The Higher Education Thread | First University with £18k pa fees to open

[Frosty]

It is about balancing civil liberties, I believe my civil liberties extend as far as not breaching someone else's. Therefore someone can protest within the law to their heart's desire until it has a negative impact upon me. As the recent canon in London has shown, people are intent on smashing things up, that has a negative impact on people and therefore it should be prevented.

Seriously, what does the left want? They don't like kettling, they don't like police on horseback, they don't like police with batons, with water cannons, with tear gas or rubber bullets. So the police have to be softly, softly whilst Central London is vulnerable to thugs getting violent.

Why are you assuming those who oppose police tactics are left-wing? Do you have to be left-wing to oppose police shooting people with rubber bullets?

No-one is suggesting that the police stand by whilst 'thugs get violent'. The reason why the case was brought was precisely because there was no breach of the peace - the police even admitted as much in their testimony to the High Court. The case swung on whether a breach of the peace was imminent. The Court decided it was not, therefore the police's actions were excessive.

Why do you presume that anyone who criticises the police is an anarchist?

 

[Team Brian GB]

Three words. "Free Speech Zone".

I've seen pictures of those, I even brought them up in my American politics final a couple of years back. Regardless, you as a people, and your legal system, are far more protective of basic rights than we are. You only have to see some of the laws our previous government passed with regard to free expression.

 

[Excal]

Besides, how anyone can look at that image in the Guardian article and say that is legal is beyond me. Something tells me they didn't make a request to the City of London Corporation that the most important road in the Square Mile should be closed in the middle of the week. Therefore it is illegal.

So wait, are you arguing that kettling is a necessary response to violence or that kettling is a necessary response to a bunch of people in tents stopping up a road? Because the one is not the same as the other.

Additionally, "they did something illegal" does not actually justify doing something illegal to them.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Why are you assuming those who oppose police tactics are left-wing? Do you have to be left-wing to oppose police shooting people with rubber bullets?

No-one is suggesting that the police stand by whilst 'thugs get violent'. The reason why the case was brought was precisely because there was no breach of the peace - the police even admitted as much in their testimony to the High Court. The case swung on whether a breach of the peace was imminent. The Court decided it was not, therefore the police's actions were excessive.

Why do you presume that anyone who criticises the police is an anarchist?

Because it is the typical left wing sources that come out and criticise whenever it happens - the New Statesman and the Guardian are chief amongst those who get vocal, on top of the Labour Party who ironically passed ridiculously restrictive laws on civil liberty.

The thing is though, the police do have to stand by, we all know exactly what would happen if the riot police went into a situation where anarchists are smashing a building up. Cases would rise the whole way up to Strasbourg, the Home Secretary would be dragged through the mud, the police officers in question would have their lives torn apart.

Your presumption regarding criticism of the police is incorrect, I think people make it too difficult for the police to operate in such circumstances.

 

[Team Brian GB]

So wait, are you arguing that kettling is a necessary response to violence or that kettling is a necessary response to a bunch of people in tents stopping up a road? Because the one is not the same as the other.

Additionally, "they did something illegal" does not actually justify doing something illegal to them.

I think kettling is a justified police response to demonstrations that involve fringe elements with a history of violence, very rarely does a G20 or G8 summit go by anywhere in the world where environmentalists don't go on the rampage. Setting up camp (literally) on our equivalent of Wall Street, shutting down traffic when many people within travel around the world with their anti-corporation and anti-globalisation agendas, and getting violent in the process made it a legitmate action for the police to use kettling tactics.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I think kettling is a justified police response to demonstrations that involve fringe elements with a history of violence, very rarely does a G20 or G8 summit go by anywhere in the world where environmentalists don't go on the rampage. Setting up camp (literally) on our equivalent of Wall Street, shutting down traffic when many people within travel around the world with their anti-corporation and anti-globalisation agendas, and getting violent in the process made it a legitmate action for the police to use kettling tactics.

