My Friend Is Not Responding And I'm...
Family & Relationships5 mins ago
Ilegal Tamil Protesters.
Why were they allowed to protest?
Police arrested only six of the protesters at an illegal demonstration by thousands of angry Tamils in London.
If they feel so strong about whats going on in their country, why don't they p1ss off back to Sri Lanka and demonstrate there.
If we did the same in their country we would be locked up for years.
Police arrested only six of the protesters at an illegal demonstration by thousands of angry Tamils in London.
If they feel so strong about whats going on in their country, why don't they p1ss off back to Sri Lanka and demonstrate there.
If we did the same in their country we would be locked up for years.
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by trt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
There are many places in the world where war and strife is prevalent. For each one of them there are large numbers of former residents here in the UK.
It never ceases to amaze me that these people, having decamped and left their homeland seemingly to its fate, use the privileges that this country provides to demonstrate as they did yesterday. It seems they expect the UK (and by inference, members of our armed forces) to put themselves at risk to solve a problem that they promptly distanced themselves from, presumably for their own safety and convenience.
One only has to look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Our forces are in those countries living in tents and having their legs blown off. Meanwhile many of the former residents are in the UK living on benefits in council flats.
I would think far more of the Tamil sympathisers if some of them returned there to do what they could to help the families that many of them say they have left behind. Instead they jump up and down on Westminster Bridge tying up valuable police resources and preventing people from going about their lawful business.
It never ceases to amaze me that these people, having decamped and left their homeland seemingly to its fate, use the privileges that this country provides to demonstrate as they did yesterday. It seems they expect the UK (and by inference, members of our armed forces) to put themselves at risk to solve a problem that they promptly distanced themselves from, presumably for their own safety and convenience.
One only has to look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Our forces are in those countries living in tents and having their legs blown off. Meanwhile many of the former residents are in the UK living on benefits in council flats.
I would think far more of the Tamil sympathisers if some of them returned there to do what they could to help the families that many of them say they have left behind. Instead they jump up and down on Westminster Bridge tying up valuable police resources and preventing people from going about their lawful business.
Totally agree with the Judge.
If we were to send troops out to sort their problem out, as soon as it was sorted, they would soon be banding together to get the 'Colonial British' out of their country. These people just use the British when it is beneficial to their cause.
No, we should never get involved, and all protests against foreign governments that the British are not responsible for should be banned.
It's about time though that we the British stopped being so apathetic and protested with equal vigour, hell we have more than enough to protest about.
If we were to send troops out to sort their problem out, as soon as it was sorted, they would soon be banding together to get the 'Colonial British' out of their country. These people just use the British when it is beneficial to their cause.
No, we should never get involved, and all protests against foreign governments that the British are not responsible for should be banned.
It's about time though that we the British stopped being so apathetic and protested with equal vigour, hell we have more than enough to protest about.
I would think far more of the Tamil sympathisers if some of them returned there to do what they could to help the families that many of them say they have left behind.
And of course if they are captured by the Sinhalese government and appeal to the British government for help (since they are in all likelihood British citizens) you and your ilk would be the first to ask what they were doing there and telling all and sundry that they were terrorists or helping terrorists.
I didn't realise that as soon as you become a citizen of this country that you are required to not feel passionate about any causes that are not influenced by this government.
I suppose you also think that the Jews who escaped over here in the 1930s should just have shut up or gone back to Germany to do something about it.
And of course if they are captured by the Sinhalese government and appeal to the British government for help (since they are in all likelihood British citizens) you and your ilk would be the first to ask what they were doing there and telling all and sundry that they were terrorists or helping terrorists.
I didn't realise that as soon as you become a citizen of this country that you are required to not feel passionate about any causes that are not influenced by this government.
I suppose you also think that the Jews who escaped over here in the 1930s should just have shut up or gone back to Germany to do something about it.
No I do not think that at all Vic.
This country (as we are forever being told) has a long and proud history of profiding refuge for the oppressed. The Tamil sympathisers (whether British subjects or not) are among the latest to be afforded that privilege.
The difference between now and the late �30s early �40s is, as far as I know, the displaced Jews did not march up and down Westminster Bridge demanding something that clearly was not going to be provided. They came to the UK, were grateful for our succour, and got on with their lives. I also believe that the situation in Sri Lanka is somewhat different to that in Germany in the run up to WW2.
Finally (and this really is my last word) there is a world of difference between feeling passionate about your cause and deliberately causing mayhem by blocking a main road and threatening to jump into the Thames. No good came of it. No change of policy has been forced by it. All that happened is that thousands of people trying to go about their business were severely inconvenienced, and scarce police resources were diverted to control it.
This country (as we are forever being told) has a long and proud history of profiding refuge for the oppressed. The Tamil sympathisers (whether British subjects or not) are among the latest to be afforded that privilege.
The difference between now and the late �30s early �40s is, as far as I know, the displaced Jews did not march up and down Westminster Bridge demanding something that clearly was not going to be provided. They came to the UK, were grateful for our succour, and got on with their lives. I also believe that the situation in Sri Lanka is somewhat different to that in Germany in the run up to WW2.
Finally (and this really is my last word) there is a world of difference between feeling passionate about your cause and deliberately causing mayhem by blocking a main road and threatening to jump into the Thames. No good came of it. No change of policy has been forced by it. All that happened is that thousands of people trying to go about their business were severely inconvenienced, and scarce police resources were diverted to control it.
What has happened (which is the case of pretty much every demonstration) is that peoples attention were drawn to a 'problem'.
