This feels very wrong, police action
Discussion
Elysium said:
Digga said:
I don't think many people are defending him as much as wondering about the legality and morality of police tactics.
As for the man, the impression I got was one of 'reformed racist', who was working with organisations like the Quilliam Foundation. I don't really know too much about the bloke, but begrudgingly admit that some of the issues raised by him and his like are, in fact, valid concerns. Not someone I'd want to be associated with, but at the same time, just because I don't like what people stand for, does not make everything they say wrong.
God knows what was going on between him and Quilliam. It appears that each party tried to use the other. Quilliam wanted a good new story and Robinson wanted to be washed clean of the EDL. He has since stated that he only went along with them because he was paid.As for the man, the impression I got was one of 'reformed racist', who was working with organisations like the Quilliam Foundation. I don't really know too much about the bloke, but begrudgingly admit that some of the issues raised by him and his like are, in fact, valid concerns. Not someone I'd want to be associated with, but at the same time, just because I don't like what people stand for, does not make everything they say wrong.
He is not reformed in any way.
I can't really figure out the whole Quilliam thing because, as you say, not all of it rings true.
AJS- said:
rscott said:
Again, how is this relevant to Stephen Yaxley-Lennon being moved on from a pub ? Just trying to keep discussion vaguely related to the opening post.
Again, the attitude of the authorities to those who criticise radical Islam.Maybe they were just moving all those with previous convictions for football related violence out of the town centre?
Edit -to add according to http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/ex-edl-leader-tom... .
newspaper said:
A Cambridgeshire Police spokesman said: "A group of 18 Luton Town football supporters at the Grain Store Pub in Cambridge were asked to leave the area at about 6.30pm on Saturday in order to prevent disorder.
So seems like he might have been picked up in a sweep of all football fans from the pub.Edited by rscott on Wednesday 31st August 11:52
Edited by rscott on Wednesday 31st August 11:58
rscott said:
How do you know this case was anything to do with his criticism of Islam? The banning order can't be related to his anti-ISIS banner as they'd already started the process of banning him before he displayed it.
Maybe they were just moving all those with previous convictions for football related violence out of the town centre?
Maybe. I don't *know* why it happened and haven't claimed to. I have my suspicions and have outlined why I have them.Maybe they were just moving all those with previous convictions for football related violence out of the town centre?
AJS- said:
rscott said:
How do you know this case was anything to do with his criticism of Islam? The banning order can't be related to his anti-ISIS banner as they'd already started the process of banning him before he displayed it.
Maybe they were just moving all those with previous convictions for football related violence out of the town centre?
Maybe. I don't *know* why it happened and haven't claimed to. I have my suspicions and have outlined why I have them.Maybe they were just moving all those with previous convictions for football related violence out of the town centre?
To pull this back to the original point, perhaps the interesting question is not "were the officers within their powers to do what they did" or even "were they using their powers reasonably" but rather "is it reasonable that we should be policed in this way?"
I'm a firm believer in the notion that one ought to be able to work out if what one is doing / is about to do / etc. is or is not illegal. Such certainty is the foundation of a civil society IMHO; uncertainty in this regard is the historic preserve of despots and petty dictators.
As put succinctly earlier in this thread, the effect of the powers was to make "being Tommy Robinson in Cambridge a criminal offence."
As my son might say after watching one too many YouTube videos, "say what?"
This is a modern scourge - sweeping powers that say, in essnce, "what you are doing isn't an offence, but you must stop doing it and, if you don't, you will be committing a criminal offence."
Previous examples of behavioiur occasioning such an order have included not moving a lawn or owning an A-to-Z...
This, to me, is the fundamental schism between the governed and the governors - being a "good citizen" relies upon the sweeping discretion of the powers-that-be. It is a short step from there to "pay me £20 a week or I'll exercise my discretion."
You may think that's nuts, to imagine such a slide. But in the last 15 or so years we've had photographers locked up for photographing public places (churches, etc.) or being "seen with a large camera" (shades of Constable Savage), or from walking on any street in the town he lives in except his own (yes, really: http://www.nottinghampost.com/teen-banned-street-f...), etc.
Others issued them for feeding gulls, and so on.
This type of order has replaced the due process of proposing and setting laws, bye-laws, and so on. This is not any form of democracy that I'm comfortable with. In many cases, the ASBO is used of perfectly decent (and properly-legislated) laws; in other cases it is being used instead of a proper civil process.
