Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. " Ellwood is one of the better Tories. This isn’t the way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. Ellwood is one of the better Tories. This isn’t the way. " As one of my local MPs I can confirm the guy is a bit of a tit. However, this is still not OK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. Ellwood is one of the better Tories. This isn’t the way. As one of my local MPs I can confirm the guy is a bit of a tit. However, this is still not OK. " I didn’t say he wasn’t a tit. I said he was one of the better Tories  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. Ellwood is one of the better Tories. This isn’t the way. As one of my local MPs I can confirm the guy is a bit of a tit. However, this is still not OK. I didn’t say he wasn’t a tit. I said he was one of the better Tories "I guess you're entitled to that opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. " Yes mp's need protecting from the politically engaged raving looney public.   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. Ellwood is one of the better Tories. This isn’t the way. As one of my local MPs I can confirm the guy is a bit of a tit. However, this is still not OK. " So he’s a “right tit” as opposed to a “left tit” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Police standing by doing nothing is the new way of policing, if they do go and make an arrest, a bleeding heart liberal judge will give them a cuddle and let them go." Should there be backlash? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. Ellwood is one of the better Tories. This isn’t the way. As one of my local MPs I can confirm the guy is a bit of a tit. However, this is still not OK. So he’s a “right tit” as opposed to a “left tit” "Just a bit of one of them  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Police standing by doing nothing is the new way of policing, if they do go and make an arrest, a bleeding heart liberal judge will give them a cuddle and let them go. Should there be backlash? " Anything to add, or being your usual self? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Police standing by doing nothing is the new way of policing, if they do go and make an arrest, a bleeding heart liberal judge will give them a cuddle and let them go. Should there be backlash? Anything to add, or being your usual self?" Well you didn’t respond elsewhere whilst also accusing me of not engaging. Wondered how consistent you were. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Police standing by doing nothing is the new way of policing, if they do go and make an arrest, a bleeding heart liberal judge will give them a cuddle and let them go. Should there be backlash? Anything to add, or being your usual self? Well you didn’t respond elsewhere whilst also accusing me of not engaging. Wondered how consistent you were. " You were trying to be clever, after I responded to a poster who said there could be backlash. It was obvious it was backlash towards the decision to find them guilty and then tell them they were not that guilty of anything. But you could smell a bite, something that you could catch and maul, and here you are still sniffing, which is why I ignored you in the first place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Police standing by doing nothing is the new way of policing, if they do go and make an arrest, a bleeding heart liberal judge will give them a cuddle and let them go. Should there be backlash? Anything to add, or being your usual self? Well you didn’t respond elsewhere whilst also accusing me of not engaging. Wondered how consistent you were. You were trying to be clever, after I responded to a poster who said there could be backlash. It was obvious it was backlash towards the decision to find them guilty and then tell them they were not that guilty of anything. But you could smell a bite, something that you could catch and maul, and here you are still sniffing, which is why I ignored you in the first place. " No, you said ‘there should be’ backlash - your words, not mine. I asked you to clarify what you meant, and you changed the subject. I mean, the thread is still there if you want to confirm your own words. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Police standing by doing nothing is the new way of policing, if they do go and make an arrest, a bleeding heart liberal judge will give them a cuddle and let them go. Should there be backlash? Anything to add, or being your usual self? Well you didn’t respond elsewhere whilst also accusing me of not engaging. Wondered how consistent you were. You were trying to be clever, after I responded to a poster who said there could be backlash. It was obvious it was backlash towards the decision to find them guilty and then tell them they were not that guilty of anything. But you could smell a bite, something that you could catch and maul, and here you are still sniffing, which is why I ignored you in the first place. No, you said ‘there should be’ backlash - your words, not mine. I asked you to clarify what you meant, and you changed the subject. I mean, the thread is still there if you want to confirm your own words. I have explained above, now stop following me around threads pestering me, you are derailing another topic.." It’s never you, is it?
Have a great day, dude. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. " I agree it's not okay. But is it legal ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Police standing by doing nothing is the new way of policing, if they do go and make an arrest, a bleeding heart liberal judge will give them a cuddle and let them go. Should there be backlash? Anything to add, or being your usual self? Well you didn’t respond elsewhere whilst also accusing me of not engaging. Wondered how consistent you were. You were trying to be clever, after I responded to a poster who said there could be backlash. It was obvious it was backlash towards the decision to find them guilty and then tell them they were not that guilty of anything. But you could smell a bite, something that you could catch and maul, and here you are still sniffing, which is why I ignored you in the first place. No, you said ‘there should be’ backlash - your words, not mine. I asked you to clarify what you meant, and you changed the subject. I mean, the thread is still there if you want to confirm your own words. I have explained above, now stop following me around threads pestering me, you are derailing another topic.. It’s never you, is it?
