The impartial BBC

[Jiffie]

I watched an advert earlier made by a white Scottish nurse who works all over the world but mainly Africa for Medecins Sans Frontieres and thought now that Saint Lenny Henry and Saint David Lammy don't want white 'celebs' to go to Africa to report for children in need anymore, is it still ok for white doctors, nurses, medics and orderlies to go there to offer their skills?

 

[BCFCRob]

5 charged after the anti lockdown protest.

4 charged after the BLM protests.

What exactly is the problem?

 

[Cliftonville]

5 charged after the anti lockdown protest.

4 charged after the BLM protests.

What exactly is the problem?

Impartiality and evenness from authority and media.

 

[Jiffie]

5 charged after the anti lockdown protest.

4 charged after the BLM protests.

What exactly is the problem?

The problem is, the police openly colluded with the BLM organisers back in June and social distancing was non existent and criminal damage was allowed to happen.

 

[wizered]

The problem is, the police openly colluded with the BLM organisers back in June and social distancing was non existent and criminal damage was allowed to happen.

I can't dispute the lack of lawful control and lawlessness that we all suffered from took place but I refuse to believe the honest copper on the beat colluded with lawbreakers, it was our masters in control that ballsed it all up, blame the decision makers in local government and the liberal elite.

Our law enforcers are controlled by them and the snowflakes that run them.

 

[Jiffie]

I can't dispute the lack of lawful control and lawlessness that we all suffered from took place but I refuse to believe the honest copper on the beat colluded with lawbreakers, it was our masters in control that ballsed it all up, blame the decision makers in local government and the liberal elite.

Our law enforcers are controlled by them and the snowflakes that run them.

Over the past couple of years A & S police has sat down and worked with the organisers of XR for instance and all stages commented on their right to peaceful demonstration. Yet in 2019 allowed them to close off Bristol bridge for several days and no action was taken, even though obstruction of the highway is an offence, A & S never took any action until XR decided to leave the agreed script and block off the M32 but A & S still sit down with XR and help them plan their next demo that closed off Prince Street bridge during the pandemic with little or no social distancing earlier this year.

The irony is you go to Bristol bridge or Prince street bridge and stage a sit down in the road and your feet will not touch the ground, I guarantee it, because it's unlawful.

As you are aware the three lions has it's flag day once a year and last year I took my youngest granddaughter to see it, the organisers always ask A & S to close West Street off for the event (and for the record, I am not supporting that) but A & S always refuse and the compromise is the road is closed for 1 minute, bang on 1 minute and 6 police horses were sent through the crowd to disperse it from the roadway and met with a chorus of angry boos and a chant of "where were you at Bristol bridge".

Fast forward to the BLM march, it is a matter of record that in the lead up to the march as with XR the police sat with the organisers to plan the details. The protesters came equipped with ropes and the toppling of that statue was pre planned, try taking a haversack full of rope into Ashton Gate?, I would lay a pound to to pinch of ****, that A & S had intel that told them that this was going to happen and when it did stood idly by and allowed it to happen and said they feared that violence would erupt if they intervened. Do you honestly believe that if the same amount of football supporters pulled the same stunt that the old Bill would stand idly by? of course not they love a good punch up with football fans.

The police are not controlled by politicians, chief constables make all operational decisions in fact if you look back to the BLM fiasco the A & S chief defended himself against the home secretary over her severe criticism and was backed by the PCC of A & S, even the national leader of the police federation criticised the actions of A & S on that day.

The problem is a simple one, the law is the law, there is no distinction that allows for one section of the community to openly break the laws of the land under any circumstances, the right to peaceful protest does not allow for that distinction either.

XR and BLM are pretty much the same rent a mob have been allowed to break the laws of social distancing etc. with their demos during lockdown but an anti lockdown demo is deemed illegal before it has even happened.

I refer you back to investigating and carrying out the law of the land without fear and favour, it has died a death in the UK.

 

[Reliant Robin TC2]

I can't dispute the lack of lawful control and lawlessness that we all suffered from took place but I refuse to believe the honest copper on the beat colluded with lawbreakers, it was our masters in control that ballsed it all up, blame the decision makers in local government and the liberal elite.

Our law enforcers are controlled by them and the snowflakes that run them.

I've said this elsewhere, it's not about the front line Police officers but their senior officers.

