Evidently several law abiding Football supporters do have cause to worry. They have been barred from attending games pending criminal cases that fail time after time. The protest is not against the police. It is against criminalisation.
Then why are they protesting outside Pitt Street? Because they want answers (about last month's "demo") and they want the law changed, that's what they said.
I honestly don't think I can be annoyed because I think you already understand the sentence and have as much time as you want to tell me why you disagree or do not think it is applicable.
I understand the sentence, I know what the words mean. I have no idea why you feel they are relevant.
And I think they should get answers. The protest I against criminalisation. Wanting the law changed does not mean a protest against the police.
I don't think they know what answers they want and I doubt they will like any answers they do get. It will take more than a month I would suggest to get an unpartisan view from either party, and whatever explanation is given by the Police it will be dismissed as a cover up. People have already made up their minds as to whom was to blame for last month's debacle. Both sides from what I've seen were at fault but according to these good folks, the blame can only be laid at the door of the Police. I've seen the same footage of events as you Reb and we both heard people screaming abuse at the Police, more than enough to get people lifted any other time, but lots of people who could have been arrested were obviously not arrested so that dispels any myth that the Police were the guilty party as we are being asked to believe. First they protested about the law, now they are protesting against the Police and how that law is enforced. If they want to waste their time trying to get laws changed with no discernable mandate or support from anyone but themselves then they should be free to do so, but It grates to see them trying to get everyone on their side by perpetrating blatant falsehoods in a doomed attempt to paint themselves as a bunch of new radicals. I usually am a good judge of character, and clearly some of these people are quite intelligent and speak well in support of their cause, but I think they are having the wool pulled over their eyes and i'll tell you why. This is not a dig at the Middle Class but the intelligent thoughtful spokespeople they are putting up on camera to speak for them are well meaning but I feel slightly gullible. I doubt most of them have ever seen an angry man in their lives but put them in among a mass of heaving angry bodies and they will naturally feel that they are the victims, any action they took was perfectly reasonable and valid, and that of the Police, overly aggressive or the cause of the trouble, it's human nature and a natural instinct to feel as such. Whatever they imagined they saw the police do (either as part of the demo personally) or on a recording, their view will be based on nothing at all, they will be disposed to believe they saw what they have been told they saw. From what I have seen and read, no one was batoned, no one suffered any injuries and no Police officers have been charged. I don't think the Police on the day did anything wrong but perhaps the top brass were in the wrong, who knows? We'll find out what happened in due course but there's no point in trying to hurry things along by pointing fingers at the Coppers on the ground.
I would readily accept a lot of that. The commemts of Jeanette Findlay in that clip you posted are looking for people to be held accountable for their actions on that day. I do not necessarily think that is in reference to the individual officers. As you suggested, the decisions made by the top brass may be what comes under scrutiny. I understand the police presence today was minimal but the decision made over the march was not a good one. Likewise the decision to kettle was not a good one. If the role of the police is to uphold law and order then I don't suppose the order objective was met. That part of it really is the sideshow. The substantive complaint is with regards the offensive behaviour legislation. It is as stupid and as draconian a piece of legislation as I have ever laid eyes on. People pleading not guilty are getting acquitted. Rightly so. It cannot work. The courts have to prove the offence happened. They have to prove offence was intended and they have to prove that offence was received. Not only that, the decision has to be made by a reasonable person. Is it reasonable for a person to go to their place of work and describe the people they are dealing with as vermin? I would suggest not. I would suggest that direction given to officers by that unreasonable person could also be construed as being unreasonable. The Celtic support is being policed by persons whose testimony has been described as "unreliable". I am yet to hear a convincing argument in favour of the legislation. Even if it were a good law, it falls down when people offering direction on it are prejudiced with regards its application and when the people receiving that direction are idiots. The law is an ass. It was railroaded through. Nobody wants it, it continually fails and is described in court as "mince". People are engaging with the subject and that is hugely positive.
It's not often I disagree with you Dev but I think you're way off the mark here. Just because a law doesn't affect you doesn't make it acceptable. This law is ****ing awful. And you don't need to be a GB supporter or want to chant about the 'RA to see that. Only yesterday a sheriff threw out a case against a fan calling the legislation "Mince" ffs
3:55 "The level of brutality and sheer naked aggression" shown by the police That's just nonsense i'm afraid, it's that kind of language which puts me off. Let them protest about the law as I said, I simply don't care.
Just for future reference can we not engage in snidey small sentence replies when we both fully understand the position that the other takes - and just state the point that you want to make without ****ing about.
My point was that I don't know why you were making that point. Which is why I asked you why you were making that point. I didn't see the relevance of it. I still don't know the relevance of it. If You think I am engaging in some verbal footsie then you are wrong. I am not being obtuse. I am not playing a game. I suspect it is a minor thing that has now been blown up as a result of me asking. If there is something very obvious that I have missed feel free to mock me, I just don't get it.
Flawed legislation - Yes Police overeaction - Yes Fans overeaction - Yes It is the right of people to hold demonstrations, however, I feel that these demos from fan groups are akin to Flag protests that the majority on this board mock. The language used by both sets of protesters is often OTT and, at times, inflammatory. The police are also reacting, at times, in an OTT/inflammatory manner, however, they are paid to uphold the laws. Will these protests bring change to the law/s in place - probably not but I do think the SNP need to take notice of cases being brought to courts under this new legislation that are being thrown out - wasting taxpayers cash - and realise they've made an arse of it.
In what way? The point of a protest is to inflame passions is it not? Why compare to the #fleg protests and not the poll tax protests? Anti war demos? You have already conceded there is some legitimacy to the protest, so why compare with something so ludicrously stupid as the fleg protest?