Have a great day, dude. "could or should, I don't care, the meaning is above. You have decided to follow me around threads, strange behaviour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. I agree it's not okay. But is it legal ? " At the very least it could've been dealt with by the Public Order Act. In terms of legal the Public Order Act has a wide scope. First thing, no one should be protest at an MPs personal address. Secondly, there were kids in the house. Dickheads, the lot of them, especially the one who ran for office. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. I agree it's not okay. But is it legal ? At the very least it could've been dealt with by the Public Order Act. In terms of legal the Public Order Act has a wide scope. First thing, no one should be protest at an MPs personal address. Secondly, there were kids in the house. Dickheads, the lot of them, especially the one who ran for office. " I'm not sure how. But not a lawyer! I agree the behaviour is bad. But to demand the police get involved mean we have to know what law has been broken. And ATM while we are hoping and expecting a law exists, we would need an expert to say if it does. Without a law, the issue isn't with the police or liberal judges, but lawmakers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. I agree it's not okay. But is it legal ? At the very least it could've been dealt with by the Public Order Act. In terms of legal the Public Order Act has a wide scope. First thing, no one should be protest at an MPs personal address. Secondly, there were kids in the house. Dickheads, the lot of them, especially the one who ran for office. I'm not sure how. But not a lawyer! I agree the behaviour is bad. But to demand the police get involved mean we have to know what law has been broken. And ATM while we are hoping and expecting a law exists, we would need an expert to say if it does. Without a law, the issue isn't with the police or liberal judges, but lawmakers. " When Yaxley-Lennon used to doorstep people it was generally dealt with. This isn’t exactly the same, but it’s definitely similar - though the right to protest is sacrosanct, there has to be limitations on doing it around someone’s house. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. I agree it's not okay. But is it legal ? At the very least it could've been dealt with by the Public Order Act. In terms of legal the Public Order Act has a wide scope. First thing, no one should be protest at an MPs personal address. Secondly, there were kids in the house. Dickheads, the lot of them, especially the one who ran for office. I'm not sure how. But not a lawyer! I agree the behaviour is bad. But to demand the police get involved mean we have to know what law has been broken. And ATM while we are hoping and expecting a law exists, we would need an expert to say if it does. Without a law, the issue isn't with the police or liberal judges, but lawmakers. " Common decency, don't go to a persons home mob handed chanting. Now we need a law, if one doesn't exist, for the police to say you shouldn't be doing that and still do nothing about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. I agree it's not okay. But is it legal ? At the very least it could've been dealt with by the Public Order Act. In terms of legal the Public Order Act has a wide scope. First thing, no one should be protest at an MPs personal address. Secondly, there were kids in the house. Dickheads, the lot of them, especially the one who ran for office. I'm not sure how. But not a lawyer! I agree the behaviour is bad. But to demand the police get involved mean we have to know what law has been broken. And ATM while we are hoping and expecting a law exists, we would need an expert to say if it does. Without a law, the issue isn't with the police or liberal judges, but lawmakers. " Section 5 of the public order act: (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or. (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. I agree it's not okay. But is it legal ? At the very least it could've been dealt with by the Public Order Act. In terms of legal the Public Order Act has a wide scope. First thing, no one should be protest at an MPs personal address. Secondly, there were kids in the house. Dickheads, the lot of them, especially the one who ran for office. I'm not sure how. But not a lawyer! I agree the behaviour is bad. But to demand the police get involved mean we have to know what law has been broken. And ATM while we are hoping and expecting a law exists, we would need an expert to say if it does. Without a law, the issue isn't with the police or liberal judges, but lawmakers. Section 5 of the public order act: (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or. (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."" was there threatening behaviour ? Or are we saying that any protest outside a home is threatening ? I wonder then where lines are drawn. Again, not defending them. Just giving the law a good tyre kicking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. I agree it's not okay. But is it legal ? At the very least it could've been dealt with by the Public Order Act. In terms of legal the Public Order Act has a wide scope. First thing, no one should be protest at an MPs personal address. Secondly, there were kids in the house. Dickheads, the lot of them, especially the one who ran for office. I'm not sure how. But not a lawyer! I agree the behaviour is bad. But to demand the police get involved mean we have to know what law has been broken. And ATM while we are hoping and expecting a law exists, we would need an expert to say if it does. Without a law, the issue isn't with the police or liberal judges, but lawmakers. Section 5 of the public order act: (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or. (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."was there threatening behaviour ? Or are we saying that any protest outside a home is threatening ? I wonder then where lines are drawn. Again, not defending them. Just giving the law a good tyre kicking. " The bit that would hold up in law is 'or disorderly behaviour'. There were signs there with Ellwood's face on stating complicit etc. There were screams of 'Yemen, Yemen do us proud'. Are we really gonna argue that these things would cause alarm or distress to children? Someone eluded to Tommy Robinson above, he was arrested because he (alone) could've caused alarm or distress to a group of thousands. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. I agree it's not okay. But is it legal ? At the very least it could've been dealt with by the Public Order Act. In terms of legal the Public Order Act has a wide scope. First thing, no one should be protest at an MPs personal address. Secondly, there were kids in the house. Dickheads, the lot of them, especially the one who ran for office. I'm not sure how. But not a lawyer! I agree the behaviour is bad. But to demand the police get involved mean we have to know what law has been broken. And ATM while we are hoping and expecting a law exists, we would need an expert to say if it does. Without a law, the issue isn't with the police or liberal judges, but lawmakers. Section 5 of the public order act: (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or. (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."was there threatening behaviour ? Or are we saying that any protest outside a home is threatening ? I wonder then where lines are drawn. Again, not defending them. Just giving the law a good tyre kicking. The bit that would hold up in law is 'or disorderly behaviour'. There were signs there with Ellwood's face on stating complicit etc. There were screams of 'Yemen, Yemen do us proud'. Are we really gonna argue that these things would cause alarm or distress to children? Someone eluded to Tommy Robinson above, he was arrested because he (alone) could've caused alarm or distress to a group of thousands. " as ever, IANAL. So I have no idea what constitutes disorderly here. We can have a view of what we believe, but without legal training we are guessing. I'm offering up an explanation that no arrests were made because they complied with the law. Even if the law is an ass. Before we criticise the police and judges, we need to understand the law. I don't understand the definition of disorderly as it stands on case law for protests so couldn't say either way whether it's the law of the police that was wrong. I'm not saying the police were right, just the could have been. I don't know which times are being referenced by Tommy Robinson. The last time was when there was a section somethingorother out so not quite apples with apples. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. I agree it's not okay. But is it legal ? At the very least it could've been dealt with by the Public Order Act. In terms of legal the Public Order Act has a wide scope. First thing, no one should be protest at an MPs personal address. Secondly, there were kids in the house. Dickheads, the lot of them, especially the one who ran for office. I'm not sure how. But not a lawyer! I agree the behaviour is bad. But to demand the police get involved mean we have to know what law has been broken. And ATM while we are hoping and expecting a law exists, we would need an expert to say if it does. Without a law, the issue isn't with the police or liberal judges, but lawmakers. Section 5 of the public order act: (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or. (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."was there threatening behaviour ? Or are we saying that any protest outside a home is threatening ? I wonder then where lines are drawn. Again, not defending them. Just giving the law a good tyre kicking. The bit that would hold up in law is 'or disorderly behaviour'. There were signs there with Ellwood's face on stating complicit etc. There were screams of 'Yemen, Yemen do us proud'. Are we really gonna argue that these things would cause alarm or distress to children? Someone eluded to Tommy Robinson above, he was arrested because he (alone) could've caused alarm or distress to a group of thousands. as ever, IANAL. So I have no idea what constitutes disorderly here. We can have a view of what we believe, but without legal training we are guessing. I'm offering up an explanation that no arrests were made because they complied with the law. Even if the law is an ass. Before we criticise the police and judges, we need to understand the law. I don't understand the definition of disorderly as it stands on case law for protests so couldn't say either way whether it's the law of the police that was wrong. I'm not saying the police were right, just the could have been. I don't know which times are being referenced by Tommy Robinson. The last time was when there was a section somethingorother out so not quite apples with apples. " The law is clear under section 5: Threatening, Abusive or Disorderly Behaviour (Section 5 Public Order Act 1986) – This offence can be caused by using abusive language or gestures with intent to cause another harassment alarm or distress. Whilst I agree there was a section 35 in place the last time Robinson was arrested, the section 35 could only be in place because it was a 'notified event', the reason they asked him to disperse was for the same reason they could have asked this crowd, well actually it was different but the possibility of alarm and distress, just the mere possibility as opposed to actual alarm and distress. There was no such option for a section 35 with this one because it wasn't notified. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. I agree it's not okay. But is it legal ? At the very least it could've been dealt with by the Public Order Act. In terms of legal the Public Order Act has a wide scope. First thing, no one should be protest at an MPs personal address. Secondly, there were kids in the house. Dickheads, the lot of them, especially the one who ran for office. I'm not sure how. But not a lawyer! I agree the behaviour is bad. But to demand the police get involved mean we have to know what law has been broken. And ATM while we are hoping and expecting a law exists, we would need an expert to say if it does. Without a law, the issue isn't with the police or liberal judges, but lawmakers. Section 5 of the public order act: (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or. (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."was there threatening behaviour ? Or are we saying that any protest outside a home is threatening ? I wonder then where lines are drawn. Again, not defending them. Just giving the law a good tyre kicking. The bit that would hold up in law is 'or disorderly behaviour'. There were signs there with Ellwood's face on stating complicit etc. There were screams of 'Yemen, Yemen do us proud'. Are we really gonna argue that these things would cause alarm or distress to children? Someone eluded to Tommy Robinson above, he was arrested because he (alone) could've caused alarm or distress to a group of thousands. as ever, IANAL. So I have no idea what constitutes disorderly here. We can have a view of what we believe, but without legal training we are guessing. I'm offering up an explanation that no arrests were made because they complied with the law. Even if the law is an ass. Before we criticise the police and judges, we need to understand the law. I don't understand the definition of disorderly as it stands on case law for protests so couldn't say either way whether it's the law of the police that was wrong. I'm not saying the police were right, just the could have been. I don't know which times are being referenced by Tommy Robinson. The last time was when there was a section somethingorother out so not quite apples with apples. The law is clear under section 5: Threatening, Abusive or Disorderly Behaviour (Section 5 Public Order Act 1986) – This offence can be caused by using abusive language or gestures with intent to cause another harassment alarm or distress. Whilst I agree there was a section 35 in place the last time Robinson was arrested, the section 35 could only be in place because it was a 'notified event', the reason they asked him to disperse was for the same reason they could have asked this crowd, well actually it was different but the possibility of alarm and distress, just the mere possibility as opposed to actual alarm and distress. There was no such option for a section 35 with this one because it wasn't notified." i have no idea if the bar was met here for any of those things. I'm not committing either way. My emotions reaction is that they were idiots and the police should have got rid of them. My attempt at critical thinking is that it could be the police could have done something buy chose not to. But also it could be that the law did not allow them to act so they had no choice. I dont know the law to say for sure either way, so am open to either versions of reality. If you are certain of the law and have reason to be certain then your views on what could be truth will be different to mine. Won't deny that. However for those who aren't well versed, yet believe the police should have acted, I would suggest that this is from a place of emotion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. I agree it's not okay. But is it legal ? At the very least it could've been dealt with by the Public Order Act. In terms of legal the Public Order Act has a wide scope. First thing, no one should be protest at an MPs personal address. Secondly, there were kids in the house. Dickheads, the lot of them, especially the one who ran for office. I'm not sure how. But not a lawyer! I agree the behaviour is bad. But to demand the police get involved mean we have to know what law has been broken. And ATM while we are hoping and expecting a law exists, we would need an expert to say if it does. Without a law, the issue isn't with the police or liberal judges, but lawmakers. Section 5 of the public order act: (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or. (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."was there threatening behaviour ? Or are we saying that any protest outside a home is threatening ? I wonder then where lines are drawn. Again, not defending them. Just giving the law a good tyre kicking. The bit that would hold up in law is 'or disorderly behaviour'. There were signs there with Ellwood's face on stating complicit etc. There were screams of 'Yemen, Yemen do us proud'. Are we really gonna argue that these things would cause alarm or distress to children? Someone eluded to Tommy Robinson above, he was arrested because he (alone) could've caused alarm or distress to a group of thousands. as ever, IANAL. So I have no idea what constitutes disorderly here. We can have a view of what we believe, but without legal training we are guessing. I'm offering up an explanation that no arrests were made because they complied with the law. Even if the law is an ass. Before we criticise the police and judges, we need to understand the law. I don't understand the definition of disorderly as it stands on case law for protests so couldn't say either way whether it's the law of the police that was wrong. I'm not saying the police were right, just the could have been. I don't know which times are being referenced by Tommy Robinson. The last time was when there was a section somethingorother out so not quite apples with apples. The law is clear under section 5: Threatening, Abusive or Disorderly Behaviour (Section 5 Public Order Act 1986) – This offence can be caused by using abusive language or gestures with intent to cause another harassment alarm or distress. Whilst I agree there was a section 35 in place the last time Robinson was arrested, the section 35 could only be in place because it was a 'notified event', the reason they asked him to disperse was for the same reason they could have asked this crowd, well actually it was different but the possibility of alarm and distress, just the mere possibility as opposed to actual alarm and distress. There was no such option for a section 35 with this one because it wasn't notified.i have no idea if the bar was met here for any of those things. I'm not committing either way. My emotions reaction is that they were idiots and the police should have got rid of them. My attempt at critical thinking is that it could be the police could have done something buy chose not to. But also it could be that the law did not allow them to act so they had no choice. I dont