To be honest,
if I was getting married tomorrow and rumour had it that my ex was going to turn up and spoil the day for myself and my guests and then he was actually found outside the church rehearsing how he was going to spoil my day, I suppose I'd expect him to be arrested before he had actually commited any crime. There is every chance that before the above filming started these people were asked nicely to move along, but started banging on about their rights. Rights I believe in too, but there is a time and place to make a point. That wasn't it.
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 12:22,
Reply)
?
rights are not rights if others decide when you can have them and when you can't, If you do nothing unlawful
also if your ex turned up at your wedding, if he did nothing unlawful he could not be arrested. your suspition would not be grounds enough. If there was an injunction and proof of previous then it would be different. But to arrest purely on the thought of someone deciding they 'may' commit a crime is called the abuse of power. The implications are staggering.
(, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 12:53, Reply)
I agree with you,
and yet supposing a man was in my garden at 3am in dark clothing with a sack and a screwdriver. None of these are actual crimes. 'Going equipped' is a pretty catch all thing when you think about it, but surely he would be arrested for conspiracy to rob or going equipped. I'm just saying it isn't black and white.
As to my wedding, it would be obvious that there would be trouble; there is history but no injunction. So the police could a) arrest him the day before on suspicion of intent; b) attend the wedding to prevent anything or c) wiat to see if it kicks off then make 7 arrests and deal with the ambulances.
a) may not be the most moral course, but the most sensible, surely?
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 13:39,
Reply)
I'm with you on this one
www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-suspects/stop-and-search/reasonable-grounds-for-suspicion.html
(
maiden is filmed before a live studio audience, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 13:55,
Reply)
The right to do what you're told?
(
Rebel biscuit stercore sumus et nos esse novimus, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 12:59,
Reply)
It's not usual
to make arrests /before/ a crime is committed, at least it didn't used to be. And for fucksake, is 'street performance' really a crime.
It would seem, superficially, that there was a political element to what they were doing and in a democracy freedom of political communication is, well, it's pretty fucking central to democracy.
The root issue here is that the monarchy is a major part of the political system. Some people would like to think there shouldn't be a group of people with special rights simply due to an accident of birth.
By cracking down on free speech, the monarchy is doing exactly the kind of thing that people don't like about monarchy.
They are going to need to be rather more thick skinned than that if they want to be the future King and Queen...
This is why the lizard king killed Diana. Some people just don't know their place.
(
Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 13:09,
Reply)
The street performance
may not be a crime, but if they were annoying the people around them on the day, it could lead to trouble. That is why they separate people at football grounds; it pre-empts a situation that will probably happen. I admit I'm playing devils advocate a little here, but the point still stands. Is it better to stop a crime or just hoover up after the carnage?
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 13:47,
Reply)
Hoover up after the carnage, if that occurs
But it doesn't seem like these people were out to cause carnage. If the police have credible evidence of imminent violence, then sure act. But we shouldn't be locking people up, because they might be annoying to someone who might be violent, and then violence might occur.
The logical conclusion of pre-emptive policing like this is to lock everyone up until the can prove that they'll never do anything wrong.
(
Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 14:51,
Reply)
So, by that logic
carrying an offensive weapon should not be a crime? I should be able to carry a loaded gun but only be arrested if I use it to intimidate or shoot someone. But just having it should be legal. If I use it, then you arrest me. I'm confusing myself now...
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 15:03,
Reply)
I've seen some "street performance" that was so bad it could have bordered on illegal
(
monkeyboyalpha jumping on the bandwagon since, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 14:01,
Reply)
I can pretty much gaurnty that nobody in the monarchy phoned the police to say an unlisanced 'street porformance' was occoring.
(
G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩€, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 16:24,
Reply)
people do tend to start "banging on about their rights!"
if their rights are being abused. when is the time and place to protest our tax money being spent on a wedding for people who all ready have lots of our tax money if not at the wedding?
(
tickle I was away, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 13:48,
Reply)
Easy
at the polling booth. Vote for a party that wants to abolish the monarchy. If enough people agree, and looking at the interest shown yesterday, they don't, then you will get your wish. That is democracy.
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 13:53,
Reply)
i think we might have a different idea of what democracy entails.
a democracy isn't just about voting. there are lots of ways to be politically involved and the idea that extra-parliamentry political activism is in any way illegitimate is a bit odd to be honest.
(
tickle I was away, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 13:58,
Reply)
Extra-parliamentry political activism
is very important to raise awareness of issues that people might be ignorant about. But sadly it all too often is people with a minority view throwing bins through windows.
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 14:03,
Reply)
no it's not.
all to often? nonsense. the over whelming majority of extra-parliamentary political activism is pretty dull and law abiding. look at the protest in march. half a million people being dull and law abiding and a couple of thousand not. trade unions, the civil rights movement in the usa, the countryside alliance, the suffragettes, oxfam, the national rifle association, solidarity in Poland, gay pride and the RSPB are what most extraparliamentary political activism is far more about. but enjoy your daily fail perspective anyway.
(
tickle I was away, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 14:23,
Reply)
I was wrong
over the meaning of activism. You are dictionary correct, and I was taking the modern media usage, so I will hold my hands up on that. The daily fail was a low blow, though.
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 14:35,
Reply)