Many people have no idea where Sri Lanka is or what the problems are over there. There will be some people who are now aware of the plight of the Tamils there.
Just so that you are aware, 70,000 people have died there in the last 25 years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/78 28858.stm Maybe not as bad as the Jews in the second world war, but pretty bad none the less.
These protests are similar to any protest that you can name in the last few years - the G20, the Fathers for Justice, the Anti War protesters etc.
They are all marching to have their voice heard and to draw attention to their protests.
Still, it would be far better to make it illegal to hold protests so that you can not be late for work wouldn't it?
*I should also note that my parents are Tamils from Sri Lanka who came over in the 1950s - not to escape from any problems but because the British government wanted immigration at the time. A lot of other Sri Lankan people came over at the time and are sympathetic to the Tamil's plight - in a similar way I guess to Irish Americans in Boston. I point this out as you seem to be under the assumption that all the protesters were refugees
Many people have no idea where Sri Lanka is or what the problems are over there. There will be some people who are now aware of the plight of the Tamils there.
Just so that you are aware, 70,000 people have died there in the last 25 years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/78 28858.stm Maybe not as bad as the Jews in the second world war, but pretty bad none the less.
These protests are similar to any protest that you can name in the last few years - the G20, the Fathers for Justice, the Anti War protesters etc.
They are all marching to have their voice heard and to draw attention to their protests.
Still, it would be far better to make it illegal to hold protests so that you can not be late for work wouldn't it?
*I should also note that my parents are Tamils from Sri Lanka who came over in the 1950s - not to escape from any problems but because the British government wanted immigration at the time. A lot of other Sri Lankan people came over at the time and are sympathetic to the Tamil's plight - in a similar way I guess to Irish Americans in Boston. I point this out as you seem to be under the assumption that all the protesters were refugees
I�ve made no such assumptions, Vic, but since you�ve raised them perhaps I should address your points:
- It matters not to me whether those involved are British subjects (of any origin), refugees, asylum seekers or illegal immigrants. I imagined there was a mixture taking part.
- Anybody in this country who was not aware of the Tamil problem is unlikely to have had their mind opened by people threatening to jump off Westminster Bridge.
- I was not aware of the numbers killed in the strife � a figure slightly less than the number killed on Britain�s roads in the same period.
- I do not have to travel to Westminster so personally have no axe to grind about travel inconvenience.
- As far as I am aware the �demonstration� was illegal. It did not have police permission, was within a kilometre of the Palace of Westminster, and the participants committed a number of Public Order Offences, not least threatening to, and in I believe at least two cases succeeding in, jumping from Westminster Bridge into the Thames.
I take no sides in the Tamil conflict largely because, like many such conflicts, it is seemingly intractable and is anyway of no interest to me. (Ask a Sri Lankan still living there what he knows of and how much interest he has in Northern Ireland. Even better, ask him how they think Irish Republicans would fare if they demonstrated in pursuit of their cause outside the Sri Lankan parliament).
What I believe is that, similarly to the Ireland problem, one group of people want something different to the ruling majority and are prepared to use violence to force their point. They are met with further violence, and so it goes on. (Please don�t put me right if you think I am wrong because, as I say, I�ve no interest).
Whatever the issues, the streets of London are not the right places to air them.
- It matters not to me whether those involved are British subjects (of any origin), refugees, asylum seekers or illegal immigrants. I imagined there was a mixture taking part.
- Anybody in this country who was not aware of the Tamil problem is unlikely to have had their mind opened by people threatening to jump off Westminster Bridge.
- I was not aware of the numbers killed in the strife � a figure slightly less than the number killed on Britain�s roads in the same period.
- I do not have to travel to Westminster so personally have no axe to grind about travel inconvenience.
- As far as I am aware the �demonstration� was illegal. It did not have police permission, was within a kilometre of the Palace of Westminster, and the participants committed a number of Public Order Offences, not least threatening to, and in I believe at least two cases succeeding in, jumping from Westminster Bridge into the Thames.
I take no sides in the Tamil conflict largely because, like many such conflicts, it is seemingly intractable and is anyway of no interest to me. (Ask a Sri Lankan still living there what he knows of and how much interest he has in Northern Ireland. Even better, ask him how they think Irish Republicans would fare if they demonstrated in pursuit of their cause outside the Sri Lankan parliament).
What I believe is that, similarly to the Ireland problem, one group of people want something different to the ruling majority and are prepared to use violence to force their point. They are met with further violence, and so it goes on. (Please don�t put me right if you think I am wrong because, as I say, I�ve no interest).
Whatever the issues, the streets of London are not the right places to air them.
I was not aware of the numbers killed in the strife � a figure slightly less than the number killed on Britain�s roads in the same period.
Oh dear, if this is how pathetic your arguments are getting now (comparing killing by the state to car accidents), then there really is no point in taking this further.
I suppose that JFK's shooting wasn't that important since it was just one person, and I am sure that one person gets shot on a daily basis in America and that 9/11 wasn't really much of a big deal since more than that get killed by cars in New York State in a year.
Oh dear, if this is how pathetic your arguments are getting now (comparing killing by the state to car accidents), then there really is no point in taking this further.
I suppose that JFK's shooting wasn't that important since it was just one person, and I am sure that one person gets shot on a daily basis in America and that 9/11 wasn't really much of a big deal since more than that get killed by cars in New York State in a year.
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
Sir Keir Starmer Under, Fresh...
News13 mins ago
Family & Relationships19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 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.