S.30). But it also provides for Parliamentary oversight of that procedure and revised guidance cannot be issued unless Parliament agrees (S.31)
//"Which particular political opponents of the Tories are being stripped of their basic rights? "
in this case... Republic//
As far as I know, neither the Tory party nor any other main party that I know of who is likely to form a government, has published its position on the abolition of the Monarchy. So how can “Republic” be a political opponent of them. But more importantly, assuming for the sake of argument that they are considered political opponents, which “basic rights” are being stripped from them by the Act? Or are we back to the idea that you believe it is acceptable for serious annoyance or serious distress to be inflicted in furtherance of a particular aim?
Which section of the new act makes those definitions and which section provides for politicians to amend them?
The Act makes provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to police chiefs when they make applications for Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (S.30). But it also provides for Parliamentary oversight of that procedure and revised guidance cannot be issued unless Parliament agrees (S.31)
//"Which particular political opponents of the Tories are being stripped of their basic rights? "
in this case... Republic//
As far as I know, neither the Tory party nor any other main party that I know of who is likely to form a government, has published its position on the abolition of the Monarchy. So how can “Republic” be a political opponent of them. But more importantly, assuming for the sake of argument that they are considered political opponents, which “basic rights” are being stripped from them by the Act? Or are we back to the idea that you believe it is acceptable for serious annoyance or serious distress to be inflicted in furtherance of a particular aim?
Would you trust an institutionally racist organisation that by their own admission has over 1,000 officers and staff, still serving, despite being accused of sexual offences or domestic abuse, to police the community – I certainly wouldn’t?
If I was a woman, I would certainly be very wary of any police officer; giving them an unrestricted right to stop and search anyone (for no reason at all) should be a concern to all, not just women who are at risk of abuse from the police.
If I was a woman, I would certainly be very wary of any police officer; giving them an unrestricted right to stop and search anyone (for no reason at all) should be a concern to all, not just women who are at risk of abuse from the police.
Do you think people should get ahead on merit?
Is nepotism a bad thing in important, public roles?
Is religion a load of mumbo jumbo?
If the answer to any (and especially all) of these three things is "Yes", and you don't think that we should end the royals as head of state, you have to answer why not ...
Is nepotism a bad thing in important, public roles?
Is religion a load of mumbo jumbo?
If the answer to any (and especially all) of these three things is "Yes", and you don't think that we should end the royals as head of state, you have to answer why not ...
there is that, Hymie, rape alarms must create a lot of work for them that they don't really want to do (and that's assuming they aren't rapists themselves).
https:/
https:/
Latest seems to be that the Met are back-pedalling a bit:
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
How it Works4 mins ago
Food & Drink6 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
ChatterBank24 mins ago