Getting violent? The whole reason kettling was ruled to be illegal in this case was because they weren't violent.

It wasn't a legitimate action by the police, as per the ruling.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Getting violent? The whole reason kettling was ruled to be illegal in this case was because they weren't violent.

It wasn't a legitimate action by the police, as per the ruling.

It has now been deemed illegitimate, at that time there was no reason to believe in the legality of such tactics, it certainly wasn't the first time they've been used. You can also now question clubs that hold away fans back until home crowds have dispersed, the legality of that has never come into wide consideration but will have to now.

 

[Frosty]

Christ alive... READ THE CASE.

The Court did not say that kettling was an illegal tactic, or that the police could not use such powers if a breach of the peace was happening or imminent. What the Court did say was that the demonstrators had not done anything to give rise to an imminent risk of a breach of the peace - the risk was not imminent.

Therefore the kettling was unlawful. The Court also raised concerns regarding the fact that the police had no policy or guidelines over when kettling would be used and how it would be used. A concrete policy would assist both police and demonstrators in the future.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Christ alive... READ THE CASE.

I did.

 

[peterstorey]

I did.

In that case you are too stupid to understand it.

 

[Silva]

Brian, the police killed someone who wasn't even a protester. IF you honestly think their actions were legitimate there's something wrong with you.

 

[Excal]

Of course he thinks that's legitimate. Those people were interrupting traffic IN THE FINANCE INDUSTRY! That's like genocide to a Tory.

 

[Mockney]

Brian, do you see the distinction between the legality of a policeman shooting someone in the face who was

a) Running at them with a flame thrower and windmilling in an exploding vest

and

b) Standing in the petrol que at a Tesco Metro?

 

[Red Dreams]

why are you lot surprised?

Brian thinks Roman is a swell guy.

 

[peterstorey]

I don't think he's got a moral bone in his body.

 

[Excal]

I don't think he's got a moral bone in his body.

Brian or Roman?

I set that up easily enough?

 

[Team Brian GB]

The moral left is out in full force I see, yes the death of a man should have been avoided, but no, that doesn't weaken my position on anti-capitalist, anti-globalisation groups gathering at the heart of, and causing disruption at the HQ of UK plc.

 

[Excal]

I fall somewhere in the middle of the American left, which pretty much makes me a moderate (or slightly conservative) by British standards, but you bemoaning the blowback against this police tactic against the violent thugs that appear to be rabidly, um...sitting there, all because they're blocking a street in London's financial sector, really does play pretty well into the caricature of the heartless Tory.

 

[Team Brian GB]

I fall somewhere in the middle of the American left, which pretty much makes me a moderate (or slightly conservative) by British standards, but you bemoaning the blowback against this police tactic against the violent thugs that appear to be rabidly, um...sitting there, all because they're blocking a street in London's financial sector, really does play pretty well into the caricature of the heartless Tory.

One of the stated aims of their camp was to 'overthrow capitalism' with that in mind, and with the hardcore elements contained within that get violent at all G8/G20/WTO gatherings the police were absolutely right to keep them contained.

 

[Silva]

In other words, Mike was right, anyone who protests against your ideals is the Antichrist and should be shot in the back of the head.

 

[Team Brian GB]

In other words, Mike was right, anyone who protests against your ideals is the Antichrist and should be shot in the back of the head.

Mike and you are idiots, any groups who have a history of violence who gather in the heart of London who declare they want to destroy capitalism need to be kept on an extremely tight leash. Personally I think the police should have cleared the street much sooner, nobody should be able to close an integral thoroughfare ad hoc for their own beliefs.

As I said before, your civil liberties only extend as far as not violating somebody elses.

One of the developments I do like is that face coverings will not be allowed at demonstrations.

 

[Silva]

Don't I have a liberty to protest though? Can you imagine what a shithole the place would be if people followed your logic?

Quite honestly, I don't care if a few bankers had to walk to work. The police had no right to abuse and murder people.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Don't I have a liberty to protest though? Can you imagine what a shithole the place would be if people followed your logic?

