The impartial BBC

[BCFCRob]

The leaders name was Mark. He is mixed race. In a video he can be seen revealing tattoos of the flags of Britain and Jamaica to very aggressive and threatening BLM mob. The police spoke to him on the day and post events. He was portrayed as far right by the police. He as a mixed race man cannot be a ethnic nationalist. The police knowingly chose to create a false narrative.

The Cenotaph was as was in danger from BLM Protestors. That public property was damaged came as no surprise. Anybody with a degree of intelligence would expect Bristols militants to be intending to vandalise public property with acts of direct action. The polices negligent action made the violence that occurred inevitable.

I posted. Previously about the inevitable consequences of BLM actions and the inaction of the police. The individuals protecting to he Cenotaph are a secondary reaction. The later (following weekend) larger protest was a reaction, a consequence again. I do not condone that protest, but understand its cause and I have some sympathy. Sacred war memorials were being desecrated and the police were not defending what is sacred importance to many in this Country The Small group (10 - 15) the previous week I believe were necessary and I wholly support what they did. Events elsewhere and only metres away are all the evidence needed to believe they protected Bristols Cenotaph from another inevitable attack.

But you just told us that the Police portrayed the whole group as far right and that it was a disgusting lie. Are you saying that the group were not far right? Were my links and videos faked?

I think we can summarise your view on this pretty easily.

Having a protest as a reaction to a prior BLM protest in which a statue was torn down = have some sympathy
Having a protest as a reaction to decades of oppression and racism = absolutely ****ing not

Spot on
One law for all, irrespective of race, colour, sexual orientation, religion or any other parameters they can use.
Not bending or ignoring the law simply because it's convenient, and heaven forbid it might offend 'minorities'
I am sick and fed up with being a law abiding, hard working, citizen, who is in the majority of people of this country, while others can seemingly do as they please because they know they won't be prosecuted or worse, because they think life owes them something.
It doesn't !

Okay then, to all of you arguing about the law being applied consistently and evenly, to the letter, with no exemptions.

Person A goes out with a knife, and murders a person in cold blood, because he's a bit of a ****.
Person B goes out and murders another guy, because (god forbid), that man touched or harmed your child.

I suspect that we would all think Person A deserves to rot in hell while Person B would deserve some sympathy.

Now according to the lot of you, Person A and Person B are just as guilty as each other. After all, the law is the law. @Jiffie, our resident Mr Lawyer who has forgotten more about the law than I will ever know, thinks that "there is no 'technically' under any circumstances". Extenuating circumstances and context should not be used when interpreting the law. Of course anyone who knows anything about law knows that this is 100% wrong.

NOW do we all see how ridiculous it sounds?

Context is everything. If you pull down a statue because your football team lost that is pathetic and ridiculous. If you pull down a statue because you have been a victim of racism, that is way too far, but there is at least a bit of justification.

As @Cliftonville says on his own point, it is a secondary reaction. I don't agree with the actions of the far-right, but Cliftonville is correct in that it is a secondary reaction and context is needed. But I am also correct in that you should apply the exact same logic to both protests. You can't have one without the other.

 

[realred1952]

you should apply the exact same logic to both protests. You can't have one without the other.

have highlighted the above , not as part of the "argument" but simply as a fact that logic [ methodology etc ] should be equally applied to almost anything .. common term is level playing field.
human reasoning often interrupts this process, because humans are diverse creatures, all humans are gullible in different degree's, we have gotten to this point in history because of all that went before be it bad or good ... it is called evolution.
How we progress from now is down to how we deal with the present, and to be quite honest I believe we are NOT FARING WELL

 

[Jiffie]

But you just told us that the Police portrayed the whole group as far right and that it was a disgusting lie. Are you saying that the group were not far right? Were my links and videos faked?

I think we can summarise your view on this pretty easily.

Having a protest as a reaction to a prior BLM protest in which a statue was torn down = have some sympathy
Having a protest as a reaction to decades of oppression and racism = absolutely ****ing not



Okay then, to all of you arguing about the law being applied consistently and evenly, to the letter, with no exemptions.

