Web Hosting Talk : Other Forums : Web Hosting Lounge : Pacefists, urrgghh, why can't they stay at homeand the Arms Trade".

[Critic]

See this link for more info >> http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...770232,00.html

This all centres around Europes largest Arms Fair in London.

What is going on, we have people chiaing themselves to the front of trains, taking part in obstructive si down protests etc

What happens next, they take the Police to court for dealing with them and taking preventative action.

These things can be used to harm if used in a certain way, we can’t roll out the red carpet and put out a nice cushy buffet for everyone to go and have a look or just stroll on in.

Dear Dear

[NewtSys]

Same thing basically I used to see daily when I lived in Oregon. "hippies" or "trustafarians (trust fund wannabe hippies)" would spike trees chain themselves to logging equipment all in the name of protecting the environment. Where does spiking a tree come into protecting it?


We had war protestors during and several months after the first gulf war... there were protestors burning the American Flag oin the federal courthouse steps in Eugene... cops couldnt do a damn thing about it either for fear of a lawsuit for doing their duty as a police officer and a American Citizen.

[phill2003]

well although i dont agree with their views i defend their right to express them, its democracy guys its what we fight for and fought for in the second world war....

if you stop this what else that you dont agree with do you stop?

[NewtSys]

No I agree with the right to express ones opinions.. but I strongly disagree when it interferes with commerce or blocks one or more individuals from carying out their daily duties. I also disagree when the protestors cause more harm and damage all in the name of "freedom and constitutional rights". I do not disagree that each and every human has the right to believe, feel, be who they want to be...just dont force it on people that don't believe, think or feel the way they do.

[richy]

damn right sure express your views as long as they dont interfere with day to day life. All those sit down protests etc really stretched the police ambulance etc over here, I hope the lives of the people that died weigh heavy on the minds of those coducting disruptive protests.

[Eric Cartman]

i've been in tons of those protests over the years and it usually depends on the cops how "peacefull" a protest is
you can always immediately seperate the good cops from the bad ones.

Originally posted by richy
damn right sure express your views as long as they dont interfere with day to day life.

that are demonstrations

Originally posted by richy
I hope the lives of the people that died weigh heavy on the minds of those coducting disruptive protests.

i'll say 2 words: arms fair

[Critic]

Look the issue isn't their right to protest, we can give them that; it is the fact they think they have a right to take the police to court over procedure.

I don't see anything wrong with an arms fiar, it serves a purpose. The police have every right to do what they are doing, (current stop and search tactics).

Especially with the current threat level in the UK and what a terrorist could get his hands on. I don't see how chaining yourself to a train increases support for your cause; more the oppisite. They should be charged to the full extent of the law.

[bagpuss]

Originally posted by Critic
Look the issue isn't their right to protest, we can give them that; it is the fact they think they have a right to take the police to court over procedure.

I don't see anything wrong with an arms fiar, it serves a purpose. The police have every right to do what they are doing, (current stop and search tactics).

Especially with the current threat level in the UK and what a terrorist could get his hands on. I don't see how chaining yourself to a train increases support for your cause; more the oppisite. They should be charged to the full extent of the law.

They have the right to take the police to court, because the police illeagally stopped and searched people. The police can stop and search you (at least in Britain) if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you have stolen or prohibited articles on your person, in your vehicle etc. Reasonable grounds include the persons behaviour, conversation or prior knowledge, whilst searching a person who has chained themself to a train may be within the law, stopping and searching people who are simply walking down a street in peaceful protest is not, which is in some cases what happened, the police when challenged stated they were stopping them under the terrorism act. This is why they are being taken to court for illeaglly using the terrorist act against people that were clearly not terrorists.

As for people chaining themselves to things and other forms of disruption it's very simple, these protestors want to get attention for their cause, in the same way Ghandi and co, caused disruption by ignoring British orders through passive resistance, which eventually led to the desired objective of the British leaving India. Or in the same way women chained themselves to railings to draw attention to the fact that they had no vote.

Incidently other than die hard pacifists, the problem many protestors have isn't an arms fair as such, it's more to do with two of the countries that the arms were being sold to, Israel and Saudi Arabi. Israel for fairly obvious reasons, Saudi Arabi because it buys more arms than anyone else in the middle east, then sells these arms on to anyone who will buy them, which includes many countries with rather dubious regiemes which are on the British Governments banned list for arms sales.

[Critic]

You used the term illegal, a fair few times in your reply. I see the police actions as justified and legal. This is my reasoning; say there is a suicide bomber in the crowd or on his way to it, then, section 44 can be justified, if the wrong kind of people (terrorists) penetrated the building, the equipment inside or plans could fall into their hands. Not a good idea.

Justified preventative action, in my book.

And if memory serves, our current judicial system works on an innocent until proven guilty system; last time I checked the later had not been proven. Thus it is still and should be a legal action.

I have heard many of the participants on London based radio; they say their goal is a complete end to the arms trade. If they didn’t buy it from us, they would put even more domestic resources into RnD and manufacture.

For your justification to chaining themselves to trains, do tell, how that will endear them to the public; I also can’t se how it will achieve what they want. They cause mass obstruction for the public, who aren’t going to vote in a gov who turns pacifist; they will just get utterly peeved at the protesters. Let’s look at what might have happened yesterday, somebody is phoned to say that a loved one was in an accident and is trying to get there, they get delayed and the loved one dies; or how about, a consultant is commuting to another hospital to aid in an operation, they can’t get there, the person goes under without the doctors experience for the op. Then there is the simple one, a fire engine or an ambulance can not get to an incident because a moron is sitting in the middle of a dual carriage-way.

All these reasons and more tell us why whatth police are doing is justified.

[phill2003]

so would you have told emily pankhurst to keep her opinions to herself? at least the women from britain should realise what i'm talking about.

its a part of democracy that you can demonstrate, if you take that away what else that gets in the way your ordered life would you want banning?.

it just seems to me either it is a democracy and you are allowed to speak your own mind or it isnt....

[Critic]

You really do seem to be missing the point Phil2003, i am not saying that they can't demonstrate.

With current conditions taken into account, they have no right to take the police to court.

Let me ask you a question, you are in your office or home, there is a fire, you can't get out, you have minutes; there are two ways it can go.

The fire engine gets there and saves you and your colleagues or it is stuck in gridlock behind someone sitting in the road and you die.

So can you tell me that

[bagpuss]

Originally posted by Critic
You used the term illegal, a fair few times in your reply. I see the police actions as justified and legal. This is my reasoning; say there is a suicide bomber in the crowd or on his way to it, then, section 44 can be justified, if the wrong kind of people (terrorists) penetrated the building, the equipment inside or plans could fall into their hands. Not a good idea.

Justified preventative action, in my book.

So let me get this right you are saying the police should be able to apply laws specifically designed to deal with terrorist suspects, to any member of the public and for the police to ignore the limitations of specific laws set out by the government, because you feel it is justified. I believe the North Korean government has similar views on the relationship between it's public, police and justfied prevention, maybe you would like to move their where they do such a bang up job.

Originally posted by Critic

And if memory serves, our current judicial system works on an innocent until proven guilty system; last time I checked the later had not been proven. Thus it is still and should be a legal action.

No invoking the terrrorist act on people who are clearly not terrorists is an illeagal act, the officers in question are presumed innocent until it goes to court. Besides which you were complaining over the very fact that the police were being taken to court, I simply gave the full reason why they were being taken to court.

Originally posted by Critic

For your justification to chaining themselves to trains, do tell, how that will endear them to the public; I also can’t se how it will achieve what they want. They cause mass obstruction for the public, who aren’t going to vote in a gov who turns pacifist; they will just get utterly peeved at the protesters.

All these reasons and more tell us why whatth police are doing is justified.

