ANGLIAN Protest Arrests

#2
"Further arrests are anticipated after which a file will be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration."

This should be interesting!
 
#3
"Further arrests are anticipated after which a file will be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration."
And after all the police work done, the cps will let them go with no charges.....
 
#5
Personally, I don't think they should be charged. Protecting civil liberties is more important than getting one over on a bunch of lunatics.

HOWEVER, a bit of common sense on the part of the coppers would have dealt with this at the time:

"If you continue this protest, we will not protect you. We suggest you leave."
 
#6
DeltaDog said:
Personally, I don't think they should be charged. Protecting civil liberties is more important than getting one over on a bunch of lunatics.

HOWEVER, a bit of common sense on the part of the coppers would have dealt with this at the time:

"If you continue this protest, we will not protect you. We suggest you leave."
I think you'll find that inciting racial hatred is an offence in this country, no matter ethnicity.
 
#7
DeltaDog said:
Personally, I don't think they should be charged. Protecting civil liberties is more important than getting one over on a bunch of lunatics.
What type of civil liberties are you protecting? The liberty to have a peaceful and fun family day at the parade? The liberty to take your child to see daddy or uncle without having him called a child murderer?

The streets are like badminton courts, they are booked out in advance and for the express use of the booker, one at a time. The moslems could have booked for the following day, but instead they came to ruin the day knowing people would ignore them otherwise.

Since when was slander, defamation and breach of the peace civil liberties?

Next time you're out and about doing something you've planned in advance, let me know and I'll come along and shout at anti-hippy, anti-lefty carp at you.
 
#8
Well its taken them long enough! If they had acted on the day and made arrests when the offences were being committed they would not have had to run an exspensive operation. :roll:

The CPS will have OK'd the charges but will then drop the case once all the files are done. It won't be in the public interest to proceed.Meanwhile the scumbags will have legal add to fight the charges. :x
 
#9
Since Beds Police ''allowed the muslim protest'' in the first place,and public order offences were probably commited as a result,I gthink that the CPs are likely to turn down any court action,against these people-unfortunately.Beds Police have a heavy responsability for these events and should be reported to the IPCC.
 
#10
Paper_Tiger said:
DeltaDog said:
Personally, I don't think they should be charged. Protecting civil liberties is more important than getting one over on a bunch of lunatics.
What type of civil liberties are you protecting? The liberty to have a peaceful and fun family day at the parade? The liberty to take your child to see daddy or uncle without having him called a child murderer?

The streets are like badminton courts, they are booked out in advance and for the express use of the booker, one at a time. The moslems could have booked for the following day, but instead they came to ruin the day knowing people would ignore them otherwise.

Since when was slander, defamation and breach of the peace civil liberties?

Next time you're out and about doing something you've planned in advance, let me know and I'll come along and shout at anti-hippy, anti-lefty carp at you.
I'm certainly no hippy, but the right to protest is an absolutely basic and fundamental right. Without it, we may as well have rolled over and let Adolph and his chums in all those years ago.

Taking people to court for using that right, no matter how much it disgusts you - and trust me, I would have no trouble putting a bayonet through any one of them - is a slippery slope. Christ, they'll be banning us from protesting outside parliament next...

BUT the point I was making is that society is - to some extent - self policing. Had the protesters not known the police would protect them, they wouldn't have shown up.
 
#11
DeltaDog said:
Personally, I don't think they should be charged. Protecting civil liberties is more important than getting one over on a bunch of lunatics.

HOWEVER, a bit of common sense on the part of the coppers would have dealt with this at the time:

"If you continue this protest, we will not protect you. We suggest you leave."
You have some strange logic here.They have a right to insult and abuse and the police were right not to act.But the police should have stood aside and let the public attack them! Don't quite follow you :?
 
#12
TheBFG said:
DeltaDog said:
Personally, I don't think they should be charged. Protecting civil liberties is more important than getting one over on a bunch of lunatics.

HOWEVER, a bit of common sense on the part of the coppers would have dealt with this at the time:

"If you continue this protest, we will not protect you. We suggest you leave."
You have some strange logic here.They have a right to insult and abuse and the police were right not to act.But the police should have stood aside and let the public attack them! Don't quite follow you :?
They have a right, under law, to spout as much objectionable sh*te as they like. However, the police are not bodyguards for people that go looking for trouble, and should refuse to act as such.

My logic is that if the police were to refuse the protestors protection, the protestors would have left - sharpish - of their own accord.
 
#13
Whilst fully in agreement about freedom of speach being of paramount importance to our democacy there are limits to the way that freedom should be exercised.

It is not acceptable nor should it be permissable to express certain opinions in public when the intention is to cause public disorder.

I would defend their right to hold their views in rational debate/private where the intention is not to incite hatred towards those who do not hold their views.
 
#14
Hairy_Fairy said:
I think you'll find that inciting racial hatred is an offence in this country, no matter ethnicity.
True, but sentencing will depend on your ethnicity and colour of your skin. You're fucked if you're a white British citizen, that's for sure.
 