Person A goes out with a knife, and murders a person in cold blood, because he's a bit of a ****.
Person B goes out and murders another guy, because (god forbid), that man touched or harmed your child.

I suspect that we would all think Person A deserves to rot in hell while Person B would deserve some sympathy.

Now according to the lot of you, Person A and Person B are just as guilty as each other. After all, the law is the law. @Jiffie, our resident Mr Lawyer who has forgotten more about the law than I will ever know, thinks that "there is no 'technically' under any circumstances". Extenuating circumstances and context should not be used when interpreting the law. Of course anyone who knows anything about law knows that this is 100% wrong.

NOW do we all see how ridiculous it sounds?

Context is everything. If you pull down a statue because your football team lost that is pathetic and ridiculous. If you pull down a statue because you have been a victim of racism, that is way too far, but there is at least a bit of justification.

As @Cliftonville says on his own point, it is a secondary reaction. I don't agree with the actions of the far-right, but Cliftonville is correct in that it is a secondary reaction and context is needed. But I am also correct in that you should apply the exact same logic to both protests. You can't have one without the other.

F****** snide comments now is it?

What you are missing is that in the UK justice system is that either a jury or magistrates decide not you or me, they are given both sides of the case and they decide, it's not perfect but it's better than most, so no there is no technically involved in the way charges are formulated, I suspect that there are people in prison who fit your scenario but found guilty of murder, some found guilty of manslaughter and some found not guilty of all charges.

And what your misguided scenarios also fail to address is the person who kills another as in person B and it's not even true because the person he killed was innocent, but he believed it to be true when he committed the murder.

There is a saying in law enforcement that says "let the court decide".

 

[Cliftonville]

But you just told us that the Police portrayed the whole group as far right and that it was a disgusting lie. Are you saying that the group were not far right? Were my links and videos faked?

I think we can summarise your view on this pretty easily.

.

You can summarise my view easily. The group of 10 - 15 were not the far right. They could not be when they included people who were mixed race and sons of immigrants. The following weeks demonstration was not the far right either. It could not be as again it’s organisers included people who were mixed race etc - it WAS attended by ex servicemen who were black.

The odd confused soul with far right views may have been present on the second weekend but their views expressed openly would not have been tolerated.

The demonstration was also targeting the Avon and Somerset police for their maligning of people defending Bristols Cenotaph the previous weekend as far right. The police lied.

 

[realred1952]

The group of 10 - 15 were not the far right. They could not be when they included people who were mixed race and sons of immigrants.

left right centre has no bounds be it race colour or creed or whether sons/daughters of immigrants.. I have posted about the quandary of a family who are very mixed race and they can be any of left right centre ......

And what your misguided scenarios also fail to address is the person who kills another as in person B and it's not even true because the person he killed was innocent, but he believed it to be true when he committed the murder.

Are you not adding a third scenario to the A .. B examples? .. C .. goes out ... *.* ... and person was innocent of molesting his child?

The 2 points made were quite valid, 2 cases that showed 2 concepts of the same thing [ murder/killing ] each being driven by a different force behind it than the other!

as an aside I do not think any sympathy is attributable to the tearing down of the statue or actions regarding vandalism and looting, assault are acceptable. the majority of those in damaging the statue were white and some not even from our area!

 

[oneforthebristolcity]

But you just told us that the Police portrayed the whole group as far right and that it was a disgusting lie. Are you saying that the group were not far right? Were my links and videos faked?

I think we can summarise your view on this pretty easily.

Having a protest as a reaction to a prior BLM protest in which a statue was torn down = have some sympathy
Having a protest as a reaction to decades of oppression and racism = absolutely ****ing not



Okay then, to all of you arguing about the law being applied consistently and evenly, to the letter, with no exemptions.

Person A goes out with a knife, and murders a person in cold blood, because he's a bit of a ****.
Person B goes out and murders another guy, because (god forbid), that man touched or harmed your child.

I suspect that we would all think Person A deserves to rot in hell while Person B would deserve some sympathy.

Now according to the lot of you, Person A and Person B are just as guilty as each other. After all, the law is the law. @Jiffie, our resident Mr Lawyer who has forgotten more about the law than I will ever know, thinks that "there is no 'technically' under any circumstances". Extenuating circumstances and context should not be used when interpreting the law. Of course anyone who knows anything about law knows that this is 100% wrong.

