Police may ban future marches to prevent disorder

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by backinblack

 

Free speech - protests - precludes the alternative - civil war. I think it is a bad idea to put a cork in the soda bottle that is the free world. Oppression only works in Muslim and communist countries because of the sheer, animalistic brutality of those governments. Is the British government ready to go there?

l

I think the Brit government could go there as they have basically disarmed their country. That is the citizens first mistake allowing the disarming of the citizen. They can fight with other forms of weapons, however only guns can fight against guns. Britian citizens have damned themselves. Civil war in my silly opinion seems almost rediculous.

Originally posted by prexparte

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by backinblack

 

Free speech - protests - precludes the alternative - civil war. I think it is a bad idea to put a cork in the soda bottle that is the free world. Oppression only works in Muslim and communist countries because of the sheer, animalistic brutality of those governments. Is the British government ready to go there?

l

I think the Brit government could go there as they have basically disarmed their country. That is the citizens first mistake allowing the disarming of the citizen. They can fight with other forms of weapons, however only guns can fight against guns. Britian citizens have damned themselves. Civil war in my silly opinion seems almost rediculous.

Things like the Peterloo Massacre kinda upset that premise. Thousands of unarmed protesters linking arms in the face of the British Army that included Foot, Cavalry and Artillery..

Actually sums up the whole era (1820-1850).. the Luddite Riots, Swing Riots (my part of England went into open rebellion) Chartists, Diggers, Levellers, the list of protest is endless, and ended in reform of Britain.

Extract of The Masque of Anarchy by Shelly

Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you-
Ye are many - they are few."

www.peterloomassacre.org...

Originally posted by Sly1one
What people will say in the future:

"I didn't protest the removal of the 2nd amendment rights because I didn't own a gun."
"I didn't protest the removal of my first amendment rights because I didn't have much to say."
"I didn't protest the removal of all my other rights, because I couldn't protest anymore."

Check mate is soon...

Is this your wet dream?

I look forward to the protests against banning protests.

Do they really think a ban will stop us from expressing ourselves.

Originally posted by Bonified Ween

Originally posted by Sly1one
What people will say in the future:

"I didn't protest the removal of the 2nd amendment rights because I didn't own a gun."
"I didn't protest the removal of my first amendment rights because I didn't have much to say."
"I didn't protest the removal of all my other rights, because I couldn't protest anymore."

Check mate is soon...

Is this your wet dream?

no, what the hell kind of question is that? I'm just acknowledging the obvious trend in the US here....

Originally posted by thoughtsfull

Originally posted by prexparte

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by backinblack

 

Free speech - protests - precludes the alternative - civil war. I think it is a bad idea to put a cork in the soda bottle that is the free world. Oppression only works in Muslim and communist countries because of the sheer, animalistic brutality of those governments. Is the British government ready to go there?

l

I think the Brit government could go there as they have basically disarmed their country. That is the citizens first mistake allowing the disarming of the citizen. They can fight with other forms of weapons, however only guns can fight against guns. Britian citizens have damned themselves. Civil war in my silly opinion seems almost rediculous.

Things like the Peterloo Massacre kinda upset that premise. Thousands of unarmed protesters linking arms in the face of the British Army that included Foot, Cavalry and Artillery..

Actually sums up the whole era (1820-1850).. the Luddite Riots, Swing Riots (my part of England went into open rebellion) Chartists, Diggers, Levellers, the list of protest is endless, and ended in reform of Britain.

Extract of The Masque of Anarchy by Shelly

Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you-
Ye are many - they are few."

www.peterloomassacre.org...

edit on 15/12/10 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)

Ah, but you had firearms back then, didn't you?

If you want to reign in your government before they become your true masters, first force them give you back the right they took to own firearms. Make them afraid of the citizens potential to take matters into their own hands again.

But if you keep buying the lie that a law abiding citizen automatically become a nutcase psycho, and therefor can't be held competent to own a firearm, then you are doomed.

First they'll use firehoses on the masses who dare protest their divine decrees, then teargas, then rubber bullets and bean-bag rounds from shotguns.

Then, with a simple declaration of martial law, it will be real bullets.

Originally posted by muddyhoop

Police may ban future marches to prevent disorder

www.telegraph.co.uk

Police may ban anti-Government marches through central London to prevent further disorder and strain on officer numbers.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Bad move.