I find it nigh on impossible to believe that they were unaware of the events that were about to unfold. If they were aware, it would seem that senior Police officers in Avon and Somerset decided to allow it to happen. I don't know why they should do that.

There is a system in place called "mutual aid"; in the event of an upcoming situation over stretching available local resources, they could have called upon officers from other forces. Had those officers been in the centre that day there is likely to have been confrontation, but it would have been controllable.

As it was, mob-rule was allowed to prevail. Regrettably, in my view.

 

[Jiffie]

I've said this elsewhere, it's not about the front line Police officers but their senior officers.

I find it nigh on impossible to believe that they were unaware of the events that were about to unfold. If they were aware, it would seem that senior Police officers in Avon and Somerset decided to allow it to happen. I don't know why they should do that.

There is a system in place called "mutual aid"; in the event of an upcoming situation over stretching available local resources, they could have called upon officers from other forces. Had those officers been in the centre that day there is likely to have been confrontation, but it would have been controllable.

As it was, mob-rule was allowed to prevail. Regrettably, in my view.

Spot on, police forces have an army of officers and backroom staff who spend their time monitoring social media.

The rave at south Gloucestershire a couple of weeks ago for instance, could and should have been stopped before it started, my 17 year granddaughter new all of the details down here in leafy Dorset 2 weeks before it happened.

The police have become very reactive and not pro active these days (a bit like Mr Diedhiou as a striker) they would rather allow it to happen and then pick up the pieces.

One final point does anybody believe that in scenario regarding the destruction of Colston's statue (or should I call it Beacon's statue) that if it had been football supporters that they would have treated so leniently by the police?

 

[oneforthebristolcity]

One final point does anybody believe that in scenario regarding the destruction of Colston's statue (or should I call it Beacon's statue) that if it had been football supporters that they would have treated so leniently by the police?

They would have been in full riot gear with horses mate...those involved would have been arrested on the spot. 100%

 

[Jiffie]

This is what is going on folks, it is possible to directly join the police as a superintendent, the equivalent of 4 promotions (something that should take a minimum of 10 years) WTF do they know about policing, even after 18 months and what respect do they have with the men who do the job on the frontline?.

https://recruit.college.police.uk/O.../Direct-Entry-(Superintendent)-Programme.aspx

 

[Jiffie]

They would have been in full riot gear with horses mate...those involved would have been arrested on the spot. 100%

Yep but full riot gear in the face of XR and BLM would be considered oppressive.

Dual standards.

 

[BCFCRob]

You're creating false equivalencies though. No two things here are the same and like it or not, these people do and should have a right to a peaceful protest. BLM is a cause for which some people have a genuine reason to be angry, and where the Police will have to manage the situation appropriately. The alternative in some cases is that the Police go in far more heavy handed (the Americans love it don't they), more arrests are made, more lives are ruined, and so on. You subsequently find tensions are higher next time, people have even less trust in authorities, etc.

I would imagine it is a very fine line policing any kind of protest and I think for the most part they probably do a decent job here. You very rarely hear of actual riots and the sort of stuff you find abroad.

I'm not saying that what went on that day is correct, far from it. But there's a big difference between tearing down a statue because your ancestors were enslaved, and tearing down a statue because your team lost a football match. Both are wrong but one is more of an overreaction than the other.

Completely agree on the Yate rave thing though. Knowing how these things are set up (I was young not too long ago) I'd be amazed if they knew about it 2 weeks in advance to be honest but there's no doubt they could have been and probably were aware about it prior to the thing itself.

 

[Jiffie]

You're creating false equivalencies though. No two things here are the same and like it or not, these people do and should have a right to a peaceful protest. BLM is a cause for which some people have a genuine reason to be angry, and where the Police will have to manage the situation appropriately. The alternative in some cases is that the Police go in far more heavy handed (the Americans love it don't they), more arrests are made, more lives are ruined, and so on. You subsequently find tensions are higher next time, people have even less trust in authorities, etc.

I would imagine it is a very fine line policing any kind of protest and I think for the most part they probably do a decent job here. You very rarely hear of actual riots and the sort of stuff you find abroad.

I'm not saying that what went on that day is correct, far from it. But there's a big difference between tearing down a statue because your ancestors were enslaved, and tearing down a statue because your team lost a football match. Both are wrong but one is more of an overreaction than the other.