NOW do we all see how ridiculous it sounds?

Context is everything. If you pull down a statue because your football team lost that is pathetic and ridiculous. If you pull down a statue because you have been a victim of racism, that is way too far, but there is at least a bit of justification.

As @Cliftonville says on his own point, it is a secondary reaction. I don't agree with the actions of the far-right, but Cliftonville is correct in that it is a secondary reaction and context is needed. But I am also correct in that you should apply the exact same logic to both protests. You can't have one without the other.

Sorry mate, your going on a tangent and away from the point...This is not for the police to decide, otherwise where would the line be drawn.?..
That's why we have courts....Nobody knows what the circumstances are until they are fully investigated.

 

[Jiffie]

left right centre has no bounds be it race colour or creed or whether sons/daughters of immigrants.. I have posted about the quandary of a family who are very mixed race and they can be any of left right centre ......


Are you not adding a third scenario to the A .. B examples? .. C .. goes out ... *.* ... and person was innocent of molesting his child?

The 2 points made were quite valid, 2 cases that showed 2 concepts of the same thing [ murder/killing ] each being driven by a different force behind it than the other!

as an aside I do not think any sympathy is attributable to the tearing down of the statue or actions regarding vandalism and looting, assault are acceptable. the majority of those in damaging the statue were white and some not even from our area!

I don't think so, unless the murderer personally caught the abuser in the act, most scenarios rely on 3rd party evidence. Which as we all know can be incredibly unreliable, there have even been cases of Paediatricians have been targeted by morons who cannot spell.

 

[Cliftonville]

left right centre has no bounds be it race colour or creed or whether sons/daughters of immigrants.. I have posted about the quandary of a family who are very mixed race and they can be any of left right centre ......

The first post in this thread is about the nonsense of calling non white organisations white supremacists. Nazis, fascists the warped ethnic nationalists are far right. Monsters alongside the worst of humanity.

There are clear bounds. It’s a why the left label people far right and fascists so frequently. It is a simple way of dehumanising individuals and organisations. Far right is a deep insult. An insult that made people gather at Bristols Cenotaph due to the Avon and Somerset police using the term to describe people who were anything but far right.

 

[Angelicnumber16]

But you just told us that the Police portrayed the whole group as far right and that it was a disgusting lie. Are you saying that the group were not far right? Were my links and videos faked?

I think we can summarise your view on this pretty easily.

Having a protest as a reaction to a prior BLM protest in which a statue was torn down = have some sympathy
Having a protest as a reaction to decades of oppression and racism = absolutely ****ing not



Okay then, to all of you arguing about the law being applied consistently and evenly, to the letter, with no exemptions.

Person A goes out with a knife, and murders a person in cold blood, because he's a bit of a ****.
Person B goes out and murders another guy, because (god forbid), that man touched or harmed your child.

I suspect that we would all think Person A deserves to rot in hell while Person B would deserve some sympathy.

Now according to the lot of you, Person A and Person B are just as guilty as each other. After all, the law is the law. @Jiffie, our resident Mr Lawyer who has forgotten more about the law than I will ever know, thinks that "there is no 'technically' under any circumstances". Extenuating circumstances and context should not be used when interpreting the law. Of course anyone who knows anything about law knows that this is 100% wrong.

NOW do we all see how ridiculous it sounds?

Context is everything. If you pull down a statue because your football team lost that is pathetic and ridiculous. If you pull down a statue because you have been a victim of racism, that is way too far, but there is at least a bit of justification.

As @Cliftonville says on his own point, it is a secondary reaction. I don't agree with the actions of the far-right, but Cliftonville is correct in that it is a secondary reaction and context is needed. But I am also correct in that you should apply the exact same logic to both protests. You can't have one without the other.

Murder is still murder.
Yes, of course there would be some sympathy for person B but that can't hide or excuse the actual act of killing someone no matter how much it might be deserved.
When (or if!) it came to court I dare say that the charge for person B could be changed from 1st degree murder to manslaughter and maybe the accompanying prison sentence would be a little less, but persons A and B would both be jailed.