Deny the people their democratic right to protest and you'll see what is happening in Greece right now move to England. But instead of it being unions and students, it'll be every free-thinking anti-fascist in England.

But, meh, it's going to happen either way.

It'll actually make no difference if they ban marches or not, I am absolutely certain that we'll see riots on our London streets to rival those in Italy and Greece before the end of 2011. And it'll be the fault of the Police for continuing to use kettling, using extreme force, and generally being bad at their jobs. They've lost the trust of the people, so I doubt the people will even be telling the police when they'll be heading to London next time.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


The protesters where unarmed when they went toe to toe with the British army.. our cultural difference so to speak in our approach. neither approach is wrong.. just different

Tho to answer, Yes they had firearms, in fact a lot of the protesters where veterans of the Napoleonic wars.. take some guts to stand against troops armed with artillery and your only defence is being locked arms with your neighbour.

My neck of the woods still retains a Revolutionary corps and many Pioneer corps from that era..

Edit to add: I just wanted to add that around here people protest public technology by blowing them up.. some 400+ have gone bang in the last few years..

The advantage of being unarmed is that in response the police is use stickers and beer coasters to warn people of the dangers posed by blowing things up

All pretty low level stuff really that could escalate if guns where used by either side.

It seems stupid to ban protests because the next logcal step would be riots.

Quote : "“We can’t ban a demonstration but we can ban a march, subject to approval by the Home Secretary.”

Yeah like any Government is going to ban that. If the Police had their way there would be no courts and no trial but it is never going to happen. That is why laws are made made by elected Governments who answer to the public by elections and not by unelected police chiefs.

If people want to meet together and protest/march I doubt there is much the Police or the Home Secretary could do until the people gather. Not going to change a great deal even if it was approved.

I think this is a silly move, just like kettling, it will force those who want to protest to take a different approach. It would just take them to block fuel deliveries again and bring the whole country to its knees like last time.

I am praying for all of you in the UK. I have family over there with young children, and I'm only hoping that they decide to come stateside (as they have been pondering for quite some time), before the proverbial dung hits the fan.

As far as the USA goes: they will never be able to cage us all. I would wager that 75% of the Armed Services in America would stand beside those of us protesting with our last voice: our guns. The one fatal flaw that TPTB has in trying to control the populous of the USA is that it is very spread out, and many places are very remote. They will not bomb their own citizens, nor any viable land that they could use later. It just wouldn't happen from a totalitarian standpoint.

The sleeping giant will continue to slumber until it is needed again. We'll know when we need to wake it up.


Keep up the good fight my UK friends. Take back what is yours.





Peace be with you.

-truthseeker

Originally posted by The_Phantom
The more angry the marches become, the more the elite will laugh at your predictability. They will continue to poke you with a stick, you will fight back, they will poke you some more. Like a dog backed into the corner you will lash out at them, and like animals they will put you down.

you are right my friend but when the protesters come out in there millions they will start running out of sticks then payback will begin.

Before Thatcher in the 80's people demonstrated spontaniously. It was only under, and since, Thatcher that demonstrations required state approval before they took place, We, as teenagers then, found it ridiculous. What was the point in demostrating against the state and having to ask their permission first?

They will NOT ban demonstrations - they already did. They will NOT refuse permission - they have to make police provision.

Every demo organiser in recent times has sought the states' permission before the demo took place. FACT

Even if they did ban protest- in the present times would that actually stop anybody?

I see my predictions that violent protesters always make things worse is coming to pass. Violence is always the wrong answer and always leads to more problems than it fixes. After seeing that adolescent exhibition by those violent protesters, they will have no trouble convincing the sane members of the public to accept more controls. Good luck with all that. Learn from it or don't.

Perhaps if these kids were taught values and to pay their own way through life, they might not be out protesting for more government handouts when the government clearly has no more to give. Protesting for good cause is one thing, but protesting for more government Welfare is another all together.

Imagine what these kids will be like when they grow up thinking the world owes them and find out it's a path to a horrible life. I'm sure their Parents are proud

Don't you have, in the UK, some kind of set of rules. Eh. What is it called again. Oh yeah, a law! A law that provents the government from declaring peoples assembly illegal?
Search hard.

To all those who sit and wait for the 'sweet payback'. Come on. So what's gonna happen when you've lynched the elite? Total chaos. You need to change the system from the inside out.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I see my predictions that violent protesters always make things worse is coming to pass. Violence is always the wrong answer and always leads to more problems than it fixes. After seeing that adolescent exhibition by those violent protesters, they will have no trouble convincing the sane members of the public to accept more controls. Good luck with all that. Learn from it or don't.