know the law to say for sure either way, so am open to either versions of reality. If you are certain of the law and have reason to be certain then your views on what could be truth will be different to mine. Won't deny that. However for those who aren't well versed, yet believe the police should have acted, I would suggest that this is from a place of emotion. " I'm absolutely certain of the law on this. However, just on a tangent, didn't a lot of people complain that police were trying to ban protests with the latest laws | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. I agree it's not okay. But is it legal ? At the very least it could've been dealt with by the Public Order Act. In terms of legal the Public Order Act has a wide scope. First thing, no one should be protest at an MPs personal address. Secondly, there were kids in the house. Dickheads, the lot of them, especially the one who ran for office. I'm not sure how. But not a lawyer! I agree the behaviour is bad. But to demand the police get involved mean we have to know what law has been broken. And ATM while we are hoping and expecting a law exists, we would need an expert to say if it does. Without a law, the issue isn't with the police or liberal judges, but lawmakers. Section 5 of the public order act: (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or. (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."was there threatening behaviour ? Or are we saying that any protest outside a home is threatening ? I wonder then where lines are drawn. Again, not defending them. Just giving the law a good tyre kicking. The bit that would hold up in law is 'or disorderly behaviour'. There were signs there with Ellwood's face on stating complicit etc. There were screams of 'Yemen, Yemen do us proud'. Are we really gonna argue that these things would cause alarm or distress to children? Someone eluded to Tommy Robinson above, he was arrested because he (alone) could've caused alarm or distress to a group of thousands. as ever, IANAL. So I have no idea what constitutes disorderly here. We can have a view of what we believe, but without legal training we are guessing. I'm offering up an explanation that no arrests were made because they complied with the law. Even if the law is an ass. Before we criticise the police and judges, we need to understand the law. I don't understand the definition of disorderly as it stands on case law for protests so couldn't say either way whether it's the law of the police that was wrong. I'm not saying the police were right, just the could have been. I don't know which times are being referenced by Tommy Robinson. The last time was when there was a section somethingorother out so not quite apples with apples. The law is clear under section 5: Threatening, Abusive or Disorderly Behaviour (Section 5 Public Order Act 1986) – This offence can be caused by using abusive language or gestures with intent to cause another harassment alarm or distress. Whilst I agree there was a section 35 in place the last time Robinson was arrested, the section 35 could only be in place because it was a 'notified event', the reason they asked him to disperse was for the same reason they could have asked this crowd, well actually it was different but the possibility of alarm and distress, just the mere possibility as opposed to actual alarm and distress. There was no such option for a section 35 with this one because it wasn't notified.i have no idea if the bar was met here for any of those things. I'm not committing either way. My emotions reaction is that they were idiots and the police should have got rid of them. My attempt at critical thinking is that it could be the police could have done something buy chose not to. But also it could be that the law did not allow them to act so they had no choice. I dont know the law to say for sure either way, so am open to either versions of reality. If you are certain of the law and have reason to be certain then your views on what could be truth will be different to mine. Won't deny that. However for those who aren't well versed, yet believe the police should have acted, I would suggest that this is from a place of emotion. I'm absolutely certain of the law on this. However, just on a tangent, didn't a lot of people complain that police were trying to ban protests with the latest laws "fake news. It was the Tories not the police. The police are liberal lefties. 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. I agree it's not okay. But is it legal ? At the very least it could've been dealt with by the Public Order Act. In terms of legal the Public Order Act has a wide scope. First thing, no one should be protest at an MPs personal address. Secondly, there were kids in the house. Dickheads, the lot of them, especially the one who ran for office. I'm not sure how. But not a lawyer! I agree the behaviour is bad. But to demand the police get involved mean we have to know what law has been broken. And ATM while we are hoping and expecting a law exists, we would need an expert to say if it does. Without a law, the issue isn't with the police or liberal judges, but lawmakers. Section 5 of the public order act: (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or. (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."was there threatening behaviour ? Or are we saying that any protest outside a home is threatening ? I wonder then where lines are drawn. Again, not defending them. Just giving the law a good tyre kicking. The bit that would hold up in law is 'or disorderly behaviour'. There were signs there with Ellwood's face on stating complicit etc. There were screams of 'Yemen, Yemen do us proud'. Are we really gonna argue that these things would cause alarm or distress to children? Someone eluded to Tommy Robinson above, he was arrested because he (alone) could've caused alarm or distress to a group of thousands. as ever, IANAL. So I have no idea what constitutes disorderly here. We can have a view of what we believe, but without legal training we are guessing. I'm offering up an explanation that no arrests were made because they complied with the law. Even if the law is an ass. Before we criticise