The only possibility of someone not serving time would be if it was carried out in self defence, with sufficient proof that someone would have died had they not protected themselves.

 

[Jiffie]

Murder is still murder.
Yes, of course there would be some sympathy for person B but that can't hide or excuse the actual act of killing someone no matter how much it might be deserved.
When (or if!) it came to court I dare say that the charge for person B could be changed from 1st degree murder to manslaughter and maybe the accompanying prison sentence would be a little less, but persons A and B would both be jailed.

The only possibility of someone not serving time would be if it was carried out in self defence, with sufficient proof that someone would have died had they not protected themselves.

Exactly so and this is why the edict of "let the court decide" is a cornerstone of the UK justice system.

Maybe it's me but I detect the whiff of hypocrisy here, vigilantism maybe ok in some circumstances but no to the death penalty for people found guilty of the worst crimes imaginable and the rationale is that the court may have got it wrong in a miscarriage of justice, but surely vigilantism falls into that self same category.

Also the system as it stands also accounts for mercy killings, but again the courts must decide and why? because sometimes a mercy killing might not be a mercy killing per se. Because not all people are good people and it's for the courts to decide.

 

[realred1952]

I don't think so, unless the murderer personally caught the abuser in the act, most scenarios rely on 3rd party evidence. Which as we all know can be incredibly unreliable, there have even been cases of Paediatricians have been targeted by morons who cannot spell.

you are bringing a third event to the table
ROB WAS SPECIFIC he said
...
Person A goes out with a knife, and murders a person in cold blood, because he's a bit of a ****.
Person A is qualified by "cold blood" .. [ without cause or reason to an innocent unsuspecting individual ] so that is simple to understand

Person B goes out and murders another guy, because (god forbid), that man touched or harmed your child. [ could be worded a little clearer as to whether his or third parties ]
nothing mentioned about whether this was a result of a court case or the person B had witnessed the same, or child had told him or wife or other ...
2 statements 2 views both stating murder is wrong but B has mitigating factors .... which may or may not in the court of law have weight.

 

[Jiffie]

you are bringing a third event to the table
ROB WAS SPECIFIC he said
...
Person A goes out with a knife, and murders a person in cold blood, because he's a bit of a ****.
Person A is qualified by "cold blood" .. [ without cause or reason to an innocent unsuspecting individual ] so that is simple to understand

Person B goes out and murders another guy, because (god forbid), that man touched or harmed your child. [ could be worded a little clearer as to whether his or third parties ]
nothing mentioned about whether this was a result of a court case or the person B had witnessed the same, or child had told him or wife or other ...
2 statements 2 views both stating murder is wrong but B has mitigating factors .... which may or may not in the court of law have weight.

Your last 2 replies pretty much prove if any proof were needed, that it this nothing to do with any subject matter and everything to do with your creepy weird stalking of virtually every post I put on this site, it really is creepy and weird and sad beyond belief.

 

[Red Alert]

And subsequently charged 4 people.

Should have been dozens and batons dogs and horses used on the BLM vermin as they would be at football. One law for BLM and another for us.

Bristol Post.

Chief Constable Andy Marsh has today voiced his outrage at those who took part, branding them 'plain stupid' and saying they're nothing 'short of a disgrace'. Why were BLM not stupid and a disgrace??

 

[realred1952]

Your last 2 replies pretty much prove if any proof were needed, that it this nothing to do with any subject matter and everything to do with your creepy weird stalking of virtually every post I put on this site, it really is creepy and weird and sad beyond belief.

Wow you come up with some real gems as defensive mechanisms creepy weird stalking and it most certainly is not virtually every post you put up on here. A forum is a platform for people to read or to reply to, agree or disagree or merely point out an error besides putting up something that may or may not be of interest to everyone. Pre covid March / April it was a quite straightforward happy board with plenty banter and sarcasm .... seems to have degenerated a bit with accusations..name calling and general repetitive arguments ... bring back the Brexit debates..... !

 

[Angelicnumber16]

Should have been dozens and batons dogs and horses used on the BLM vermin as they would be at football. One law for BLM and another for us.

