Tommy Robinson

[Richey Edwards]

[Cheese]

where have you gone Tommy Robinson, our nation turns it's racist eyes to you, woo woo woo

[doulikefish]

Nothing says "we want our country back" more than looting shops and burning a police station and running about proudly showing off your swastika  tattoo,bunch of weirdos 

[Granny Danger]

This coming weekend will show how prepared or unprepared the police in various parts of the country are to protect communities from violent, hate-driven behaviour.  If the police forces fall short of containing this I think it will simply exacerbate the problem.

One worry is draconian new laws being introduced that try to deal with the immediate problem but then get used to quell other legitimate protests.

That said I’d not be opposed to a law determining that anyone wearing a face covering at any sort of ‘protest’ is in breach of the law.  If you’re protesting lawfully then you’ve no need to hide your identity.  Otherwise the behaviour we’ve seen the last couple of nights is such that it’s bound to breach existing laws that can be used to punish the offenders appropriately.

 

[101]

32 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

That said I’d not be opposed to a law determining that anyone wearing a face covering at any sort of ‘protest’ is in breach of the law.  If you’re protesting lawfully then you’ve no need to hide your identity.  Otherwise the behaviour we’ve seen the last couple of nights is such that it’s bound to breach existing laws that can be used to punish the offenders appropriately

The police would love that and almost certainly abuse it. 

[doulikefish]

1 hour ago, doulikefish said:

Nothing says "we want our country back" more than looting shops and burning a police station and running about proudly showing off your swastika  tattoo,bunch of weirdos 

Just seeing it wasn't a police station they burned out it was a citizens advice centre

[Granny Danger]

7 minutes ago, 101 said:

The police would love that and almost certainly abuse it. 

Not sure it could be ‘abused’.  Like I say if you’re legitimately protesting then you don’t need to cover your face.

[Bonksy+HisChristianParade]

11 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Not sure it could be ‘abused’.  Like I say if you’re legitimately protesting then you don’t need to cover your face.

Does that include pro-Palestine protestors?

[ICTChris]

57 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

This coming weekend will show how prepared or unprepared the police in various parts of the country are to protect communities from violent, hate-driven behaviour.  If the police forces fall short of containing this I think it will simply exacerbate the problem.

One worry is draconian new laws being introduced that try to deal with the immediate problem but then get used to quell other legitimate protests.

That said I’d not be opposed to a law determining that anyone wearing a face covering at any sort of ‘protest’ is in breach of the law.  If you’re protesting lawfully then you’ve no need to hide your identity.  Otherwise the behaviour we’ve seen the last couple of nights is such that it’s bound to breach existing laws that can be used to punish the offenders appropriately.

 

The truth is that rioting is very hard for the police to deal with.  You need overwhelming numbers and force and that is difficult to organise.

Rioting and disorder like this is so dangerous because it's so hard to control.  If 50 odd people decided right now to go and start smashing up the centre of Edinburgh then they could do a lot of damage before the police would be able to intervene and stop them.  You can see this in any of the riots that have happened in recent memory, from those following the murder of George Floyd, to the Harehills riots to what's happened this week.  Even look at the violence in Auchinleck a few months back or if you ever see social media videos of people expelling sex offenders from their community.  It's difficult for the police to control hundreds of people intent on not doing what they are told.

I think the best hope for avoiding any further serious rioting is for it to piss with rain for a few days, in all honesty.

ETA - The thing about face coverings is interesting.  In the last few years it's very common for people to ride about Edinburgh on scooters or electric bikes wearing balaclavas or masks.  It's very anti-social to have your face covered like that and I know that a lot of people find it very intimidating.  I'm sure people have always done it but it seems more common post-Covid when masks were mandatory in some situations.  As for making it illegal, that is very difficult, although I think police have powers to enforce stop and search in a specific area and could maybe use those to prevent face coverings?  You can get the same affect by wearing a hoodie and a baseball cap tbh

Edited August 3 by ICTChris

[101]

14 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Not sure it could be ‘abused’.  Like I say if you’re legitimately protesting then you don’t need to cover your face.

your face would be recorded and held there is already well known cases of protesters being harassed by the police and even in the football scene known faces getting the police showing up ahead of anything happening. No thanks.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

48 minutes ago, 101 said:

The police would love that and almost certainly abuse it. 

