And compare.
And Met chief Sir Mark Rowley doubled today today, saying: ‘What the officer didn’t do last night was make up a law that it’s illegal to do something and do an arrest which would have been illegal, clearly.’
A few months back an autistic teenager accidentally scuffed a Quran. This is also not against the law and the police should not be making up laws. Yet they had the teenager and his mother dragged before a Muslim council to apologise for the offence caused.
Either both sets of actions are disrespectful and require the police to do something, or neither are. Another way of looking at it is, why do the Muzzies get special treatment when they are upset by their silly book being slightly scuffed, yet the vast majority of people in this country who rightfully expect yobs to be kept from harming our war memorials are ignored because no law was broken?
At some point, the dam will break and it won’t be pretty.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/26/student-urinated-war-memorial-sentenced
People go to prison for having the temerity of merely owning a television without government permission, but this low-life gets a pass based on his skin colour/religion?
Kafka couldn’t have made it up.
I don’t disagree but I suspect the difference here is urination. Urinating in public is an offence in its own right.
Quite, though it’s worthy of note that the alcohol compromised young man (done some stupid stuff myself under the influence), was mortified by his own behaviour. Losing his uni place (iirc) was maybe too much when you consider he was convicted and nationally shamed.
Not the case with memorial flag hangers and defacers, definitely behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace; damage to property is I think included in the act.
It is now my privilege to share with you the basis of government policy in the west with regard to the demands of the Islamic peoples.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN0T5tyJlo8
Section 4 (behaviour wirh the intention of causing distress) or 5 (causing a disturbance in the street) of the Public Order Act would fit the situation sufficiently. It’s not that Rowley us trying to gaslight the public, it’s that he’s so bad at it that is so offensive.
Unless I’m mistaken (let me know if I am), Otis Ferry was arrested at a Countryside Alliance march a few years back for climbing on a monument.
It seems that when lefties do it, en masse, it’s no longer a crime.
Why are the police so cowed by this religion? And why do they think that we are so stupid we can’t see the double standard they are waving right in our faces?
The obvious explanation would be that they (senior officers, anyway, and probably direct entry as such) don’t, actually, believe we are that stupid. They know we know, and they are confident they have the power and official protection to get away with it, and they enjoy that power.
I’ve just watched the linked videos, and whilst I find the cause of the demonstrations abhorrent, I don’t see anything there that the police can take positive action on.
Imagine the same monument, perhaps on a national day of celebration, with a chap waving a union jack on the top – national icon?
Yes I’m sure we all find this very distasteful (I certainly do), however we also know the longer term dystopian implications of preventing this; next year you will pop along to Cardiff to sit atop a statue of Aneurin Bevan whilst waving a crossed out NHS flag and get arrested for terrorism offenses. We the British invented and fought for the concept of freedom, yet these days we seem so keen to give it away whilst admonishing foreign powers for denying it to their own people.
TLDR (Useless at the end, I know); If we give the state the power to prevent this, they will find ways to use it against us forevermore.
I’m not suggesting a change in the law at all for the reasons you state. However, the Public Order Act could have been used to clear the protestors who climbed on the monuments. If the police can manage it for one group, they can manage it for another. What I’m really complaining about here is that policing is not even handed and that there are favoured groups – and it is blatantly obvious to everyone that it is going on. What I am arguing for is a return to Peelian principles and all equal under the law – so either everyone who climbs on a statue is prosecuted under the Public order Act, or none is. Either all protests are clamped down on using Covid powers, or none are. If people deliberately block the public highways without having gone through the due process of a closure notice then they are arrested, charged, prosecuted and either jailed or fined accordingly.
No new laws are needed. Just new police chiefs.
The cops on my Twitter timeline are all raging at the ‘lack of respect’ for the police, as evidenced by only one person coming to help a cop in a London MaccyD’s getting beat up by some local yoof (he has a female colleague who is less use than I’d be in a ruck), to which I say ‘reap what you sow’…
Respect is earned. It can also be lost. As is the case with a police force that engaged in two tier policing, is showing blatant dhimmitude in the face of an Islamic mob, takes the knee in honour of a violent thug, allows disruptive protestors to block the roads, yet will readily clamp down on the indigenous population who are just going about their lives – two women arrested to meeting up for coffee in the open countryside for example – that stood by while a mob tore down a statue in Bristol, yet went rushing in wielding batons when anti-lockdown protestors took to the streets.
The police deserve no respect. And from me, they get none. As far as I am concerned, they are the enemy.