I've got no problem with laws, or with punishment for breaking them. I have a fundamental problem with make-it-up-as-you-go-along "laws" that make otherwise legal stuff illegal, but only for some people (not just some places).
Such things have no place in our society, IMHO, and are just one example of why so many feel as they do about society.
For that reason - and that reason alone - I find myself in the uncomfortable position of siding with Tommy Robinson. I may not like him or what he has done, but I have a real problem with state-sanctioned "Sherriff rules" - the old "get out of town" gun-slinging idea of "justice."
Not in my name, please.
I'm a firm believer in the notion that one ought to be able to work out if what one is doing / is about to do / etc. is or is not illegal. Such certainty is the foundation of a civil society IMHO; uncertainty in this regard is the historic preserve of despots and petty dictators.
As put succinctly earlier in this thread, the effect of the powers was to make "being Tommy Robinson in Cambridge a criminal offence."
As my son might say after watching one too many YouTube videos, "say what?"
This is a modern scourge - sweeping powers that say, in essnce, "what you are doing isn't an offence, but you must stop doing it and, if you don't, you will be committing a criminal offence."
Previous examples of behavioiur occasioning such an order have included not moving a lawn or owning an A-to-Z...
This, to me, is the fundamental schism between the governed and the governors - being a "good citizen" relies upon the sweeping discretion of the powers-that-be. It is a short step from there to "pay me £20 a week or I'll exercise my discretion."
You may think that's nuts, to imagine such a slide. But in the last 15 or so years we've had photographers locked up for photographing public places (churches, etc.) or being "seen with a large camera" (shades of Constable Savage), or from walking on any street in the town he lives in except his own (yes, really: http://www.nottinghampost.com/teen-banned-street-f...), etc.
Others issued them for feeding gulls, and so on.
This type of order has replaced the due process of proposing and setting laws, bye-laws, and so on. This is not any form of democracy that I'm comfortable with. In many cases, the ASBO is used of perfectly decent (and properly-legislated) laws; in other cases it is being used instead of a proper civil process.
I've got no problem with laws, or with punishment for breaking them. I have a fundamental problem with make-it-up-as-you-go-along "laws" that make otherwise legal stuff illegal, but only for some people (not just some places).
Such things have no place in our society, IMHO, and are just one example of why so many feel as they do about society.
For that reason - and that reason alone - I find myself in the uncomfortable position of siding with Tommy Robinson. I may not like him or what he has done, but I have a real problem with state-sanctioned "Sherriff rules" - the old "get out of town" gun-slinging idea of "justice."
Not in my name, please.
skwdenyer said:
To pull this back to the original point, perhaps the interesting question is not "were the officers within their powers to do what they did" or even "were they using their powers reasonably" but rather "is it reasonable that we should be policed in this way?"
I'm a firm believer in the notion that one ought to be able to work out if what one is doing / is about to do / etc. is or is not illegal. Such certainty is the foundation of a civil society IMHO; uncertainty in this regard is the historic preserve of despots and petty dictators.
As put succinctly earlier in this thread, the effect of the powers was to make "being Tommy Robinson in Cambridge a criminal offence."
As my son might say after watching one too many YouTube videos, "say what?"
This is a modern scourge - sweeping powers that say, in essnce, "what you are doing isn't an offence, but you must stop doing it and, if you don't, you will be committing a criminal offence."
Previous examples of behavioiur occasioning such an order have included not moving a lawn or owning an A-to-Z...
This, to me, is the fundamental schism between the governed and the governors - being a "good citizen" relies upon the sweeping discretion of the powers-that-be. It is a short step from there to "pay me £20 a week or I'll exercise my discretion."
You may think that's nuts, to imagine such a slide. But in the last 15 or so years we've had photographers locked up for photographing public places (churches, etc.) or being "seen with a large camera" (shades of Constable Savage), or from walking on any street in the town he lives in except his own (yes, really: http://www.nottinghampost.com/teen-banned-street-f...), etc.
Others issued them for feeding gulls, and so on.
This type of order has replaced the due process of proposing and setting laws, bye-laws, and so on. This is not any form of democracy that I'm comfortable with. In many cases, the ASBO is used of perfectly decent (and properly-legislated) laws; in other cases it is being used instead of a proper civil process.
