No power soon? Police hold 114 in power protest

stephen163

Taking over Ratcliffe on Soar would have had absolutely no impact on the electricity supply of Nottingham or anywhere else in the UK. That's the advantage of having a grid system. I'm not sure if this deteriorates the severity of the their intentions though.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

JasonLVC wrote: »

Now you're just being silly and making no sense at all (you must be losing the argument me thinks).

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to say "my mistake, I didn't realise the law was like this, etc", rather than now just making nonsensical posts that just reflect badly on you. We can then move on with the topic of this thread.

If you cannot understand the concept that conspiracy is a crime and can be attached to other crimes in a premptive manner then good luck and god bless you.

Lol

Being silly? I think the difference between murder & common assualt and aggravated trespass & trespass is quite serious actually.

NO one ever has been convicted of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass & the closest you get to it is the charge of conspiracy to commit a public nusance when 3 judges chucked it out of court because no member of the public was inconvenienced because the "event" did not take place.

We shall see wont we...

It's a bull**** arrest.

stephen163

It was conspiracy to commit criminal damage.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

stephen163 wrote: »

It was conspiracy to commit criminal damage.

In which case you cant commit aggravated trespass in a school over a bank holiday weekend!!

stephen163

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

In which case you cant commit aggravated trespass in a school over a bank holiday weekend!!

Apologies if this has been posted before, It's in the criminal damage act 1971:

Possession of items
Section 3 provides that a person who has anything in his custody or under his control intending without lawful excuse to use it or cause or permit another to use it
(a) to destroy or damage any property belonging to some other person; or (b) to destroy or damage his own or the user’s property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of some other person; shall be guilty of an offence.

That's why the bolt cutters are so important. *Plus the police intelligence.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

*Plus the police intelligence

---

Now we are getting somewhere.


Gathered under TERRORISM LAWS!!

Generali

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

*Plus the police intelligence

---

Now we are getting somewhere.


Gathered under TERRORISM LAWS!!

Well we aren't really.

Do you think it's reasonably that a group of people should be able to conspire to prevent another group from doing something lawful using force?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Generali wrote: »

Well we aren't really.

Do you think it's reasonably that a group of people should be able to conspire to prevent another group from doing something lawful using force?

No.

Do you?

They should have been either arrested under terror laws that are specifically designed for those who choose to attempt to disrupt vital infrastructure of the country or arrested at the Power Station & not via some dubious/bull/trumped up charge that wont stick & has been proven not to stick. There is no middle ground.

However, you can apply your above example equally to the police & their "illegal" operating proceedures at the G20 protest.

As we are all aware lawful protest is not a crime & preventing one is.

Generali

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

No.

Do you?

They should have been either arrested under terror laws that are specifically designed for those who choose to attempt to disrupt vital infrastructure of the country or arrested at the Power Station & not via some dubious/bull/trumped up charge that wont stick & has been proven not to stick. There is no middle ground.

However, you can apply your above example equally to the police & their "illegal" operating proceedures at the G20 protest.

As we are all aware lawful protest is not a crime & preventing one is.

]

Absolutely, these things cut two ways.

Should protesters be able to do whatever they want? I guess most people would say no.

Should the police be able to arrest people on a whim? Obviously not.

Your argument seems to be that the latter is unreasonable but the former is reasonable.

I also note that you either missed or didn't want to answer my point about the woman attacking the policeman in the youtube link you posted - what should the police have done in the situation you postulated?:

Generali wrote: »

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.

Guy_Montag

Generali wrote: »

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.

I see it quite differently - 3:43 the officer seems to be remonstrating with someone else, the young lady approaches suggesting that he desist from his current activities. He backhandedly slaps her then, when she continues to remonstrate, he hits her legs with a baton. To me all the violence in the incident seems to be carried out by the police.

As I've said on other boards, my opinion of the police has fallen through the floor. Before these incidents I had fairly high opinion of them, now I view them as little more than thugs.