Completely agree on the Yate rave thing though. Knowing how these things are set up (I was young not too long ago) I'd be amazed if they knew about it 2 weeks in advance to be honest but there's no doubt they could have been and probably were aware about it prior to the thing itself.

Please show me in the law of the land where your distinction comes from?

So if I was with a group of football supporters that pulled that statue down but claimed it was for political reasons that I pulled it down, that would be accepted?

There should be no distinction and people should be dealt with without fear or favour, that is the law.

As for the Yate rave, it was all over social media 2 weeks before, but hey if we go with your scenario, roadblocks around the city and stopping people with addresses from outside the area with no lawful reason to be in the area.

I have not mentioned that whilst XR were closing the M32 against the terms of their discussions with the police, one man was unable to say goodbye to his dying father and another being taken to the BRI by ambulance with serious head injuries, had to be transferred into a helicopter and taken to Southmead, a delay that left him brain dead.

 

[BCFCRob]

Please show me in the law of the land where your distinction comes from?

So if I was with a group of football supporters that pulled that statue down but claimed it was for political reasons that I pulled it down, that would be accepted?

There should be no distinction and people should be dealt with without fear or favour, that is the law.

Well there is no distinction within the law, though the law can be interpreted contextually. But are you seriously telling me that if you see a group of people protesting due to years of genuine oppression, and then if you see a group of grown men crying over losing a football match, that you then think they are equally justified in their actions? That is ridiculous.

As for the Yate rave, it was all over social media 2 weeks before, but hey if we go with your scenario, roadblocks around the city and stopping people with addresses from outside the area with no lawful reason to be in the area.

I have not mentioned that whilst XR were closing the M32 against the terms of their discussions with the police, one man was unable to say goodbye to his dying father and another being taken to the BRI by ambulance with serious head injuries, had to be transferred into a helicopter and taken to Southmead, a delay that left him brain dead.

Well forgive me, you do have a track record of claiming things are 'all over' a website or social media and that claim turning out to be provably false so I'll go with what I know until I see otherwise.

XR blocking ambulances is completely unforgivable. What they did should be a criminal offence in itself (if it isn't already). I'm not drawing any comparison with that.

 

[Jiffie]

Well there is no distinction within the law, though the law can be interpreted contextually. But are you seriously telling me that if you see a group of people protesting due to years of genuine oppression, and then if you see a group of grown men crying over losing a football match, that you then think they are equally justified in their actions? That is ridiculous.

You are right I am not saying that, I am saying that neither are justified in the eyes of the law, neither carries that distinction either in the eyes of the law and it was obviously pre planned, of course unless of course the people with the ropes had just come from the climbing centre.


Well forgive me, you do have a track record of claiming things are 'all over' a website or social media and that claim turning out to be provably false so I'll go with what I know until I see otherwise.

That will need evidencing.

 

[BCFCRob]

Technically, yes, the protest is justified in the eyes of the law, and the UK we do allow contextual factors and mitigating circumstances to have a place in court and in sentencing. CPS guidelines encourage them to be considered. I'm not a lawyer, but I know enough about it to know that it is not as black and white as you are making it out to be. A distinction in the examples I've made could and probably would be made.

And I already evidenced the latter, very clearly, using Internet archives of the BBC site. You started squirming and at that point I thought I'd leave you be, but I haven't forgotten that you're willing to make things up to prove a point.

 

[Cliftonville]

You're creating false equivalencies though. No two things here are the same and like it or not, these people do and should have a right to a peaceful protest. BLM is a cause for which some people have a genuine reason to be angry, and where the Police will have to manage the situation appropriately. The alternative in some cases is that the Police go in far more heavy handed (the Americans love it don't they), more arrests are made, more lives are ruined, and so on. You subsequently find tensions are higher next time, people have even less trust in authorities, etc.

I would imagine it is a very fine line policing any kind of protest and I think for the most part they probably do a decent job here. You very rarely hear of actual riots and the sort of stuff you find abroad.

I'm not saying that what went on that day is correct, far from it. But there's a big difference between tearing down a statue because your ancestors were enslaved, and tearing down a statue because your team lost a football match. Both are wrong but one is more of an overreaction than the other.

Completely agree on the Yate rave thing though. Knowing how these things are set up (I was young not too long ago) I'd be amazed if they knew about it 2 weeks in advance to be honest but there's no doubt they could have been and probably were aware about it prior to the thing itself.

The events are equivalent because the law is supposed to be applied evenly.

This is clearly not occurring.

The police at the BLM protest allowed violent acts to occur and we're negligent.

A small group of football fans defended Bristol Cenotaph that the police had left unguarded along with other obvious targets. These people were condemned as far right by the police - A cursory view of you tube will confirm this to be a disgusting lie. The individual leading them was not white or far white. The Avon and Somerset police knowingly lied to the media and public.

 

[Jiffie]

Technically, yes, the protest is justified in the eyes of the law, and the UK we do allow contextual factors and mitigating circumstances to have a place in court and in sentencing. CPS guidelines encourage them to be considered. I'm not a lawyer, but I know enough about it to know that it is not as black and white as you are making it out to be. A distinction in the examples I've made could and probably would be made.

And I already evidenced the latter, very clearly, using Internet archives of the BBC site. You started squirming and at that point I thought I'd leave you be, but I haven't forgotten that you're willing to make things up to prove a point.

So here's a question for you, given the report of the EHRC into institutional anti semitism in the labour party, would you be so lenient towards relatives of holocaust survivors causing damage to statues of labour politicians or in fact labour HQ? after all they were and have been oppressed throughout history.

And whilst on the subject of 'oppression' why not make a distinction about the black people involved in the damage to the statue (because they are far more likely to have been oppressed) and the white people involved (statistically less likely to have been oppressed).

Where to draw the line?

The law is the law there is no 'technically' under any circumstances, Bristol under marvellous Marvin had ample opportunity to poll the Bristol people on what to do about Bristol's past slave trade history instead of allowing it to be imposed upon them by mob rule and he ignored it, even a plea by Bristol labour MP Thangham Debonaire nearly 2 years ago on the issue of that statue.

 

[BCFCRob]

The events are equivalent because the law is supposed to be applied evenly.

This is clearly not occurring.

Isn't it bloody amazing how when you want it to be, everything is 'nuanced' but in matters like this which are plain as day, everything has to be black or white.

If a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, is he as bad as a man who steals for pure greed? The law is more than just the bare crime itself. You know it, and you're choosing to be ignorant of it.

If a man protests because his family has been oppressed for decades, or because he has been abused purely for the colour of his skin, is he as bad as a man who protests because his football team lost a match?

You're willingly blind to the distinction.

The police at the BLM protest allowed violent acts to occur and we're negligent.

A small group of football fans defended Bristol Cenotaph that the police had left unguarded along with other obvious targets. These people were condemned as far right by the police - A cursory view of you tube will confirm this to be a disgusting lie. The individual leading them was not white or far white. The Avon and Somerset police knowingly lied to the media and public.

No of course not. Nothing to do with the far right.

Maybe it was just coincidence that a reporter not even from the area was spat at and called a "left wing c***". There are also comments supporting him with similar stories, but I won't quote them as I can't actually prove they were there.

They really look like lovely people. That entire thread is full of more nonsense videos from that lot.

What about the scaffolder who pulled the statue out of the water, stood on plinth with a Union Flag and shouted "antifa scum"?

Maybe we can add to that the bottles that were thrown at cars driving past?

I can't see a single non-white person in that group despite your claim. The leader may well have been there and been not white, but I can't see him there. Not exactly as representative as their placards suggested are they.

Isn't it funny how you condemn the BLM protestors for their lack of masks but you've been 100% silent on those who are clearly not social distancing or wearing masks in these videos? Will you apply the same criticism to them?

And even at this point, you describe them as "defending" the cenotaph. Defending it from what? Pigeon ****?

Not far right. "A disgusting lie". Maybe everything above is faked?

 

[BCFCRob]

So here's a question for you, given the report of the EHRC into institutional anti semitism in the labour party, would you be so lenient towards relatives of holocaust survivors causing damage to statues of labour politicians or in fact labour HQ? after all they were and have been oppressed throughout history.

No. I condemned the actions of BLM. Why would I think this is okay?

The law is the law there is no 'technically' under any circumstances,

Wrong. You're trying to talk about something you clearly know nothing about.