I do accept that they cause disruption, but they are not there to endear themselves to the public, they are there to bring attention to whatever their cause happens to be and apparnently chaining yourself to things gets the protestors and their cause media coverage.

Luckily Britain allows people to protest and air their views in public, perhaps you would prefer a situation like China where people who protest for democracy get shot and flattened by tanks, where the only place people can protest is in the privacy of their own home.

[Critic]

So while I was away, has the human race become telepathic?

How are they supposed to know if they are a terrorist or not? Unless stop and search measures are invoked.

This isn’t your average car show room we are talking about here, within there are weapons, not to mention the high concentration of people outside; imagine the impact of a suicide bomber on a crowd like that. Say they could get hold of a shoulder launcher and create a carbon copy by breaching the building; then someone uses t to shoot down an aircraft or fire at an embassy. You can’t ignore these possibilities.

Bagpu, why don’t you go and stand in a crowd near he fair, the police will do nothing , they will et a bomber get in position, sit down, look at his watch admire the view and then kill and injure innocents.

Now you can all keep saying go off to N Korea and that I a am advocating an end of right to protest; but to me it looks like you are using it to fill up space, you can’t put up a successful argument for civil libertarian groups going off on a jolly to the high court. Some great selective quoting going on there guys and just ignoring of what I say.

Someone please tell me, where I said they couldn’t protest and have to do it in their homes, I jut can’t see it anywhere

I am proud of Britain but not so proud if we punish the police for doing their job, letting innocents die, ignore their duty and the far left take over

[bagpuss]

Originally posted by Critic
So while I was away, has the human race become telepathic?

How are they supposed to know if they are a terrorist or not? Unless stop and search measures are invoked.

As you mentioned in your earlier post in Britain we are "presumed innocent", which is why the police cannot simply pull someone over without a reason, we do not live in a police state which is what you seem to advocate, because it would be "more secure" therefore justified. As for stopping terrorists that is what the various intelligence services are for, they provide info and either act it on themselves or pass it on the police who can then use the terrorism act for what is was implemented for, to stop terrorists, rather than harassing protestors.

Originally posted by Critic

This isn’t your average car show room we are talking about here, within there are weapons, not to mention the high concentration of people outside; imagine the impact of a suicide bomber on a crowd like that. Say they could get hold of a shoulder launcher and create a carbon copy by breaching the building; then someone uses t to shoot down an aircraft or fire at an embassy. You can’t ignore these possibilities.

No it's not a car showroom, which is why they don't just let anyone in to the arms fair and why the fair is secured. You say imagine the impact of a suicide bomber on a crowd like that, well so what, a bomber or guy with gun could shot us at anytime, better not leave the house.

Originally posted by Critic

Now you can all keep saying go off to N Korea and that I a am advocating an end of right to protest; but to me it looks like you are using it to fill up space, you can’t put up a successful argument for civil libertarian groups going off on a jolly to the high court. Some great selective quoting going on there guys and just ignoring of what I say.

I have put up the argument, one you have ignored, so I'll repeat it and see if you can actually address it this time :

The people vote for the government, who make the laws, the government passed the terrorist act, which applies specifically to "suspected terrorists", the police are there to enforce the law to the letter of the law, not to make the law, thus they can use the terrrorist act against suspected terrorists and not against the general public, the officers that stopped and searched people under the terrorist act were acting illeaglly, ignoring the laws the peoples elected representitives passed, that is why they are quite rightly being taken to court over it.

[webworkz]

Originally posted by NewtSys
We had war protestors during and several months after the first gulf war... there were protestors burning the American Flag oin the federal courthouse steps in Eugene... cops couldnt do a damn thing about it either for fear of a lawsuit for doing their duty as a police officer and a American Citizen.

"We feared the fire may accidentally spread into the courthouse." would've covered them.

High wind, idiotic protestor trying to run inside with the burning flag, etc.


And why were they doing it AFTER the war? What the heck is the purpose of that?