According to the Met, one group of protesters are liable to be violent towards a second group, and the Met don't feel they can protect them, so they cancel the potential victims, and let the threats of violence win. Maybe it's time for the Met to offer a level playing field, and let both sides go for it. On those terms, I have little doubt that without the two tier policing, the lefties would melt very quickly.
You must watch some strange ****e. Antifa etc get rag dolled whenever plod don't help them and they don't have overwhelming numbers. When things are levelled out, they squeal and play the victim nearly every time, the gutless ****ers.
And the young 8 year old Bhoys get ****ed up the dung funnels by the Kafflik ***** supporting scum of the Vatican with the Popeye's blessing.
It was obvious he'd try to shift from the main point about clear two tier policing, where the Met themselves claim to know one group is issuing threats of violence, so ban the other march.
That myth's been destroyed far too many times to waste explaining it again to a desperate, uneducated bore like you. Do you think plod were right to allow the violent marchers, and block the peaceful ones? It's a simple yes or no question.
