03-21-2021, 09:03 PM
03-21-2021, 09:13 PM
The irony being it’s about police powers on non-violent protests.
03-21-2021, 09:14 PM
03-21-2021, 09:26 PM
(03-21-2021, 09:14 PM)Fulham Fallout Wrote: [ -> ]Ahem
https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=16259
That’s a nonner. This one actually has replies.
03-21-2021, 09:34 PM
(03-21-2021, 09:26 PM)Duffers Wrote: [ -> ](03-21-2021, 09:14 PM)Fulham Fallout Wrote: [ -> ]Ahem
https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=16259
That’s a nonner. This one actually has replies.
And when it was posted the title didn’t actually make sense.
03-21-2021, 09:34 PM
(03-21-2021, 09:14 PM)Fulham Fallout Wrote: [ -> ]Ahem
https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=16259
I just wish the trouble making tossers would go back to the Ghetto they crawled out of.
Some of them are just trouble makers of the worst kind. Once again the police have to get involved in a protest that should not be happening. Yet if one of the protesters get hurt straight away they blame police being heavy handed, why can’t the wankers stay home like the majority of people and stick to the rules.
03-21-2021, 09:51 PM
(03-21-2021, 09:34 PM)wba13 Wrote: [ -> ](03-21-2021, 09:14 PM)Fulham Fallout Wrote: [ -> ]Ahem
https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=16259
I just wish the trouble making tossers would go back to the Ghetto they crawled out of.
Some of them are just trouble makers of the worst kind. Once again the police have to get involved in a protest that should not be happening. Yet if one of the protesters get hurt straight away they blame police being heavy handed, why can’t the wankers stay home like the majority of people and stick to the rules.
Always will be protester's, forget about the reasons. They like protesting. I'm all for allowing peaceful protests that keep to the covid guide lines. When they fail to abide by the rules they put even their own families at risk. All credibility for the protest are lost when it becomes a free for all.
03-21-2021, 10:28 PM
I bet they couldn't even tell you what the Bill proposes.
I really haven't got th words for them.
I really haven't got th words for them.
03-21-2021, 10:33 PM
(03-21-2021, 10:28 PM)Bortolazzi's Barnet Wrote: [ -> ]I bet they couldn't even tell you what the Bill proposes.
I really haven't got th words for them.
You support the bill that bans protests for the extremely vague offence of "serious annoyance"?
03-21-2021, 10:40 PM
Borin' Baggie
You support the bill that bans protests for the extremely vague offence of "serious annoyance"?
When did I say that? How is my condemnation of ignorant thuggery in any way indicative of support for what they are rioting against?
No, I am not in favour of it, not least because it is vague and powers contingent on vague conditions precedent tend to be ripe for abuse.
The law to deal with disruptive protests is already in place. The issue is Police not using them.
(03-21-2021, 10:28 PM)Bortolazzi's Barnet Wrote: [ -> ]I bet they couldn't even tell you what the Bill proposes.
I really haven't got th words for them.
You support the bill that bans protests for the extremely vague offence of "serious annoyance"?
When did I say that? How is my condemnation of ignorant thuggery in any way indicative of support for what they are rioting against?
No, I am not in favour of it, not least because it is vague and powers contingent on vague conditions precedent tend to be ripe for abuse.
The law to deal with disruptive protests is already in place. The issue is Police not using them.