the police and judges, we need to understand the law. I don't understand the definition of disorderly as it stands on case law for protests so couldn't say either way whether it's the law of the police that was wrong. I'm not saying the police were right, just the could have been. I don't know which times are being referenced by Tommy Robinson. The last time was when there was a section somethingorother out so not quite apples with apples. The law is clear under section 5: Threatening, Abusive or Disorderly Behaviour (Section 5 Public Order Act 1986) – This offence can be caused by using abusive language or gestures with intent to cause another harassment alarm or distress. Whilst I agree there was a section 35 in place the last time Robinson was arrested, the section 35 could only be in place because it was a 'notified event', the reason they asked him to disperse was for the same reason they could have asked this crowd, well actually it was different but the possibility of alarm and distress, just the mere possibility as opposed to actual alarm and distress. There was no such option for a section 35 with this one because it wasn't notified.i have no idea if the bar was met here for any of those things. I'm not committing either way. My emotions reaction is that they were idiots and the police should have got rid of them. My attempt at critical thinking is that it could be the police could have done something buy chose not to. But also it could be that the law did not allow them to act so they had no choice. I dont know the law to say for sure either way, so am open to either versions of reality. If you are certain of the law and have reason to be certain then your views on what could be truth will be different to mine. Won't deny that. However for those who aren't well versed, yet believe the police should have acted, I would suggest that this is from a place of emotion. I'm absolutely certain of the law on this. However, just on a tangent, didn't a lot of people complain that police were trying to ban protests with the latest laws fake news. It was the Tories not the police. The police are liberal lefties.
"You're right. Can you stop correcting me please | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. " firstly i agree its not ok,where the protesters breaking the law ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. firstly i agree its not ok,where the protesters breaking the law ?" If you read above you'll find the answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. firstly i agree its not ok,where the protesters breaking the law ?" "If you read above you'll find the answer." I don't think he will. So far you have not presented any examples of threats or abuse made by the protesters. Without those, and in the absence of disorderly behaviour, there's no case to answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. firstly i agree its not ok,where the protesters breaking the law ? If you read above you'll find the answer. I don't think he will. So far you have not presented any examples of threats or abuse made by the protesters. Without those, and in the absence of disorderly behaviour, there's no case to answer." Section 5, definition of disorderly conduct. Maybe they weren't trying to harass, maybe they just wanted to tell him how much they loved him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. firstly i agree its not ok,where the protesters breaking the law ?" "If you read above you'll find the answer." "I don't think he will. So far you have not presented any examples of threats or abuse made by the protesters. Without those, and in the absence of disorderly behaviour, there's no case to answer." "Section 5, definition of disorderly conduct." Section 5 refers to "disorderly behaviour", which is not the same thing as "disorderly conduct". Disorderly behaviour is not defined in the Public Order Act 1986. "Maybe they weren't trying to harass, maybe they just wanted to tell him how much they loved him." It is clear that they were trying to harass him, but no section 5 offence takes place unless that harassment includes the use of threats or abuse. You have not provided any evidence of threats or abuse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. firstly i agree its not ok,where the protesters breaking the law ? If you read above you'll find the answer. I don't think he will. So far you have not presented any examples of threats or abuse made by the protesters. Without those, and in the absence of disorderly behaviour, there's no case to answer. Section 5, definition of disorderly conduct. Section 5 refers to "disorderly behaviour", which is not the same thing as "disorderly conduct". Disorderly behaviour is not defined in the Public Order Act 1986. Maybe they weren't trying to harass, maybe they just wanted to tell him how much they loved him. It is clear that they were trying to harass him, but no section 5 offence takes place unless that harassment includes the use of threats or abuse. You have not provided any evidence of threats or abuse." Apologies, disorderly behaviour. This is from the CPS: Whether behaviour can be properly categorised as disorderly is a question of fact. Disorderly behaviour does not require any element of violence, actual or threatened; and it includes conduct that is not necessarily threatening or abusive. It is not necessary to prove any feeling of insecurity, in an apprehensive sense, on the part of a member of the public (Chambers and Edwards v DPP [1995] Crim LR 896). The following types of conduct are (non-exhaustive) examples, which are capable of amounting to disorderly behaviour: Causing a disturbance in a residential area or common part of a block of flats; Persistently shouting abuse or obscenities at passers-by; Pestering people waiting to catch public transport or otherwise waiting in a queue; Rowdy behaviour in a street late at night which might alarm residents or passers-by; be Causing a disturbance in a shopping precinct or other area to which the public have access or might otherwise gather; From the commons library: Section 5 makes it an offence to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour” or to display “any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting” within the hearing or sight of a person “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whether behaviour can be properly categorised as disorderly is a question of fact. Disorderly behaviour does not require any element of violence, actual or threatened; and it includes conduct that is not necessarily threatening or abusive. It is not necessary to prove any feeling of insecurity, in an apprehensive sense, on the part of a member of the public (Chambers and Edwards v DPP [1995] Crim LR 896). The following types of conduct are (non-exhaustive) examples, which are capable of amounting to disorderly behaviour: Causing a disturbance in a residential area or common part of a block of flats; Persistently shouting abuse or obscenities at passers-by; Pestering people waiting to catch public transport or otherwise waiting in a queue; Rowdy behaviour in a street late at night which might alarm residents or passers-by; be Causing a disturbance in a shopping precinct or other area to which the public have access or might otherwise gather; From the commons library: Section 5 makes it an offence to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour” or to display “any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting” within the hearing or sight of a person “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”." And did the protesters do anything like the examples above? Or did they hold an organised protest with all of their chants directed at a well-defined target? If it's the latter, there's no disorderly behaviour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whether behaviour can be properly categorised as disorderly is a question of fact. Disorderly behaviour does not require any element of violence, actual or threatened; and it includes conduct that is not necessarily threatening or abusive. It is not necessary to prove any feeling of insecurity, in an apprehensive sense, on the part of a member of the public (Chambers and Edwards v DPP [1995] Crim LR 896). The following types of conduct are (non-exhaustive) examples, which are capable of amounting to disorderly behaviour: Causing a disturbance in a residential area or common part of a block of flats; Persistently shouting abuse or obscenities at passers-by; Pestering people waiting to catch public transport or otherwise waiting in a queue; Rowdy behaviour in a street late at night which might alarm residents or passers-by; be Causing a disturbance in a shopping precinct or other area to which the public have access or might otherwise gather; From the commons library: Section 5 makes it an offence to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour” or to display “any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting” within the hearing or sight of a person “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. And did the protesters do anything like the examples above? Or did they hold an organised protest with all of their chants directed at a well-defined target? If it's the latter, there's no disorderly behaviour." They definitely caused a disturbance in a residential area. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whether behaviour can be properly categorised as disorderly is a question of fact. Disorderly behaviour does not require any element of violence, actual or threatened; and it includes conduct that is not necessarily threatening or abusive. It is not necessary to prove any feeling of insecurity, in an apprehensive sense, on the part of a member of the public (Chambers and Edwards v DPP [1995] Crim LR 896). The following types of conduct are (non-exhaustive) examples, which are capable of amounting to disorderly behaviour: Causing a disturbance in a residential area or common part of a block of flats; Persistently shouting abuse or obscenities at passers-by; Pestering people waiting to catch public transport or otherwise waiting in a queue; Rowdy behaviour in a street late at night which might alarm residents or passers-by; be Causing a disturbance in a shopping precinct or other area to which the public have access or might otherwise gather; From the commons library: Section 5 makes it an offence to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour” or to display “any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting” within the hearing or sight of a person “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”." "And did the protesters do anything like the examples above? Or did they hold an organised protest with all of their chants directed at a well-defined target? If it's the latter, there's no disorderly behaviour." "They definitely caused a disturbance in a residential area. " Did they? Are you saying that they caused a disturbance in the legal sense, i e. that they blocked access, cut off utilities, or otherwise prevented a resident from performing their lawful activities? Or are you talking about the common language sense that they were a bit noisy? I'm not attempting to defend the protestors in any way. Earlier on someone asked "were the protesters breaking the law", and you replied "If you read above you'll find the answer". I'm just pointing out that he won't find the answer above, because this thread contains no accurate description of what the protesters were doing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now we have seen protests outside an MPs personal dwelling. The protest was organised by an ex-Labour candidate who Ellwood beat at the last election. Apparently Ellwoods wife and kids were home. This is not fucking OK. And yet the police stand by and watch it happen. firstly i agree its not ok,where the protesters breaking the law ? If you read above you'll find the answer. " Cany be arsed looking for it,but im sure if they were they would have been arrested | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They turned up to intimidate and cause a nusance, surely the mp's surgery is the normal place to ask questions or vent your disapproval of the government, what i saw was harassment, the hos 'horse' whip would of made a show if it was outside my house." Yet the police who were at the scene saw no harrasment | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yet the police who were at the scene saw no harassment" You mean that the police saw nothing arrestable. Harassment on it's own is not an offence, it has to be combined with threats or abuse to become an offence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yet the police who were at the scene saw no harassment You mean that the police saw nothing arrestable. Harassment on it's own is not an offence, it has to be combined with threats or abuse to become an offence." Yip | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It turns out Ellwood has said he wasn't at home, the police notified him not to return home so as to not incite the crowd. So most of what I've said previously re. children being in the house etc was wrong. " Oops but good of you to own it 
Saying that…what a farce! I do not agree with protesting outside an MPs family home but if you are going to protest, at least make sure they are in!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not agree with protesting outside an MPs family home but if you are going to protest, at least make sure they are in!" Maybe it was deliberate. Protesting at an empty house will make sure that all the pictures are of you and your signs. If the family had been home the papers would be full of pictures of terrified children and a haunted looking spouse. The kids are aged 15 and 10, so still young enough to make good victims for the media if they'd been home. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not agree with protesting outside an MPs family home but if you are going to protest, at least make sure they are in! Maybe it was deliberate. Protesting at an empty house will make sure that all the pictures are of you and your signs. If the family had been home the papers would be full of pictures of terrified children and a haunted looking spouse. The kids are aged 15 and 10, so still young enough to make good victims for the media if they'd been home." Good point. Media coverage but without actual condemnation! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It turns out Ellwood has said he wasn't at home, the police notified him not to return home so as to not incite the crowd. So most of what I've said previously re. children being in the house etc was wrong. Oops but good of you to own it
Saying that…what a farce! I do not agree with protesting outside an MPs family home but if you are going to protest, at least make sure they are in! "I'll always own it if it turns out I'm actually wrong, that's not very often, but usually when discussing with you as you're always right  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not agree with protesting outside an MPs family home but if you are going to protest, at least make sure they are in! Maybe it was deliberate. Protesting at an empty house will make sure that all the pictures are of you and your signs. If the family had been home the papers would be full of pictures of terrified children and a haunted looking spouse. The kids are aged 15 and 10, so still young enough to make good victims for the media if they'd been home." You give them far too much credit.... It was probably a low footfall night at McDonalds... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It turns out Ellwood has said he wasn't at home, the police notified him not to return home so as to not incite the crowd. So most of what I've said previously re. children being in the house etc was wrong. Oops but good of you to own it
Saying that…what a farce! I do not agree with protesting outside an MPs family home but if you are going to protest, at least make sure they are in!
I'll always own it if it turns out I'm actually wrong, that's not very often, but usually when discussing with you as you're always right "Well that was another example of you being right by saying I am always right so fair play Feisty | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not agree with protesting outside an MPs family home but if you are going to protest, at least make sure they are in! Maybe it was deliberate. Protesting at an empty house will make sure that all the pictures are of you and your signs. If the family had been home the papers would be full of pictures of terrified children and a haunted looking spouse. The kids are aged 15 and 10, so still young enough to make good victims for the media if they'd been home. You give them far too much credit.... It was probably a low footfall night at McDonalds... " But wasn’t McDonalds being boycotted | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not agree with protesting outside an MPs family home but if you are going to protest, at least make sure they are in! Maybe it was deliberate. Protesting at an empty house will make sure that all the pictures are of you and your signs. If the family had been home the papers would be full of pictures of terrified children and a haunted looking spouse. The kids are aged 15 and 10, so still young enough to make good victims for the media if they'd been home. You give them far too much credit.... It was probably a low footfall night at McDonalds... But wasn’t McDonalds being boycotted "Exactly, the people going in and out of McDonalds on cold Tuesday night in Bournemouth would have been very low. I reckon one of them had a brain fart and said I know let's protest outside that genocide supporting Ellwood's house. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more you read about Ellwood you see him for the inept public school tosser he is Maybe he should take his own children to the khan younis displacement camp to walk around anckie deep in shit and piss with the other kids https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/13/tobias-ellwood-quits-as-chair-of-defence-select-committee-over-taliban-remarks" Are you angry he went to Afghanistan and managed to praise the taliban? What has this got to do with gaza? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The protesters should really stand outside the Israel embassy, the chances of it being empty are slim to none." Only if the trains are running from Bournemouth to London | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