Im sorry to disturb your dystopian fantasy but there already are these powers and they are not abused. 

Edited August 3 by Inanimate Carbon Rod

[Bairnardo]

I don't like seeing people kicking about with their face covered. That said, the "if your doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" logic is exactly that which was applied to the war criminals national ID cards fantasy. He can f**k off too btw. 

Just too add.... How would that be implemented and enforced? Can you imagine reading a new law passed in particular terms that specified how you must look when out in public? 

At all points, whether it's at the football, at a protest, or general day to day life, our demands as a society should simply to be to have a Police force adequately staffed and funded so as to be able to stop trouble and apprehend trouble makers. Not pre emptively police the rest of us. There's already far too much of that going on. 

Edited August 3 by Bairnardo

[Salt n Vinegar]

Smother the rioters in Greggs sausage rolls and steak bakes and turn loose the seagulls. That'll sort the fekkers out.

[Bairnardo]

9 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Smother the rioters in Greggs sausage rolls and steak bakes and turn loose the seagulls. That'll sort the fekkers out.

It's Sunderland. These guys are 40% Greggs pastry already

[HTG]

To an extent, Robinson is following his own advice to others - if you don't like this country or its laws, feel free to go somewhere else. He's f**ked off to avoid court and at the same time is happy to tell you he'll go anywhere - Glasgow included. Except he won't - because he's a shitebag. 

[Monkey Tennis]

12 hours ago, scottsdad said:

Can the discussion on EDL/race/migration etc move here, and leave Stockport to the tragedy that occurred there? 

I'm a bit torn on this to be honest.

I don't have a problem with discussion of the disorder in English towns and cities taking place in the 'Southport Stabbings' thread, although I think I understand why you do.

It's true that any direct link between Monday's events and the rioting we've seen does not exist, in that attacking mosques can clearly be said to have literally nothing to do with the young kids being murdered.   Nevertheless, that link, however fictitious and distasteful, has been made by the participants in the riots.  The disturbances are the fall-out or aftermath of what happened.

I think It can equally be argued that divorcing the events in this way makes the riots sound more like genuine protests, rather than the sickening, hateful opportunism that they actually represent.  

I don't suppose it matters much, but I'd have left the discussion where it was, perhaps with a tweak to the thread's title if it was troubling you.

Like it or not, this is how some people have chosen to react to the grimmest  of tragedies, and I don't see a need to pretend otherwise. Discussing the riots in those terms is not to endorse or legitimise them - quite the reverse in fact.

 

 

Edited August 3 by Monkey Tennis

[sparky88]

2 hours ago, doulikefish said:

Nothing says "we want our country back" more than looting shops and burning a police station and running about proudly showing off your swastika  tattoo,bunch of weirdos 

They are going to be treated less harshly than the Just Stop Oil protesters aren't they?

[Ya Bezzer!]

Is it just me or do the Tommy Robinson supporters have a strong 'estranged father' look about them?

My theory is this whole thing is basically 'She's turned the weans against me' stuff.

[Soapy FFC]

3 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

That said I’d not be opposed to a law determining that anyone wearing a face covering at any sort of ‘protest’ is in breach of the law.  If you’re protesting lawfully then you’ve no need to hide your identity.  Otherwise the behaviour we’ve seen the last couple of nights is such that it’s bound to breach existing laws that can be used to punish the offenders appropriately.

 

Is that not the argument that people who want to monitor your internet usage, emails, whatsapp, track you're car journeys, follow you're mobile phone, etc, etc have used. If you're dong nothing wrong, you've no need to worry.

[Granny Danger]

For clarity my position, and I fully accept others do not support it, is that people taking part in any ‘protest’ should not be allowed to cover their faces.

Not sure why I need to clarify it as it was clear in my original post.

There is always a difficult balance between effective ‘policing’ and civil liberties.  I’d normally err on the side of the latter but there are exceptions.

As to @ICTChris’s post I totally agree that trying to police such actions is very difficult; I don’t envy the police their job.