bickster Posted August 1 Moderator Share Posted August 1 54 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I seem to recall people weren't happy about anti royalist protestors being pre-emptively detained during the Queens funeral and Charles coronation how do those same people feel about this new plan of taking preventative action by to restrict the movement of "some people "before they can board a train etc I mean it s a bit minority report isn't it , potentially someone can be stopped from going somewhere because they "might " commit a crime , will be interesting to see how they police it The Republic Protesters were never going to be violent so that is completely different, it should have been a perfectly peaceful protest. The Tories didn’t want to see them, so enacted a law to criminalise a democratic right. I'm still against that pre-emptive guilty by assumption of future acts. It’s just not democratic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted August 1 VT Supporter Share Posted August 1 19 minutes ago, tomav84 said: you've committed a crime during a certain type of events, therefore you cannot attend these events anymore. don't have a problem with it personally If I was caught stealing from Tesco's, should I be permanently banned from every supermarket? Or if it needs violence, if I got into a fight in a nightclub when I was young, should I be permanently banned from all nightclubs, bars and pubs? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted August 1 VT Supporter Share Posted August 1 21 minutes ago, Rds1983 said: If I was caught stealing from Tesco's, should I be permanently banned from every supermarket? Or if it needs violence, if I got into a fight in a nightclub when I was young, should I be permanently banned from all nightclubs, bars and pubs? i think a more appropriate analogy would be that if you went to a nightclub with the intention of getting into a fight, then i'd say yes, you should. and banning orders have a time limit...so whatever you did when you were younger wouldn't apply anyway so you don't agree with football banning orders then? people that go to the footy with families present with the aim of causing trouble should just be allowed to continue going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted August 1 VT Supporter Share Posted August 1 5 minutes ago, tomav84 said: i think a more appropriate analogy would be that if you went to a nightclub with the intention of getting into a fight, then i'd say yes, you should. and banning orders have a time limit...so whatever you did when you were younger wouldn't apply anyway so you don't agree with football banning orders then? people that go to the footy with families present with the aim of causing trouble should just be allowed to continue going? I'll be honest, I struggle to go to games nowadays and dont know anyone who has received a banning order, so wasn't aware it was time limited. I am dubious about bans/punishments being linked to 'intent', as that is a very specific thing under law and needs to be proven. How do you know that the person has specifically gone to the game to have a fight and hasn't been caught up in something? Generally, I feel it's an important part of law that once someone does their penalty/sentence etc they should then be treated the same as everyone else, up until they're shown to be and convcted as a repeat offender. Even then though, I lean more towards rehabilitation than extreme punishment. Get people to learn from their mistakes and contributing to society again. I'm also not keen for anything that moves our society closer towards a totalitarian state and puts too much unchecked powers into the hands of the government/police etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 45 minutes ago, Rds1983 said: If I was caught stealing from Tesco's, should I be permanently banned from every supermarket? On a similar note, I've always been puzzled by the banning orders from specific parts of town that judges can give out for persistent offenders of theft or antisocial behaviour, like it's going to achieve anything but making them someone else's problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 1 VT Supporter Share Posted August 1 I always wondered how they enforced that famous banning order for Burger Bar and Johnson affiliates that banned them from Birmingham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted August 1 VT Supporter Share Posted August 1 21 minutes ago, Rds1983 said: I'll be honest, I struggle to go to games nowadays and dont know anyone who has received a banning order, so wasn't aware it was time limited. I am dubious about bans/punishments being linked to 'intent', as that is a very specific thing under law and needs to be proven. How do you know that the person has specifically gone to the game to have a fight and hasn't been caught up in something? Generally, I feel it's an important part of law that once someone does their penalty/sentence etc they should then be treated the same as everyone else, up until they're shown to be and convcted as a repeat offender. Even then though, I lean more towards rehabilitation than extreme punishment. Get people to learn from their mistakes and contributing to society again. I'm also not keen for anything that moves our society closer towards a totalitarian state and puts too much unchecked powers into the hands of the government/police etc. football banning orders were a specific method of tackling hooliganism. these people went to football with the sole aim to have a fight. now, i don't know whether being in the wrong place at the wrong time gets you a banning order these days (IMO it shouldn't) however there does seem to be similarities with recent 'protests' with the hooliganism of old. these people seem incapable of protesting peacefully so i don't think they should be allowed to do it anymore i agree it shouldn't apply to first time offenders, but i would bet that many of these folks attacking the police etc are regulars at these types of meetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 So you wouldn't prempt stopping known racists going to a protest. Or an area where they could 'possibly cause trouble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 1 Moderator Share Posted August 1 4 hours ago, Davkaus said: That's not banning people from going somewhere because they might commit a crime, it's banning people from returning to the kind of facility at which they've previously committed a crime for which they've been convicted, and part of their punishment is not being able to attend live football. Though I'm slightly uncomfortable with the requirement to surrender passports while international football is on. All we have to go on for this is rumours in the press so the devil will be in the detail, I suppose, and hopefully if anything like this facial recognition around train stations were to be a thing it would also require a previous conviction for violent disorder. Giving the police these powers to use on the general public is ripe for abuse. It’s exactly what it is (and rightly so). Preventative “justice”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 At the risk of sounding like I vote for Reform, I do wonder if we've maybe defanged our police a bit too much when it comes to dealing with large-scale violent disorder specifically. You know - once you've reached the point where things are getting set on fire. Police stations in particular. I was living in Hackney when the riots happened there a decade or so ago, so obviously I put my hoodie on and went for a stroll to see what was happening (there were about twice as many people like me stood about gawking than there were actual rioters or police). The thing that really struck me was how passive the police were. There was a big line of cops just stood watching the rioters throw bricks at them while smashing up a shop and loot it. They'd periodically do a charge and push the rioters back to the next junction, then watch them smash everything up, then do another charge 10-20 minutes later and rinse and repeat. Sorta seems like the same thing is happening again now with these far-right riots. If a demonstration is peaceful then there's no excuse for using force, but once it's obvious that the disorder is violent, wouldn't it be best if they were a bit more proactive at clearing the streets? That said, I'm not sure if what I saw was normal - I know the police were stretched very thin during the riots I saw, so maybe they simply didn't have the numbers to do any more than they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 3 Share Posted August 3 9 hours ago, Panto_Villan said: At the risk of sounding like I vote for Reform, I do wonder if we've maybe defanged our police a bit too much when it comes to dealing with large-scale violent disorder specifically. You know - once you've reached the point where things are getting set on fire. Police stations in particular. I was living in Hackney when the riots happened there a decade or so ago, so obviously I put my hoodie on and went for a stroll to see what was happening (there were about twice as many people like me stood about gawking than there were actual rioters or police). The thing that really struck me was how passive the police were. There was a big line of cops just stood watching the rioters throw bricks at them while smashing up a shop and loot it. They'd periodically do a charge and push the rioters back to the next junction, then watch them smash everything up, then do another charge 10-20 minutes later and rinse and repeat. Sorta seems like the same thing is happening again now with these far-right riots. If a demonstration is peaceful then there's no excuse for using force, but once it's obvious that the disorder is violent, wouldn't it be best if they were a bit more proactive at clearing the streets? That said, I'm not sure if what I saw was normal - I know the police were stretched very thin during the riots I saw, so maybe they simply didn't have the numbers to do any more than they did. my uneducated guess, is its down to numbers. Having the resource to know you will win if it actually comes down to getting physically involved. You need far less numbers to hold a line than to disrupt, disperse and arrest large numbers of people and the police cannot afford to risk ‘losing’. I’ve seen bits n bobs of trouble where you can quickly rustle up 100 police. Then look at the numbers available when there is a noted politician, then stick a nought on it for royalty. Then we had a nato conference here and it looked like all the various types of police pretty much outnumbered the public, there were (quite literally) thousands of police and controlled no go areas. But to have more police at a noticeable level that’s either tens of thousands more police, or some central pool of mobile police from out of area. It’s rare we have the appetite for that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 3 Moderator Share Posted August 3 9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: to have more police at a noticeable level that’s either tens of thousands more police, or some central pool of mobile police from out of area. It’s rare we have the appetite for that. Out of area police used in both Southport and Liverpool last night. At some point a RW nutjobs lobbed a brick at the mosque (barn door / shovel failure) but the police had to form a bigger cordon, very noticeable that the police facing the peaceful protectors of the Mosque all had hi-viz jackets with Heddlu and Police on the back, on the other side of the road… Merseyside Police's finest version of Robot cop, battle fatigues, body armour, the works.. I think they called in Lancs Police for Southport 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 3 Share Posted August 3 5 minutes ago, bickster said: Out of area police used in both Southport and Liverpool last night. At some point a RW nutjobs lobbed a brick at the mosque (barn door / shovel failure) but the police had to form a bigger cordon, very noticeable that the police facing the peaceful protectors of the Mosque all had hi-viz jackets with Heddlu and Police on the back, on the other side of the road… Merseyside Police's finest version of Robot cop, battle fatigues, body armour, the works.. I think they called in Lancs Police for Southport At politics level, I think it was a result of the meeting between police chiefs and the government that very quickly came up with a very refreshing statement along the lines of this isn’t about blame it’s about learning to share resources and ask for help in a timely manner. A month ago, we’d have had the usual tory wannabe PM’s putting their own spin on why it wasn’t a hate crime and how the police are too woke. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 Yeah, that'll stop the questions. Great job Rowley, you **** idiot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 5 Moderator Share Posted August 5 2 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Yeah, that'll stop the questions. Great job Rowley, you **** idiot. Theft... criminal damage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 5 VT Supporter Share Posted August 5 On 03/08/2024 at 09:13, chrisp65 said: or some central pool of mobile police from out of area. It’s rare we have the appetite for that. Sounds like this Is exactly what is being proposed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 37 minutes ago, sidcow said: Sounds like this Is exactly what is being proposed. SPG 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 5 VT Supporter Share Posted August 5 1 minute ago, chrisp65 said: SPG I actually watched that on Friday night 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeVillan Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 1 hour ago, Davkaus said: Yeah, that'll stop the questions. Great job Rowley, you **** idiot. Wow, how petulant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 5 Moderator Share Posted August 5 1 hour ago, Davkaus said: Yeah, that'll stop the questions. Great job Rowley, you **** idiot. Also... I really don't think it was the question that put Rowley in that mood. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts