Israel - Palestinian Conflict (3 Viewers)

[Nick]

Everyone understands.

Is this what you want the Met Police to be doing with their time?

You clearly don't as you said they were arrested for opposing genocide

 

---

[SkyBlueDom26]

Holding up a sign supporting a terror organisation should be Instant arrest, regardless of whatever group it is. Bet if the show was on the other foot people on here wouldn’t be saying anything

 

[Sick Boy]

I mean you are not wrong ultimately, there is a lot of illegal activity in London, I’m guessing they’ve already dealt with all the other stuff.

They weren’t caught though so it’s fine, apparently.

 

[mmttww]

I think holding up a sign supporting a group on a terror list is the same.

but do you think supporting the group you brought up (Isis) is comparable to showing support for PA, listed or not?

 

[mmttww]

Bet if the shoe was on the other foot...

what situation you talking about here? a different organisation being listed? which one(s) you got in mind?

 

[Nick]

but do you think supporting the group you brought up (Isis) is comparable to showing support for PA, listed or not?

It's irrelevant because they are both listed terror groups.

It's really simple.

 

[Grendel]

but do you think supporting the group you brought up (Isis) is comparable to showing support for PA, listed or not?

I don’t know what you are struggling to get here - individual views don’t matter

You could be 10 times over the drink drive limit or just over it. You broke the law. Get over it.

 

[Nick]

I don’t know what you are struggling to get here - individual views don’t matter

You could be 10 times over the drink drive limit or just over it. You broke the law. Get over it.

Yeah but if you don't agree that drink driving is bad, it's ok

 

[mmttww]

It's irrelevant because they are both listed...

so what's relevant about anyone sharing an opinion on immigration, or what rights people do or don't have in law when they arrive here etc.?

doesn't this part of the forum exist for people to talk about what they think about stuff, not just post what the law says and leave it at that?

 

[mmttww]

individual views don’t matter

so what's the point in this forum FFS!

 

[SkyBlueDom26]

what situation you talking about here? a different organisation being listed? which one(s) you got in mind?

Any organisation that’s known as a terrorist group smart arse.

 

[Grendel]

so what's the point in this forum FFS!

You edited my post

So you believe in total free speech on the forum with no censorship?

 

[chiefdave]

It's irrelevant because they are both listed terror groups.

It's really simple.

Its not that simple in reality because there's case law which applies.

That shows, as the Met have been repeatedly warned, that there is a near zero chance of successfully prosecuting someone merely for having a sign. You need to be able to demonstrate active support both for the proscribed group and that the offender is either directly taking part in terrorist activity or encouraging others to do so.

There's then the added complexity that yesterday there was an organised protest against the proscription of PA off the back of the government losing in court and PA being allowed to appeal the decision. You can legally protest against the act of proscription itself.

Yeah but if you don't agree that drink driving is bad, it's ok

There's plenty of laws that get broken week in week out. We're repeatedly told there aren't the resources to deal with it. Try getting the police to come out if your car is stolen or someone tries to break in to your house. You are likely to be waiting days, if you ever see anyone at all.

So we know that the police have to take a decision over where to target their resources and the argument that some are making is that there is a disproportionate response being seen here and questions over who has instructed this to be the case around the country.

Yesterday the Met brought in officers from other forces and had to create a temporary holding facility as they don't have the facilities to hold the number of people they were hoping to arrest.

I'm not sure anyone can look at the footage of the protesters and think there was a grave threat if they were just allowed to sit there quietly for a few hours.

 

[mmttww]

smart arse.

You said if the shoe was on the other foot, people on here wouldn't be saying anything. I'm asking what that means.

 

[Nick]

so what's relevant about anyone sharing an opinion on immigration, or what rights people do or don't have in law when they arrive here etc.?

doesn't this part of the forum exist for people to talk about what they think about stuff, not just post what the law says and leave it at that?

What?

I said it's comparable because they are both terror groups so holding up signs in support is the same.

 

[Sick Boy]

Netanyahu really is dreadful and everything is about self-preservation with him. He really is a horrible c**t.

 

[Grendel]

Its not that simple in reality because there's case law which applies.

That shows, as the Met have been repeatedly warned, that there is a near zero chance of successfully prosecuting someone merely for having a sign. You need to be able to demonstrate active support both for the proscribed group and that the offender is either directly taking part in terrorist activity or encouraging others to do so.

There's then the added complexity that yesterday there was an organised protest against the proscription of PA off the back of the government losing in court and PA being allowed to appeal the decision. You can legally protest against the act of proscription itself.

There's plenty of laws that get broken week in week out. We're repeatedly told there aren't the resources to deal with it. Try getting the police to come out if your car is stolen or someone tries to break in to your house. You are likely to be waiting days, if you ever see anyone at all.

So we know that the police have to take a decision over where to target their resources and the argument that some are making is that there is a disproportionate response being seen here and questions over who has instructed this to be the case around the country.

Yesterday the Met brought in officers from other forces and had to create a temporary holding facility as they don't have the facilities to hold the number of people they were hoping to arrest.

I'm not sure anyone can look at the footage of the protesters and think there was a grave threat if they were just allowed to sit there quietly for a few hours.

They want to be arrested? They actively encouraged it.

 

[SkyBlueDom26]

You said if the shoe was on the other foot, people on here wouldn't be saying anything. I'm asking what that means.

Well if you can’t work out what I mean then you need to go back to school, embarrassing

 

[Nick]

Its not that simple in reality because there's case law which applies.

