Chomper Higgot

Let’s have a bit more honesty from you shall we?: Counter protesters threw missiles at officers in Chinatown, say police The Metropolitan Police says a group of counter protesters who left Whitehall and moved into Chinatown "confronted and threw missiles at officers who tried to engage with them". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-67390343

Odd you should mention him then:

Like I say, strange bedfellows ;-) The worst abuse I ever saw at a Spurs match was from West Ham fans, but that was some years ago and things change.

The protest has objectives, if those objectives are lawful how can the protest be illegitimate. If lawlessness breaks out then the police have the authority to intervene, and I support that. I see counter protesters have already been arrested, maybe someone has a mind to cause some troubleZ The term ‘agent provocateur’ comes to mind.

He was at the front of the March against the Iraq war too. Pity it failed in It’s objectives.

As a Spurs fan I expect some might be, though West Ham fans might make a showing. I’ll not recite some of the Spurs Supporters chants, they might inflame the already inflammable.

I think it a problem where the primary objective is to break the law (might be an issue amongst some of the counter protester groups) and I think the accountability for law breaking is on the law breaker. I fully support the police arresting and prosecuting those who break the law and I would urge peaceful protesters to assist the police identifying law breakers and singling out those engaging g in I hate mongering (The Hime Secretary included).

The police are dealing with those seeking trouble. https://www.itv.com/news/2023-11-11/police-brace-for-pro-palestine-protest-as-braverman-remains-under-fire

No you did not, nor did I say did, I said: Strange bed fellows.

No you did not. What you did is employ innuendo aligned with the arguments of those who wish to deny these rights. It goes back to my question, how many of the x,0000 protestors need to demonstrate anti-semitism/lawlessness before all are tarred with the same brush? The existence of extremists in demonstrations and counter demonstrations is nothing new. Nor does it distract from the central arguments of the demonstrations.

‘Think many’ is a bit of a fuzzy thing. Not the kind of argument to deny people their right to peaceful protest.

Or so you tell us.

Nothing like a personal attack to expose the weakness of your arguments.

QED

That’s right Morch. I stick to my argument and don’t get distracted by the slurs tossed my way by those who don’t agree with me. It’s known as consistency.

Lots of claims. Thin on evidence.

By erm…. taking part in this thread and reading the posts people make.

What you mean observing the way people actually live their lives on Remembrance Day is a weak comparison? Really, is that your comeback??

Rose tinted? I also support the rights of counter protesters to erm counter protest. I’m pretty sure there will be some rather unsavory characters amongst them, but provided they are peaceable in their protests they have a right to protest. If a few amongst them break the law or become violent, I won’t blame all counter protestors. It’s the nature of political protest, those who don’t agree with the protest will exaggerate any breach of the law. Those interested in causing trouble will show up on both sides of the line, it’s always the case. What’s new is a Minister of State actively engaging inflammatory rhetoric to advance her own authoritarian political objectives.

Honestly Morch, what does it matter if there are 100,000 or 500,000 attendees? Those arguing against this protest are doing so on the basis of the protest actually being allowed.

Remembrance Day is lots of things. People will this weekend go shopping, clubbing, down the pub for some beers, make jokes and laugh, enjoy themselves and lots of other normal things, including enjoying their right to peacefully protest. I think protesting for the end of a war on Armistice Day is a rather fitting way to memorialize those who have died or been injured in wars.

I’m on the side of challenging obviously fictitious claims and faux outrage. I have absolutely no problem repeating my defense of fundamental rights. The issue to me is authoritarians climbing on the bandwagon in an attempt to restrict rights to protest. The subtext of other rightwing garbage around nationality, faith and ‘citizenship’ are all over this thread. I’m very comfortable with which side of the argument I’m on.

Opinions differ. I’m on the side of defending the right to peacefully protest and arresting and prosecuting those who break the law. But I think you got that.

We should start a tabulation of excuses used by those eager to deny others their right to peaceful protest.

Are you sure you used all your ‘key board short-cuts’?