Bristol Post.

Chief Constable Andy Marsh has today voiced his outrage at those who took part, branding them 'plain stupid' and saying they're nothing 'short of a disgrace'. Why were BLM not stupid and a disgrace??

Because he'd have race relations and liberals crawling over him and forcing him to resign like Greg Clarke.

As we know, it's one rule for them and a separate and much more stringent set of rules for the right minded law abiding majority of people.

 

[BCFCRob]

Murder is still murder.
Yes, of course there would be some sympathy for person B but that can't hide or excuse the actual act of killing someone no matter how much it might be deserved.
When (or if!) it came to court I dare say that the charge for person B could be changed from 1st degree murder to manslaughter and maybe the accompanying prison sentence would be a little less, but persons A and B would both be jailed.

The only possibility of someone not serving time would be if it was carried out in self defence, with sufficient proof that someone would have died had they not protected themselves.

Well for one, the idea of "1st degree" murder doesn't even exist over here, it's an Americanism as far as I know. You're right in that Persons A and B would both be jailed but one would be sent down with a life sentence while another would almost certainly have a far more lenient sentence - most likely on the basis of provocation (which would not be allowed for Person A), and would not be sent down for murder, obviously depending on the specific circumstances.

At no point did I suggest one would avoid jail. But both socially, and in the eyes of the law, one would be far more "acceptable" than the other. And that, in a nutshell, explains why everyone here trying to claim the law is black and white, no matter what the circumstances, is fundamentally wrong. It never has been, and the more you dig into law, the more it shows. Common law allows it to evolve - that is not possible with a 100% constant literal interpretation. That then explains my case regarding the protests.

But back to the BBC... anything being shown on the main site yet about the $21m they just handed out to some Spanish guy for brokering PPE contracts?

 

[oneforthebristolcity]

Well for one, the idea of "1st degree" murder doesn't even exist over here, it's an Americanism as far as I know. You're right in that Persons A and B would both be jailed but one would be sent down with a life sentence while another would almost certainly have a far more lenient sentence - most likely on the basis of provocation (which would not be allowed for Person A), and would not be sent down for murder, obviously depending on the specific circumstances.

At no point did I suggest one would avoid jail. But both socially, and in the eyes of the law, one would be far more "acceptable" than the other. And that, in a nutshell, explains why everyone here trying to claim the law is black and white, no matter what the circumstances, is fundamentally wrong. It never has been, and the more you dig into law, the more it shows. Common law allows it to evolve - that is not possible with a 100% constant literal interpretation. That then explains my case regarding the protests.

But back to the BBC... anything being shown on the main site yet about the $21m they just handed out to some Spanish guy for brokering PPE contracts?

Yes I put it up last night mate!!
Here it is again
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54974...Xf5s9I0ZeU63tDrbEYUxHBwb0IPF0IfWfBBzfRLGL5D3Q

Plenty of companies and people will make billions out of Covid, while small businesses & self employed will suffer!!
The big corporate companies or governments don't give a $hit about them..

 

[BCFCRob]

Yeah I know, the article's always exist. They have to report on them - they just never ever promote them.

 

[realred1952]

Because he'd have race relations and liberals crawling over him and forcing him to resign like Greg Clarke.

As we know, it's one rule for them and a separate and much more stringent set of rules for the right minded law abiding majority of people.

very gently the media via local ITV is setting us up for no Christmas as we know it ... or even could have it in a limited form. ODD snipes from various " professional bodies" have already implicated the possible reprocussions of the march ... we could go into a further lockdown in top tier... and I reckon the sword will be over the heads of those that marched! ... Hopefully any that got infected came from outside the region .....

 

[Angelicnumber16]

very gently the media via local ITV is setting us up for no Christmas as we know it ... or even could have it in a limited form. ODD snipes from various " professional bodies" have already implicated the possible reprocussions of the march ... we could go into a further lockdown in top tier... and I reckon the sword will be over the heads of those that marched! ... Hopefully any that got infected came from outside the region .....

Anyone identified as marching, causing damage or injury to others, and not social distancing should be jailed for a year and heavily fined.
Make them think twice about being such a twat next time.