I've got no problem with laws, or with punishment for breaking them. I have a fundamental problem with make-it-up-as-you-go-along "laws" that make otherwise legal stuff illegal, but only for some people (not just some places).
Such things have no place in our society, IMHO, and are just one example of why so many feel as they do about society.
For that reason - and that reason alone - I find myself in the uncomfortable position of siding with Tommy Robinson. I may not like him or what he has done, but I have a real problem with state-sanctioned "Sherriff rules" - the old "get out of town" gun-slinging idea of "justice."
Not in my name, please.
I'd agree with most, except the piece in bold. If the later police statement is correct , then they were simply removing football fans from the area. If that's accurate, then it's no surprise that someone with convictions for football related violence and previous banning orders was moved on.I'm a firm believer in the notion that one ought to be able to work out if what one is doing / is about to do / etc. is or is not illegal. Such certainty is the foundation of a civil society IMHO; uncertainty in this regard is the historic preserve of despots and petty dictators.
As put succinctly earlier in this thread, the effect of the powers was to make "being Tommy Robinson in Cambridge a criminal offence."
As my son might say after watching one too many YouTube videos, "say what?"
This is a modern scourge - sweeping powers that say, in essnce, "what you are doing isn't an offence, but you must stop doing it and, if you don't, you will be committing a criminal offence."
Previous examples of behavioiur occasioning such an order have included not moving a lawn or owning an A-to-Z...
This, to me, is the fundamental schism between the governed and the governors - being a "good citizen" relies upon the sweeping discretion of the powers-that-be. It is a short step from there to "pay me £20 a week or I'll exercise my discretion."
You may think that's nuts, to imagine such a slide. But in the last 15 or so years we've had photographers locked up for photographing public places (churches, etc.) or being "seen with a large camera" (shades of Constable Savage), or from walking on any street in the town he lives in except his own (yes, really: http://www.nottinghampost.com/teen-banned-street-f...), etc.
Others issued them for feeding gulls, and so on.
This type of order has replaced the due process of proposing and setting laws, bye-laws, and so on. This is not any form of democracy that I'm comfortable with. In many cases, the ASBO is used of perfectly decent (and properly-legislated) laws; in other cases it is being used instead of a proper civil process.
I've got no problem with laws, or with punishment for breaking them. I have a fundamental problem with make-it-up-as-you-go-along "laws" that make otherwise legal stuff illegal, but only for some people (not just some places).
Such things have no place in our society, IMHO, and are just one example of why so many feel as they do about society.
For that reason - and that reason alone - I find myself in the uncomfortable position of siding with Tommy Robinson. I may not like him or what he has done, but I have a real problem with state-sanctioned "Sherriff rules" - the old "get out of town" gun-slinging idea of "justice."
Not in my name, please.
I'm not making it about Islam. It is about how the authorities treat those who publicly criticise Islam, which this incident may be part of.
We also know that some of you think I am blinkered, bigoted, racist and hateful and that I claim all Muslims are ISIS supporting terrorists. You pop up on every such thread to remind me. And you never have anything to back that up with.
So if you find it tedious drop your wearily familiar routine.
We also know that some of you think I am blinkered, bigoted, racist and hateful and that I claim all Muslims are ISIS supporting terrorists. You pop up on every such thread to remind me. And you never have anything to back that up with.
So if you find it tedious drop your wearily familiar routine.
Crime prevention is the most important role of the police force and judiciary. I think that's fairly obvious and well understood. It's not with out a bit of thought that we represent justice as the balancing of scales and policing as a role of protection and service.
Of course no one wants to see a para judicial police force who just pick on people they don't like the look or reputation of (ironically no one other than the likes of those who'd gather around Tommy Robinson in a pub anyway). So we're at an impasse. A sociological mexican stand off, that's likely to lead to incorrections and mistakes. But there's been bigger and more worrying ones than Tommy Robinson being asked to GTF for fear of a breach of the peace.
I wouldn't listen to or consider that pricks belly aching for another second if I were you and certainly wouldn't consider his supposed grief with the police as being some sort of symptomatic change in policing policy or paradigm shift in society. He's a professional winger with nothing positive to say about anything.