Quite honestly, I don't care if a few bankers had to walk to work. The police had no right to abuse and murder people.

You have a right to protest, but doing so in a London street that hasn't been closed, with ridiculously inflammatory statements beside hardcore nutters is not going to help you. The same goes for all civil disobedience incidents in shops that have occurred since the Autumn, such people deserve to be arrested and are liable to be.

 

[Excal]

One of the stated aims of their camp was to 'overthrow capitalism'

And you think a traffic jam in Central London is going to achieve that? Now I've never been to London, but everything I've heard about London traffic suggests the effect would be similar to a massive traffic jam in NYC's Financial District, or as New Yorkers call it, "A day that ends in 'Y'."

with that in mind, and with the hardcore elements contained within that get violent at all G8/G20/WTO gatherings the police were absolutely right to keep them contained.

Bollocks. "Overthrow capitalism" doesn't necessarily mean with pitchforks and torches, and in a free society, until the fires are lit and the weapons brandished, you and the state don't get to assume otherwise.

 

[Team Brian GB]

And you think a traffic jam in Central London is going to achieve that? Now I've never been to London, but everything I've heard about London traffic suggests the effect would be similar to a massive traffic jam in NYC's Financial District, or as New Yorkers call it, "A day that ends in 'Y'."

Who knows what they mean by it, which is why the police take pre-emptive action - especially when they gather at the nerve centre of the British and Global Economies.

 

[Silva]

You have a right to protest, but doing so in a London street that hasn't been closed, with ridiculously inflammatory statements beside hardcore nutters is not going to help you. The same goes for all civil disobedience incidents in shops that have occurred since the Autumn, such people deserve to be arrested and are liable to be.

Not so long ago, black people couldn't sit at the front of a bus. Civil disobedience was one of the things which changed that.

We do not live in a perfect world Brian.

Laws are not the be all end all of society. They are flawed.

They weren't hurting anyone. Closing down a street in London will not cause people to die.... Kettling on the other hand...

 

[Team Brian GB]

Bollocks. "Overthrow capitalism" doesn't necessarily mean with pitchforks and torches, and in a free society, until the fires are lit and the weapons brandished, you and the state don't get to assume otherwise.

The state however does get to decide to contain people on the basis of breaching the peace which closing a street does.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Not so long ago, black people couldn't sit at the front of a bus. Civil disobedience was one of the things which changed that.

We do not live in a perfect world Brian.

Laws are not the be all end all of society. They are flawed.

They weren't hurting anyone. Closing down a street in London will not cause people to die.... Kettling on the other hand...

Silva? Did you write Ed Miliband's speech for the latest march? Most commentators on the left and right thought he was a prat for comparing austerity measures with the civil rights movement.

It doesn't matter if they were not hurting anyone, nobody gets to decide to cause trouble and traffic chaos to make a point.

 

[Excal]

Who knows what they mean by it

The point stands. In neither my country nor yours are the police entitled to treat an apparently peaceful protest like a violent threat to society.

 

[Silva]

Silva? Did you write Ed Miliband's speech for the latest march? Most commentators on the left and right thought he was a prat for comparing austerity measures with the civil rights movement.

It doesn't matter if they were not hurting anyone, nobody gets to decide to cause trouble and traffic chaos to make a point.

What on earth do the Austerity measures have to do with this?

We're talking about police tactics against civil disobedience. You're against civil disobedience.

For fecks sake, your complaining about traffic here. TRAFFIC IS IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM WORSE THAN ABUSE AND MURDER.

 

[Team Brian GB]

The point stands. In neither my country nor yours are the police entitled to treat an apparently peaceful protest like a violent threat to society.

They do when they make extremist statements and gather in London.

 

[Excal]

They do when they make extremist statements and gather in London.

Edit: Hrm. Either I misread that or you edited.

In any case, no, they don't. Short of expressing an intent to cause harm, (and no you bloody Tory git, "overthrow capitalism" does not qualify,) or in my country's case, inciting others to do the same, making "extremist statements" does not make you a criminal, or some other class of citizen that has lesser civil rights. Hence why Glenn Beck got to have his rally in DC.

 

[Team Brian GB]

What on earth do the Austerity measures have to do with this?

We're talking about police tactics against civil disobedience. You're against civil disobedience.

For fecks sake, your complaining about traffic here. TRAFFIC IS IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM WORSE THAN ABUSE AND MURDER.

You referenced the civil rights movement when we're discussing policing with regard to recent protests, just as Miliband referenced the civil rights movement in relation to protesting austerity measures.

With regards to your second statement, where you pulled that one from or how you surmised it I don't know.

 

[Team Brian GB]

I don't know. Neither do you. Neither do the Metropolitan police. Which is why "extremist statements" and "gathering in (the capital)" don't get you locked up in your country or mine. (See: Beck, Glenn.)

Extremist statements actually can get you locked up in Britain. Protesting without permission within 1km of the Palace of Westminster without permission can also get you locked up.

The second point is kettling is not the same as locking somebody up.

 

[Excal]

Extremist statements actually can get you locked up in Britain.

I'm unclear on the specifics, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that saying "We want to overthrow capitalism" is not in fact a criminal offence.

The second point is kettling is not the same as locking somebody up.

Neither is getting busted upside the head by a police baton. You still don't have the right to do it to someone just because they said want to overthrow capitalism.

 

[Team Brian GB]

I'm unclear on the specifics, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that saying "We want to overthrow capitalism" is not in fact a criminal offence.

What part of, closing a street is 'breaching the peace' do you not understand? Any individual who is suspected of breaking any crime, can be arrested without a warrant.

Neither is getting busted upside the head by a police baton. You still don't have the right to do it to someone just because they said want to overthrow capitalism.

Do you think batons are for show? Seriously, if the police were not allowed to hit people with them why have them? People who approach riot police whilst in active containment do so at their peril.

 

[Team Brian GB]

To give you an idea of free expression and protest in the UK today, a woman who read out the names of our Iraqi war dead in 2005 beside the Cenotaph - our national war memorial, was judged by the police to be making a political protest, and was subsequently arrested.

As such, it isn't that troubling to see the legality of setting up shop in the Square Mile.

 

[Excal]

What part of, closing a street is 'breaching the peace' do you not understand?

What part of "The police may only take such preventive action as a last resort catering for situations about to descend into violence" do you not understand?

Any individual who is suspected of breaking any crime, can be arrested without a warrant.

And as you rightly pointed out all of one post ago, "kettling is not the same as locking someone up".

Do you think batons are for show? Seriously, if the police were not allowed to hit people with them why have them?

If all Brits think like you, it's probably a good thing you don't give your policemen guns.

People who approach riot police whilst in active containment do so at their peril.

Yes, clearly a man illegally detained by riot police acting with excessive force against a nonviolent protest that he wasn't a part of should realize that asking to be lot out of his kettling is plenty good reason to kill him.

Get your head out of your ass, ffs.

 

[Excal]

To give you an idea of free expression and protest in the UK today, a woman who read out the names of our Iraqi war dead in 2005 beside the Cenotaph - our national war memorial, was judged by the police to be making a political protest, and was subsequently arrested.

As opposed, say, to cordoning off some large area around her, including anyone there for completely unrelated reasons, forcing them to remain there for hours, and beating to death anyone who tries to leave?

 

[Team Brian GB]

Yes, clearly a man illegally detained by riot police acting with excessive force against a nonviolent protest that he wasn't a part of should realize that asking to be lot out of his kettling is plenty good reason to kill him.

As I said that is regrettable, but you should have common sense to be nowhere near the police with batons out when they're containing crowds.

With regards to guns, tell me, what would happen if the police had their guns out on you wherever it is that you live, and you walked right up to them?