That shows, as the Met have been repeatedly warned, that there is a near zero chance of successfully prosecuting someone merely for having a sign. You need to be able to demonstrate active support both for the proscribed group and that the offender is either directly taking part in terrorist activity or encouraging others to do so.

There's then the added complexity that yesterday there was an organised protest against the proscription of PA off the back of the government losing in court and PA being allowed to appeal the decision. You can legally protest against the act of proscription itself.

There's plenty of laws that get broken week in week out. We're repeatedly told there aren't the resources to deal with it. Try getting the police to come out if your car is stolen or someone tries to break in to your house. You are likely to be waiting days, if you ever see anyone at all.

So we know that the police have to take a decision over where to target their resources and the argument that some are making is that there is a disproportionate response being seen here and questions over who has instructed this to be the case around the country.

Yesterday the Met brought in officers from other forces and had to create a temporary holding facility as they don't have the facilities to hold the number of people they were hoping to arrest.

I'm not sure anyone can look at the footage of the protesters and think there was a grave threat if they were just allowed to sit there quietly for a few hours.

You can legally protest about being against genocide without putting their name on the signs.

What did you expect to happen with people openly and publicly supporting them?

 

[mmttww]

You edited my post

I did. I just find that idea weird, that having views on a subject don't matter. Immigration and processes around it are talked about endlessly on here but that's all stuff which is based on law.

 

[mmttww]

embarrassing

This is like the covfefe tweet, on-brand at least.

 

[Nick]

I did. I just find that idea weird, that having views on a subject don't matter. Immigration and processes around it are talked about endlessly on here but that's all stuff which is based on law.

I personally think I could be safer driving after 4 pints than some older people who have none.

It's irrelevant if I was to do it and get pulled over.

It's really not hard to understand the point as to why personal views aren't relevant then.

 

[Grendel]

I did. I just find that idea weird, that having views on a subject don't matter. Immigration and processes around it are talked about endlessly on here but that's all stuff which is based on law.

So you believe in total free speech regardless if it breaks laws? So no censorship at all on this forum?

 

[mmttww]

It's really not hard to understand the point.

No, it's not.

I'm trying to understand why with this issue, some people's stance is "it's the law, no point discussing it, suck it up!"

but folks talk about immigration all the time on here, which is an issue where the way things are is based on laws as well.

 

[mmttww]

So you believe in total free speech regardless if it breaks laws? So no censorship at all on this forum?

No. I've said what I think a few times now... I think.

 

[Nick]

No, it's not.

I'm trying to understand why with this issue, some people's stance is "it's the law, no point discussing it, suck it up!"

but folks talk about immigration all the time on here, which is an issue where the way things are is based on laws as well.

Because people are acting surprised they get arrested.

 

[Grendel]

No. I've said what I think a few times now... I think.

It seems you want free speech as long as you don’t view it as offensive

 

[mmttww]

people are acting surprised they get arrested.

I'm not. Most of them expected to or hoped to get arrested to get press etc.

I asked you a question, you answered it. It still doesn't make sense to me, but

 

[Grendel]

I'm not. Most of them expected to or hoped to get arrested to get press etc.

I asked you a question, you answered it. It still doesn't make sense to me, but

Those arrested said they opposed suppressing free speech - do you agree?

 

[SkyBlueDom26]

This is like the covfefe tweet, on-brand at least.

Come off the forum for a bit, it’s unhealthy

 

[Nick]

I'm not. Most of them expected to or hoped to get arrested to get press etc.

I asked you a question, you answered it. It still doesn't make sense to me, but

You asked how it's comparable. I said because they would both be supporting groups of the terror list.

 

[mmttww]

do you agree?

I've said what I wanted to and asked what I wanted to. I cba getting into a gotcha contest with you as well.

 

[wingy]

Its not that simple in reality because there's case law which applies.

That shows, as the Met have been repeatedly warned, that there is a near zero chance of successfully prosecuting someone merely for having a sign. You need to be able to demonstrate active support both for the proscribed group and that the offender is either directly taking part in terrorist activity or encouraging others to do so.

There's then the added complexity that yesterday there was an organised protest against the proscription of PA off the back of the government losing in court and PA being allowed to appeal the decision. You can legally protest against the act of proscription itself.

There's plenty of laws that get broken week in week out. We're repeatedly told there aren't the resources to deal with it. Try getting the police to come out if your car is stolen or someone tries to break in to your house. You are likely to be waiting days, if you ever see anyone at all.

So we know that the police have to take a decision over where to target their resources and the argument that some are making is that there is a disproportionate response being seen here and questions over who has instructed this to be the case around the country.

Yesterday the Met brought in officers from other forces and had to create a temporary holding facility as they don't have the facilities to hold the number of people they were hoping to arrest.

I'm not sure anyone can look at the footage of the protesters and think there was a grave threat if they were just allowed to sit there quietly for a few hours.

Careful here I think I read that the Met are available to help with something out there.

 

[chiefdave]

Do you think supporting PA and Isis is comparable?

Probably relevant to point out that the Met previously said that displaying an ISIS flag is not an arrest-able offence despite them being a proscribed organisation

The man was spoken to by officers," the Metropolitan Police said in a statement.
"The decision was taken by officers at the time that the man was acting within the law. He was not arrested."

This was done on the basis that wearing, carrying or displaying an emblem or flag of a proscribed organisation isn't, by itself, an offence.

 

[fernandopartridge]

The police will be arresting anybody singing along to the Celtic Symphony next I presume