Of course no one wants to see a para judicial police force who just pick on people they don't like the look or reputation of (ironically no one other than the likes of those who'd gather around Tommy Robinson in a pub anyway). So we're at an impasse. A sociological mexican stand off, that's likely to lead to incorrections and mistakes. But there's been bigger and more worrying ones than Tommy Robinson being asked to GTF for fear of a breach of the peace.
I wouldn't listen to or consider that pricks belly aching for another second if I were you and certainly wouldn't consider his supposed grief with the police as being some sort of symptomatic change in policing policy or paradigm shift in society. He's a professional winger with nothing positive to say about anything.
AJS- said:
I'm not making it about Islam. It is about how the authorities treat those who publicly criticise Islam, which this incident may be part of.
We also know that some of you think I am blinkered, bigoted, racist and hateful and that I claim all Muslims are ISIS supporting terrorists. You pop up on every such thread to remind me. And you never have anything to back that up with.
So if you find it tedious drop your wearily familiar routine.
Simple question - what's the link to Islam on this one? I see you're ignoring the fact that other football fans were also moved on from the same pub at the same time. Were they all publicly criticising Islam?We also know that some of you think I am blinkered, bigoted, racist and hateful and that I claim all Muslims are ISIS supporting terrorists. You pop up on every such thread to remind me. And you never have anything to back that up with.
So if you find it tedious drop your wearily familiar routine.
AJS- said:
I'm not making it about Islam. It is about how the authorities treat those who publicly criticise Islam, which this incident may be part of.
We also know that some of you think I am blinkered, bigoted, racist and hateful and that I claim all Muslims are ISIS supporting terrorists. You pop up on every such thread to remind me. And you never have anything to back that up with.
So if you find it tedious drop your wearily familiar routine.
No, only your posts.We also know that some of you think I am blinkered, bigoted, racist and hateful and that I claim all Muslims are ISIS supporting terrorists. You pop up on every such thread to remind me. And you never have anything to back that up with.
So if you find it tedious drop your wearily familiar routine.
Re your first point, "this incident may be part of", where's your proof? If you don't have it, and habitually turn most threads you post on into an anti Islamic history lesson, then forgive me for assuming your main agenda on PH is to do just that.
AJS- said:
I'm not making it about Islam. It is about how the authorities treat those who publicly criticise Islam, which this incident may be part of.
We also know that some of you think I am blinkered, bigoted, racist and hateful and that I claim all Muslims are ISIS supporting terrorists. You pop up on every such thread to remind me. And you never have anything to back that up with.
So if you find it tedious drop your wearily familiar routine.
Who is 'we' who also know? Who are you representing?We also know that some of you think I am blinkered, bigoted, racist and hateful and that I claim all Muslims are ISIS supporting terrorists. You pop up on every such thread to remind me. And you never have anything to back that up with.
So if you find it tedious drop your wearily familiar routine.
I don't usually reply to your posts as they are way to predictable. Did you ever stop and think why so many different people think that you are bigoted racist?
Fred
So it's ok as long as it's directed against people you don't like.
Rscott
This is getting a bit bizarre now. I've already said twice that it's about the treatment of people who criticise Islam by the authorities.
Alpinestars
As I said I have a *suspicion* that this *may* be part of a pattern of behaviour by the authorities to stifle discussion of Islam. If I had proof it wouldn't be a suspicion.
Like you clearly have a suspicion that I am a blinkered horrible racist yet don't have any proof of this.
So it's ok as long as it's directed against people you don't like.
Rscott
This is getting a bit bizarre now. I've already said twice that it's about the treatment of people who criticise Islam by the authorities.
Alpinestars
As I said I have a *suspicion* that this *may* be part of a pattern of behaviour by the authorities to stifle discussion of Islam. If I had proof it wouldn't be a suspicion.
Like you clearly have a suspicion that I am a blinkered horrible racist yet don't have any proof of this.
jjlynn27 said:
Who is 'we' who also know? Who are you representing?
I don't usually reply to your posts as they are way to predictable. Did you ever stop and think why so many different people think that you are bigoted racist?
I'd say you're the most predictable on here,I can tell your posts without even seeing the name as they usually have the words bigot or racist in them.I don't usually reply to your posts as they are way to predictable. Did you ever stop and think why so many different people think that you are bigoted racist?
jjlynn27 said:
Who is 'we' who also know? Who are you representing?
I don't usually reply to your posts as they are way to predictable. Did you ever stop and think why so many different people think that you are bigoted racist?
