what sort of government uses water cannon on protestors?

Graham_Devon

Ninky, take a look at this video...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11962910

Those people smashing the windows, were they protesting, or were they merely causing damage?

What about those throwing bricks at officers, purposely taken and smashed on the floor to make them easy enough to throw, but still big enough to cause damage (some had metal spikes sticking out, from railings).

Take a look at a REAL protestor, being helped by those nasty riot police, after she fell foul of other rioting protestors. She's real, she'd worn a helmet to protect herself, and unfortunately got injured. Police help her out. They are not against them. Just against all out thugs.

Don't confuse protestors with criminals, intent on causing damage. The criminals came out, prepared, covering their faces, ready to cause damage.

Honestly, can you answer this? Why should those people (not the protestors, and please don't pretend they are all mingled, they are not, sensible people move away from trouble, they don't stand amongst it) not receive a water cannon? Why should they not have riot police charge them? Why should they not receive the force of the law when they are simply out to cause damage?

What's so disgusting about putting a temporary halt on this behaviour, by none harmful means?

Cleaver

ninky wrote: »

this is a really sinister argument. it is basically blackmailing people against their right to peaceful protest.it is exactly the same argument used by the iranian regime who claim their tactics are merely to stop people getting hurt.

Oh, seriously, will you listen to yourself! As Graham said, you can still go and protest, but if you stand near someone who's a criminal (of which you know they'll be a few) there's a chance you'll get wet. Deal with it.

And as for comparing us to Iran, you know as well as I do that in terms of protest and free speech this is one of the most tolerant and relaxed countries in the world. It isn't 'sinister' at all.

ninky wrote: »

surely the police should be more worried about innocent protestors getting harmed. they should be there to protect innocent protestors.

They are. But they are also there to stop criminal damage and protect civilians from violence. From what I saw of last week's riots they got it pretty much right.

ninky wrote: »

also pretty stupid if you are an unelected member of monarchy to drive in a car through an angry mob with your window down. perhaps it is they who should have stayed at home.

Is this not slightly contradictory of what you've just said? You think people should stay at home so as to not get hurt? You've just said that the police should be protecting innocent people!

And saying that it's Prince Charles fault that he got attacked is a bit like saying that it's an old woman's fault that she got mugged as she shouldn't have gone out alone at night, or that a girl deserved to get sexually attacked as she was wearing a short skirt. Yes, people should always be careful and use common sense but no innocent person is 'stupid' to get attacked, it's the attacker who is 'stupid'.

lostinrates

I think this is the programme of which I wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x51s5

ninky_2

Cleaver wrote: »

Is this not slightly contradictory of what you've just said? You think people should stay at home so as to not get hurt? You've just said that the police should be protecting innocent people!

And saying that it's Prince Charles fault that he got attacked is a bit like saying that it's an old woman's fault that she got mugged as she shouldn't have gone out alone at night, or that a girl deserved to get sexually attacked as she was wearing a short skirt. Yes, people should always be careful and use common sense but no innocent person is 'stupid' to get attacked, it's the attacker who is 'stupid'.

so the royals are innocent but someone who goes on a protest is guilty if the person next to them throws a brick? this is a very stupid thing to say.

if you have ever been on a protest (have you) you would realise how little choice you get about who you stand next to (not least when the police start kettling people). with crowd numbers like that it's a bit like saying it's your fault if you end up in a packed tube carriage next to someone with BO.

shaven-monkey

She said senior officers should consider “all the options” to prevent a repeat of the mayhem that saw Prince Charles and Camilla’s car attacked last week.

Police are said to have called in private contractors to clamp the royal car.
job one.

Graham_Devon

ninky wrote: »

this is a really sinister argument. it is basically blackmailing people against their right to peaceful protest.

You are purposely ignoring the criminals.

You are using this water cannon business on a political level (hence your title), while simply ignoring WHY the water cannon may be used, as you wish to first pretend its it's simply a nasty tory government intent on using a water cannon against peaceful protestors, sticking to their planned routes, and walking calmly through the streets getting their point across.

No point really in going any further is there?

If you are unable to seperate peaceful protests with riots, intent to injure, and intent to cause damage, this really is a lost cause.

Probably best to let you bang on your labour drum.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

I think this is the programme of which I wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x51s5

i couldn't disagree more with his arguments. "higher power" my !!!!.

lostinrates

Interesting that there is still free higher eduction within EU...and there fore presumably available to all .with gumption and prepared to work to pay for fares and keep. TBH I think a lot of the Scandiavian countries might think our social skills and commitment to work and responsibility might be lacking.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

i couldn't disagree more with his arguments. "higher power" my !!!!.

Oh good, you listened to it...whether you agree with the arguments or not, is it interesting? I only heard snippets..and thought it sounded worth playing....

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are purposely ignoring the criminals.

because they are a very small minority. just because you watch something on BBC news that isn't everyone and it's all going to be like that.

Q - how can someone who lives in a village in Devon be such an expert on a protest march in London??
A - because they watch the BBC News

you can't make this stuff up