I think that many of the violent portions of the protests were caused by people paid by a group to incite the violence in the first place. We all saw what happened at the G20, and only later found out that people were paid to start the violence. As far as violence not working: well, in this case, I would agree. It is not until they take away our right to speak our minds that violence is needed. When your voice falls on deaf ears, sometimes the only thing someone will listen to is a cuff to the back of the head, or worse.

Perhaps if these kids were taught values and to pay their own way through life, they might not be out protesting for more government handouts when the government clearly has no more to give. Protesting for good cause is one thing, but protesting for more government Welfare is another all together.

I agree and disagree. I will make the analogy of raising a wild animal (let's say a Tiger) from birth to adulthood. One takes care of this animal for the animal's entire young life. This animal becomes dependent on the "handouts" of its human handlers. One day the handlers decide that it is too much to keep taking care of this wild animal, so it wants to release it into the wild: cold turkey. This animal keeps coming back for handouts. Eventually the animal is starving, cannot find food on its own, so it breaks into the handler's house, and perhaps even attacks the handler and eats them because it is so hungry. I know. Not a very good analogy, but I hope you understand what I am getting at. It is not that these students should be "learning values;" it is the fact that these students were born knowing that they would receive massive help from the UK government for going to University. This is the way it has been for years. For the government to all of a sudden say: "Guess what? No more money for you, fend for yourselves," is not only stupid, but irresponsible. Phasing out the financial help over several years might have been less of a blow, but they want to implement it within the next two years, if not sooner. Many of the students are already a year or two into University. What are they going to do? Spend thousands of dollars trying to get loans, and perhaps dropping out of school to try and pay for the schooling that they had been receiving for almost nothing? It does not seem fair in the least. I agree with the whole government welfare thing. What these students are doing is going back to bite the hand that has been leading them on and feeding them since birth. What would you do if all of a sudden you lost your entire food supply (ability to attend University), because of the irresponsibility of a clearly corrupt government?

Imagine what these kids will be like when they grow up thinking the world owes them and find out it's a path to a horrible life. I'm sure their Parents are proud

Is it really their fault? Can you say with a straight face that it is the student's fault that the government ran out of money, after they promised money for a higher education? Nature vs. Nurture. That's what this is all about.


As a final statement, I do feel sorry for these students, even with my mountain of student loan debt to receive my Master's Degree. I made a choice to take out loans to cover what I couldn't work for (and I worked 40+ hours a week on top of school, just so I could survive). These students were raised differently because the UK government promised them money for school. I cannot blame these students for that.




Peace be with you.

-truthseeker

Rioting only hurts your cause. I knew this would come up after Charlie's ole lady got hit with the stick. Unless you have at least 70% of the people on your side, revolution is a bust. This isn't the old days when the gov't vehicles were horses. High tech weaponry and media brainwashing ensures that the same corrupt government will control the UK and USA.

Originally posted by prexparte
I think the Brit government could go there as they have basically disarmed their country. That is the citizens first mistake allowing the disarming of the citizen. They can fight with other forms of weapons, however only guns can fight against guns. Britian citizens have damned themselves. Civil war in my silly opinion seems almost rediculous.

No, the British citizens protest unarmed and disarming them is not an option.

Guns have nothing to do with it unless you consider that having one might mean a greater chance of being shot at.

The British don't NEED guns to protest. They have REAL guts and will go out there in any weather to make themselves heard. Compared with the US citizens who HAVE guns and do very little, I think the passion, commitment and ACTION of British citizens and others around Europe is commendable.

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by prexparte
I think the Brit government could go there as they have basically disarmed their country. That is the citizens first mistake allowing the disarming of the citizen. They can fight with other forms of weapons, however only guns can fight against guns. Britian citizens have damned themselves. Civil war in my silly opinion seems almost rediculous.

No, the British citizens protest unarmed and disarming them is not an option.

Guns have nothing to do with it unless you consider that having one might mean a greater chance of being shot at.

The British don't NEED guns to protest. They have REAL guts and will go out there in any weather to make themselves heard. Compared with the US citizens who HAVE guns and do very little, I think the passion, commitment and ACTION of British citizens and others around Europe is commendable.

edit on 15/12/2010 by nerbot because: (no reason given)

.........WELL SAID!