No power soon? Police hold 114 in power protest

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Masomnia wrote: »

We shouldn't forget that this was not a legitimate, peaceful protest.

Your right.



It wasnt a protest.

:rolleyes:

1984ReturnsForReal_2

stephen163 wrote: »

Everything at this stage is just sheer conjecture, however, there is a big possibility that police spies were involved and if this is the case, very clear and concise intelligence would have been gained. The details of the plot, which only the police know at this stage, must have been enough to prompt the pre-emptive arrests.

One thing I am sure of is the green protesters will be extremely clued up on their own legal rights and if a mistake has been made, it will be exposed in due course.

If it was the greens.

My thoughts are it wasnt.

tommy75

You can't even put a polo in your mouth while driving anymore without being arrested and stuck on some police database and the funny thing is, joe public with sticks fighting joe public with batons and guns for a corrupt lying government. We have sleepwalked into this policed state in the last 20 or so years and it will only get worse for all generations to come. If it wasn't so ridiculous it would be genius. I used to think that David ike was a complete nutter...Just stick a barcode on the forehead at birth and be done with it..

1984ReturnsForReal_2

A._Badger wrote: »

I don't entirely disagree with you. Then again, having lived through the 1970s, I've developed a mild phobia about people seeking to impose their political will on everyone else by 'direct action'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V23PGWd46MM&feature=channel_page

2009s' direct action start watching at 3mins

Generali

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V23PGWd46MM&feature=channel_page

2009s' direct action start watching at 3mins

Do you know much about crowd control? A mate of mine is a gaoler and in a situation like this where the crowd can easily overpower those seeking to control the crowd through weight of numbers, total control must be maintained at all times, AIUI anyway.

We don't see what happens at the start of the incident with the dark-skinned gentleman, only that the camera is pointed at him when he is clearly struck.

We see the whole of the incident with the woman however.

3.46 she seems to strike the policeman from behind
3.48 he responds by trying to swipe her away. She shouts, "Don't hit women you f*cker" and lunges at him a second time.

The police then form into a group with their backs to each other and the woman is hit several times in a calculated way, probably in a manner designed to inflict maximum pain to discourage her from further action (and quite probably to vent the policeman's anger).

Is this a reasonable way for the police to behave? Well my feeling is that whilst the police shouldn't be doing this, they probably have no choice. Clearly that bloke that was hit with a stick while walking down the street was indefensible. In this example, the woman acted in a very stupid way and paid the price.

mrstinchcombe

Lol we aren't quite a Police state yet!

Why is anyone sticking up for these 100 people? They weren't going to protest peacefully they were going to disrupt people going about their normal day to day work and possibly restrict power output causing power cuts.

Its easy to blame Police when its members of the public like these that have ruined the country

mrstinchcombe

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

No. Defintion: Aggravated Trespass 1994

68 Offence of aggravated trespass
(1) A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land


Aggrevated Trespass definition is in itself formed directly from CRIMINAL Trespass & that has to be qualified from CIVIL trespass & even if so an assembly is exempt over a 5 mile radius anyway.

Yeh I know the definition thanks.

Using the same logic then conspiracy to commit burglary isn't an offence either but of course it is.

The 5 mile thing is a bit of a red herring too, irrelevant in this example.

JasonLVC

I thought I'd wandered into a Basic Law 101 teaching session for a minute there. Whole posts devoted to cut and pasting the law - the printed word and the reality of how those words are acted upon are completely different and extracts from law books do not a make a good debate.

We can take two views here :-

The police know the law very well and have made arrests under whatever law they feel appropriate and the CPS will decide if that was correct or not.

or

The police know the law very well and have made arrests regardless of that law and done what was needed to prevent, in their view, a potential action. If they can arrest someone in the House of Commons then pretty much anything is possible.

Were the protesters arrested under anti-terrorism laws?. We just don't know - but I'd have thought any planned action against a power station would certainly justify use of terrorism laws - it doesn't have to be Islam to be terrorism, any act of 'terror' against the general population could be seen as terrorism (eco-terrorism, social terrorism, etc?).

If this had been a nuclear powerstation instead of a coal fired one, would our views be any different....and who'se to say an Islamic or other extremist may or may not have infiltrated a peaceful power station protest for alterior means.

People still have the right to protest and march....just not where ever and whenever they like.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

Yeh I know the definition thanks.

Using the same logic then conspiracy to commit burglary isn't an offence either but of course it is.

The 5 mile thing is a bit of a red herring too, irrelevant in this example.

No. Burglary is a Criminal Offence in all forms. No comparisson at all.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

JasonLVC wrote: »

I thought I'd wandered into a Basic Law 101 teaching session for a minute there. Whole posts devoted to cut and pasting the law - the printed word and the reality of how those words are acted upon are completely different and extracts from law books do not a make a good debate.

We can take two views here :-

The police know the law very well and have made arrests under whatever law they feel appropriate and the CPS will decide if that was correct or not.

or

The police know the law very well and have made arrests regardless of that law and done what was needed to prevent, in their view, a potential action. If they can arrest someone in the House of Commons then pretty much anything is possible.

Go & find me 1 person who has ever been convicted of conspiracy to commit aggrevated trespass..