Sorry gant, you know I'd love to debate with you of all people, but i have important stuff to do.
Climbing a war memorial - not a crime
- Thread starter motorbiking
- Start date
Sponsored Links
It's funny you should say that, there are some good debates to be had around racism, multi culturism, divide and rule but due to you only having one eye resulting in you lacking to see other sides of the story it renders you surplus to requirements.
Nothing odd about an independent police officer resisting attempts by the daily fail via cruella and her mates to tell him how to do his job, remember this is about discretion and wider public order issues. So sad to see the right wing creating a culture war over the crisis in the middle east so blue wall voters vote tory again, and cruella realises her ambitions to high office.I find the met's position rather odd.
Climbing a war memorial is 'unfortunate' but not illegal, Met chief says after pro-Palestinian protesters were not arrested
Sir Mark Rowley, the Met Police Commissioner, said footage showing demonstrators climbing on the Royal Artillery Memorial in Hyde Park Corner was "unfortunate" and "inflammatory in certain ways".news.sky.com
If the report is accurate they seem to be saying they have no power to prevent rowdy behaviour in public
I find that odd because the police have been issuing fixed penalties for Rowdy behaviour for a long time.
Public Order Act 1986
An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide...www.legislation.gov.uk
Blup
Biased police lol, they prosecuted them, or do you want juries vetted?
Nine XR zealots are CLEARED of £500k criminal damage bank attack
The nine female XR activists sang and chanted as they used hammers and chisels to shatter the custom-made windows at the HSBC building in Canary Wharf, London on April 22 2021.www.dailymail.co.uk
And some wonder why people are absolutely sick to death of our biased police and so called "justice" system
Blup
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,117
- Reaction score
- 2,742
- Country
If he said what is reported, then it would appear so.I'm sure you're far more aware of his powers than he is.
Hamas is a terrorist organisation don't you agree?
Ask any duty solicitor, Plod are not lawyers, they are trained at a high level using simple to understand guides. The issue I am raising is the head of the Met seems unaware of the CPS charging standard for sec 5 public order offences.
Its quite clear.
IMO - the police were right not to issue fixed penalties to those who complied when instructed. That is not the same as saying they had no power, in the event that the protestors refused. Going public saying it's not illegal (which is wrong) simply encourages others to do the same and not comply when requested.
I'm not sure what the specific laws are around climbing war memorials, however on balance I think I'd rather live in a country where doing so was considered perhaps morally wrong and 'unfortunate' as opposed to being illegal with the risk of arrest.
Before anyone starts, I'm referring to a wider point and not defending anyone in relation to Hyde Park.
Imagine if there's a war memorial in your town. On the way home after having a few refreshments you (or someone close to you) foolishly decides to climb it. The police happen to be passing. Would you rather they deal with it by firmly telling the person to get down and get themselves home thus hopefully dissipating the situation, or would you rather the person is arrested?
If you're going to say 'ah well those situations are completely different' then how does a law reasonably differentiate? Where would the defined line in the sand be between arrest and no arrest?
In general I tend to think be very careful what you wish for re having more laws introduced left right and centre.
Before anyone starts, I'm referring to a wider point and not defending anyone in relation to Hyde Park.
Imagine if there's a war memorial in your town. On the way home after having a few refreshments you (or someone close to you) foolishly decides to climb it. The police happen to be passing. Would you rather they deal with it by firmly telling the person to get down and get themselves home thus hopefully dissipating the situation, or would you rather the person is arrested?
If you're going to say 'ah well those situations are completely different' then how does a law reasonably differentiate? Where would the defined line in the sand be between arrest and no arrest?
In general I tend to think be very careful what you wish for re having more laws introduced left right and centre.
More Daily Mail bolox
We can see that.Sorry... i have important stuff to do.
Depending on the number of people involved it does raise awarenss.
Be fair, anything and everything is more important than debating with the honourable member.
Then you should try joining in the debate, instead of trying to steer the discussion to all about me.
But you've made your preferencies obvious.
On a side issue, do you know how to contact Ryanair?
I'm sure the head of the Met has plenty of well-informed advice available to him.
Er Murphy, why would I join in a debate with you when I've just said your not a well rounded enough debater.
You do realise you've just admitted to not attempting to debate the topic?
Proof and a confession.
Don't tell 'em your name, Pike.
You misrepresenting what I said is more proof if proof was needed that your not a trustworthy individual to have an open and honest debate.You do realise you've just admitted to not attempting to debate the topic?
Proof and a confession.
Don't tell 'em your name, Pike.
Sponsored Links