#15
DeltaDog said:
They have a right, under law, to spout as much objectionable sh*te as they like.
NO THEY DON'T (I'm shouting because you appear to have missed/ignored my previous post.)
Under the Law of the United Kingdom, "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an offence by the provisions of §§ 17-29 of the Public Order Act 1986. It was first established as a criminal offence in the by the Race Relations Act 1976. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.
This offence refers to:
deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
distributing racist material to the public
making inflammatory public speeches
creating racist websites on the Internet
inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.
Hopefully that's clear for you now. You could even throw in the last point too, just for good measure.
 
#16
Call me a bluff old traditionalist but couldn't this be dealt with much more cheaply with an umbrella and some rice crispies?
 
#17
DeltaDog said:
TheBFG said:
DeltaDog said:
Personally, I don't think they should be charged. Protecting civil liberties is more important than getting one over on a bunch of lunatics.

HOWEVER, a bit of common sense on the part of the coppers would have dealt with this at the time:

"If you continue this protest, we will not protect you. We suggest you leave."
You have some strange logic here.They have a right to insult and abuse and the police were right not to act.But the police should have stood aside and let the public attack them! Don't quite follow you :?
They have a right, under law, to spout as much objectionable sh*te as they like. However, the police are not bodyguards for people that go looking for trouble, and should refuse to act as such.

My logic is that if the police were to refuse the protestors protection, the protestors would have left - sharpish - of their own accord.
Sorry Mate, but they can't say what they like.One has been released without charge and two have been given Fixed Penalty Tickets so they have admitted Public Order Offences

It should have been dealt with on the day by 'Beds' who have let everyone down.At the time 'Beds' claimed the protest was allowed under the Human Rights Act,so why have they acted 2 months later?
 
#18
Hairy_Fairy said:
DeltaDog said:
They have a right, under law, to spout as much objectionable sh*te as they like.
NO THEY DON'T (I'm shouting because you appear to have missed/ignored my previous post.)
Under the Law of the United Kingdom, "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an offence by the provisions of §§ 17-29 of the Public Order Act 1986. It was first established as a criminal offence in the by the Race Relations Act 1976. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.
This offence refers to:
deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
distributing racist material to the public
making inflammatory public speeches
creating racist websites on the Internet
inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.
Hopefully that's clear for you now. You could even throw in the last point too, just for good measure.
I don't remember anything particularly racist about the protests.

I do however concede that 06FA56 and BFG have valid points. I guess the major point I was missing is that they weren't just spouting sh*t, but they were doing it with the intention of inciting hatred towards a certain group.

It's a little off topic, but I wonder what the law in this country would say about the westboro baptist church (the ones that picket military funerals and the like).

Having said all that, I still think this should have been dealt with on the ground. Had the police refused them protection they would have vanished. They have acted on it two months down the line, I imagine, because the tabloids slated them for their original inaction.
 
#19
DeltaDog said:
Having said all that, I still think this should have been dealt with on the ground. Had the police refused them protection they would have vanished. They have acted on it two months down the line, I imagine, because the tabloids slated them for their original inaction.
What a fantastic idea. That could have led to them being assualted by people attending the protests, possibly disrupting the actual parade, and then the papers could have had a field day reporting on how useless the police are. The usual suspects could then have tarred all those attending the parade as violent racists and it would have vindicated the actions of the protestors. If we were really lucky it could have triggered a violent backlash from Muslims and race rioting. A great result all round, why oh why can't the police have your foresight and vision. :roll:

Retrospective arrests such as this are a very common tactic in situations like this where trying to make arrests at the time could case more problems than they would solve, sod all to do with tabloid ranting.
 
#20
DeltaDog said:
Hairy_Fairy said:
DeltaDog said:
They have a right, under law, to spout as much objectionable sh*te as they like.
NO THEY DON'T (I'm shouting because you appear to have missed/ignored my previous post.)
Under the Law of the United Kingdom, "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an offence by the provisions of §§ 17-29 of the Public Order Act 1986. It was first established as a criminal offence in the by the Race Relations Act 1976. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.
This offence refers to:
deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
distributing racist material to the public
making inflammatory public speeches
creating racist websites on the Internet
inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.
Hopefully that's clear for you now. You could even throw in the last point too, just for good measure.
I don't remember anything particularly racist about the protests.

I do however concede that 06FA56 and BFG have valid points. I guess the major point I was missing is that they weren't just spouting sh*t, but they were doing it with the intention of inciting hatred towards a certain group.

It's a little off topic, but I wonder what the law in this country would say about the westboro baptist church (the ones that picket military funerals and the like).

Having said all that, I still think this should have been dealt with on the ground. Had the police refused them protection they would have vanished. They have acted on it two months down the line, I imagine, because the tabloids slated them for their original inaction.
With regard to the Baptist church nutters,two of them have been banned from entering the country.Had they come in,they could have been dealt with under the Public Order Act as well.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top