Yes I did think about that, as it happens. In the interests of a good natured debate I keep those suspicions to myself. I don't usually reply to your posts as they are way to predictable. Did you ever stop and think why so many different people think that you are bigoted racist?
AJS- said:
Fred
So it's ok as long as it's directed against people you don't like.
Rscott
This is getting a bit bizarre now. I've already said twice that it's about the treatment of people who criticise Islam by the authorities.
Alpinestars
As I said I have a *suspicion* that this *may* be part of a pattern of behaviour by the authorities to stifle discussion of Islam. If I had proof it wouldn't be a suspicion.
Like you clearly have a suspicion that I am a blinkered horrible racist yet don't have any proof of this.
So it's ok as long as it's directed against people you don't like.
Rscott
This is getting a bit bizarre now. I've already said twice that it's about the treatment of people who criticise Islam by the authorities.
Alpinestars
As I said I have a *suspicion* that this *may* be part of a pattern of behaviour by the authorities to stifle discussion of Islam. If I had proof it wouldn't be a suspicion.
Like you clearly have a suspicion that I am a blinkered horrible racist yet don't have any proof of this.
There's no proof at all of the bold - that's true. There's plenty of proof in your posting history (sadly mainly on threads which have been removed) that you seem to see an anti-Islamic link to events where most people don't.
How does kicking him out the pub 'stifle discussion of Islam'? Were he and the 17 other football fans kicked out of the same pub at the same time all having a discussion about Islam?
There's the same amount of evidence that the police did this to stifle discussion of Islam as there is that they did it to annoy convicted fraudsters.
AJS- said:
Fred
So it's ok as long as it's directed against people you don't like.
Pro active policing and crime prevention are ok, yes, within the bounds of what is reasonable, for the record there aren't many people I do like.So it's ok as long as it's directed against people you don't like.
It's not ok that mistakes are made, but in comparison to other incidents or pro active policing gone wrong I suspect this in of absolutely no consequence what so ever.
Isn't it the role of left wing hand wringers to belly ache about life no being fair and claiming constant victim status and decent hard working criminals and thugs to just get on with their lives in the stoic manner we'd expect from people with more tracksuits than brain cells?
AJS- said:
I never claimed to be an impartial observer.
If inciting racial hatred laws are used to stop people promoting violence against ethnic groups then it wouldn't be a problem. Wilders wasn't doing this. He was invited by two peers to discuss an issue they deemed worth investigating. Do you imagine that Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox were going to shave their heads and go out beating up Pakistanis after this discussion?
The laws were used stifle honest debate. Which is sinister in itself and stores up problems which will inevitably lead to more resentment and more radical opposition to Islam.
If you are convinced that these behaviours are not part of Islam then why not have that debate?
If a similar thought process has driven this then it is also wrong for the same reasons.
Religious hatred is not limited to the promotion of violence. If your behaviour is threatening, then you are breaking the law. I would consider that making a public argument that a particular religion should be made illegal and that all of their places of worship should be closed is threatening.If inciting racial hatred laws are used to stop people promoting violence against ethnic groups then it wouldn't be a problem. Wilders wasn't doing this. He was invited by two peers to discuss an issue they deemed worth investigating. Do you imagine that Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox were going to shave their heads and go out beating up Pakistanis after this discussion?
The laws were used stifle honest debate. Which is sinister in itself and stores up problems which will inevitably lead to more resentment and more radical opposition to Islam.
If you are convinced that these behaviours are not part of Islam then why not have that debate?
If a similar thought process has driven this then it is also wrong for the same reasons.
Perfectly justified to exclude these people from the country. The threshold for doing so does not need to be as high as the threshold for arresting someone who is already here.
Your argument seems to be that two wrongs should make a right. That anti-islamic extremists are not being allowed to incite as much religious hatred as Islamic extremists.
I think all extremists should stop messing around winding people up and get a proper job instead.
Same old faces falling over themselves to defend the human rights of a racist football hooligan scum, poor little hard-done-by-baby.
Same people who fall over themselves to argue that muslims and immigrants don't deserve any rights.
The double-standards are so transparent and embarrassing that I don't know how they have the gall to type.
Same people who fall over themselves to argue that muslims and immigrants don't deserve any rights.
The double-standards are so transparent and embarrassing that I don't know how they have the gall to type.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff