Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,229
Might need to read this........ usual "rule" don`t be a completely selfish tosser and you`ll be fine to do what you like.
National News Boris Johnson - Ousted Former PM
- Thread starter Northstandboy
- Start date
Sheik djibouti
Well-known member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 6,325
Plenty of voices out there from all parts of the Spectrum are saying that this Policing bill is dangerous. Any government that decides it has a right to dictate (and I use the word advisedly) what is legal and isn't is heading down a dangerous path. Society is based on the rule of law and that law should be tested through the courts so that case law informs our thinking and understanding.
To fundamentally undermine this sets a really uncomfortable precedent.
I'm (well, I'm not really) surprised that some are so willing and so quick to enable these actions without questioning their full effect.
As for social meeja. I've been saying for ages that it produces behaviours akin to those seen in road rage incidents. People act towards each other in ways that they simply wouldn't dream of if face to face. In road rage, it is the protection of the locked metal box you're sitting in that gives you some false sense of invincibility. On social media, it's the keyboard, screen and anonymity it provides that makes us act like twats...and every now and again if we don;t check in with the real world enough. it can spill over into some pretty unsavoury behaviours towards actual, real humans. Get enough people acting the same way at the same time and you will potentially get some pretty scary results, because enough people will act with herd mentality to make it happen if they are manipulated in the right way.
How long to the next Capitol Hill-esque Riots?
To fundamentally undermine this sets a really uncomfortable precedent.
I'm (well, I'm not really) surprised that some are so willing and so quick to enable these actions without questioning their full effect.
As for social meeja. I've been saying for ages that it produces behaviours akin to those seen in road rage incidents. People act towards each other in ways that they simply wouldn't dream of if face to face. In road rage, it is the protection of the locked metal box you're sitting in that gives you some false sense of invincibility. On social media, it's the keyboard, screen and anonymity it provides that makes us act like twats...and every now and again if we don;t check in with the real world enough. it can spill over into some pretty unsavoury behaviours towards actual, real humans. Get enough people acting the same way at the same time and you will potentially get some pretty scary results, because enough people will act with herd mentality to make it happen if they are manipulated in the right way.
How long to the next Capitol Hill-esque Riots?
Last edited:
LowerSouth
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 7,565
OUFCGav
Well-known member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 2,319
conduct captured in the new offence will include excessive smells, and "offensive behaviour" - on whose judgement?Might need to read this........ usual "rule" don`t be a completely selfish tosser and you`ll be fine to do what you like.
Problem with what is up for the bill is that it is poorly worded and leaves an awful lot up for interpretation - given some recent (and not so recent) examples of police lack of judgement I'm not sure I want it to be that vague.
QR
Well-known member
- Joined
- 21 May 2019
- Messages
- 6,915
Enough of your complements.
Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,229
Same as always.... those enforcing the law.
Based on this place a laughing emoji is "offensive behaviour" to some.
OUFCGav
Well-known member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 2,319
which is exactly why the bill is poor, it is too vague and leaves too much up to personal interpretation.Same as always.... those enforcing the law.
Based on this place a laughing emoji is "offensive behaviour" to some.
Sheik djibouti
Well-known member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 6,325
So is it only in hindsight that you disagree with a Government's actions, or does it purely depend on what colour rosette they wear?Same as always.... those enforcing the law.
Based on this place a laughing emoji is "offensive behaviour" to some.
Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,229
So is it only in hindsight that you disagree with a Government's actions, or does it purely depend on what colour rosette they wear?
I don`t disagree with the governments actions.
I vehemently disagree with what some find "offensive" when it isn`t, such as a laughing emoji on an obscure football forum!
Ergo: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me".
Point of Order: It`ll be a long, long time before there is another colour of rosette in power.
Steve McAvoy
Active member
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2018
- Messages
- 379
Make as many laws as you want. If they are unenforceable, or there is no-one to enforce them effectively it only amounts to politicians hot air.I don`t disagree with the governments actions.
I vehemently disagree with what some find "offensive" when it isn`t, such as a laughing emoji on an obscure football forum!
Ergo: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me".
Point of Order: It`ll be a long, long time before there is another colour of rosette in power.
Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,229
True that. Good job we are making up lost ground on that....
Data for 30 September 2020 shows police officer strength in the 43 police forces at 132,467 – a 6.2% increase on levels at 30 September 2019 (124,784).
However between 31 March 2010 and 2020, police officer strength fell in the 43 forces by just over 14,620 - a 10% fall.
4% to go and it`ll be an increase at last.
Sheik djibouti
Well-known member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 6,325
Well they do say a week is a long time in politics, but even I think you might be selling Boris short...surely he'll last longer than another fortnight[emoji6][emoji848]I don`t disagree with the governments actions.
I vehemently disagree with what some find "offensive" when it isn`t, such as a laughing emoji on an obscure football forum!
Ergo: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me".
Point of Order: It`ll be a long, long time before there is another colour of rosette in power.
Might need to read this........ usual "rule" don`t be a completely selfish tosser and you`ll be fine to do what you like.
More than a nuisance
Cause “serious inconvenience” and you’ll face 10 years in prison
rozenberg.substack.com
Your favourite source but a lawyer nonetheless as well as the Secret Barrister retweeting another lawyer saying similar elsewhere. I reckon it is that ambiguous that football supporters could get pulled into this.
Another clause just to stop one man protesting. This is an attack on free speech and the right to protest to smother dissent nothing more:
Chuck all of this in with the ability of the Govt to stop transparency on their decisions/actions and their willingness already to ignore legislation (over publishing contracts) then this is a very dangerous development.
And the utter rubbish about "don't be a completely selfish tosser and you'll be fine", you are reliant on a vague wishy-washy definition of what is "fine" and whether this Govt (or future Govts) deem your protest to be acceptable. I'm sure the Suffragettes were considered "selfish tossers" in their day by plenty, including the establishment yet they were right. Plenty of gay rights protestors were considered "selfish tossers" by plenty in society etc etc.
We already have laws for this and they weren't a problem.
Last edited:
So a ‘silent but violent’ output could get you in trouble - I’m fucked
QR
Well-known member
- Joined
- 21 May 2019
- Messages
- 6,915
Try this for size. 10 years for 'serious annoyance'.
Can't see them giving you a phone inside @Essexyellows
Can't see them giving you a phone inside @Essexyellows
Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,229
Sheik djibouti
Well-known member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 6,325
And yet this is seen as more serious than rape which carries a minimum of 5 years.....
Very odd morals at play here!
Very odd morals at play here!
Last edited:
QR
Well-known member
- Joined
- 21 May 2019
- Messages
- 6,915
You've overlooked (2b), (2c) and (2d); all examples of serious harm. The term maximum harm isn't used anywhere. What do you think it is? An extreme hair pull?
Sheik djibouti
Well-known member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 6,325
The other thing I find a little odd here is the fact that the Emergency Services and ONLY the emergency services (and their commissioners etc) have been consulted on these proposed changes.
From the .gov page referenced above:
"The Home Office has therefore engaged with Police Chiefs and commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to conduct an inspection into the policing of protests to understand what needs to be to ensure that the police can safely manage highly disruptive protests whilst preserving citizens’ freedoms of expression and assembly."
There was a time when governments did pre-consultation with all affected/interested parties and given that in a free society we all have a right to protest, why was there not wider pre-consultation with other bodies who represent our civil liberties. In this instance, the Police et al are the regulators/enforcers and the protestors are the "customers". Whether you like it or not they are two sides of the same coin.
And before anyone says it, doing that kind of collaborative, consultative process and having due regard to comments received BEFORE you publish the bill is quite normal. In this instance legitimate protesters (by and large) are NOT criminals, but denying them a say in the formulation of the Policy and Bill is almost suggesting that they are!
I don't doubt that the Tories have done their "market research", but I would love to know if their consumers groups extended beyond the permanently aggrieved Daily Mail readers in their safe space.
Poor start from Patel et al, but par for the course.
From the .gov page referenced above:
"The Home Office has therefore engaged with Police Chiefs and commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to conduct an inspection into the policing of protests to understand what needs to be to ensure that the police can safely manage highly disruptive protests whilst preserving citizens’ freedoms of expression and assembly."
There was a time when governments did pre-consultation with all affected/interested parties and given that in a free society we all have a right to protest, why was there not wider pre-consultation with other bodies who represent our civil liberties. In this instance, the Police et al are the regulators/enforcers and the protestors are the "customers". Whether you like it or not they are two sides of the same coin.
And before anyone says it, doing that kind of collaborative, consultative process and having due regard to comments received BEFORE you publish the bill is quite normal. In this instance legitimate protesters (by and large) are NOT criminals, but denying them a say in the formulation of the Policy and Bill is almost suggesting that they are!
I don't doubt that the Tories have done their "market research", but I would love to know if their consumers groups extended beyond the permanently aggrieved Daily Mail readers in their safe space.
Poor start from Patel et al, but par for the course.
Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,229
Jeez here you go again.
The way "law" works is that there is a law as a starting point.
Breaking that law will have consequences.
There will be a maximum punishment and a minimum punishment.
There will be mitigation on behalf of the miscreant.
No two cases can be judged on the same merit despite being breaches of the same law.
So causing someone's death maybe seen as slightly more serious than this -->
If that is too complex then think of it like this... doing 35mph in a 30 limit might see you get 3 points or a course, doing 75mph in a 30 limit will see you getting a ban. Both are breach`s of the 30mph speed limit with proportionate punishment.
Hope that helps.
BTW the only persons hair I ever pulled was my sisters...she deserved it.... ripped the cord out of my talking Action man.
