British police arrest 19 at London protest against social distancing

[DaLa]

A demonstration. Inevitable. How do you expect students to entertain themselves with no lectures to attend.

 

I believe the last peaceful demonstration  was held by the Ursuline Nuns in the 16th Century  when Pope Gregory XIII placed them under the rule of St Augustine  who wanted to stop them enjoying Grolsch with their evening meals.

 

I may be wrong.

[evadgib]

21 minutes ago, Phil McCaverty said:

I've no idea. What do you think Johnson made of the care he received in ICU?

 

I could tell you what she and her husband (doctor) think of Johnsons pathetic performance on dealing with the pandemic and 10 years of Tory governments running the NHS into the ground but it would no doubt be deleted.

As would the clip of the NHS bobsleigh team.

[Phil McCaverty]

Just now, evadgib said:

As would the clip of the NHS bobsleigh team.

Up to you as you appear to be the only one that's seen it.

[DaLa]

10 minutes ago, Phil McCaverty said:

Up to you as you appear to be the only one that's seen it.

I've seen it. Harmless enough.

 

Yes, more could be spent on the NHS, however what would we want to reduce spending on to fund this. extra. However...'

 

Planned spending for the Department of Health and Social Care in England was £140.4 billion in 2019/20.

The majority (£133.3 billion) of that is revenue funding for spending on day-to-day items such as staff salaries and medicines. The remainder (£7.1 billion) is for capital spending on buildings and equipment, which are longer term investments.

Though funding for the Department of Health and Social Care continues to grow, the rate of growth slowed during the period of austerity that followed the 2008 economic crash. Budgets rose by 1.4 per cent each year on average (adjusting for inflation) in the 10 years between 2009/10 to 2018/19.

 

Note the last sentence. So no cuts. What I believe has happened is that the NHS is being asked to 'do' more, thus the funds are being stretched. Again, how much should we pay, and how much should people that have never paid into the UK social fund pay.

 

* Source  https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget

 

[Krataiboy]

13 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Have you looked at where you currently live? Do you really believe the government and human rights are better where you reside now?

Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

[elliss]

On 5/17/2020 at 2:24 PM, bert bloggs said:

I love the fact the very left wing Corbyn idiot was there with his pals wanting the lockdown to stop ,funny how the left wing unions dont want their members to go back to work. the left can never seem to make up their minds.

 

       You mean the civil servant's union . 

        Work is not on their agenda ..

 

[Rimmer]

An off topic deflection post has been removed

[metisdead]

Off topic deflection posts and replies have been removed. 

[nausea]

On 5/17/2020 at 1:51 PM, zyphodb said:

So what? since when was it illegal to demonstrate in the UK? It just goes to show how far down the slippery slope to Fascism the world is going. And the sheep seem to love it... 

Since never, but if you deliberately flout the law then you take the consequences. You don't try to deliberately manipulate the media response. In a fascist state these guys and girls would've been beaten to a pulp - you know it, I know it. They are basically exploiting the system and relying on a soft response. A bad law, without popular support, never works, and I guess most people at the moment support lockdown. A few lefties see it as an excuse to make some kudos among themselves. 

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, BeltAndRoad said:

The mental anguish your Daughter is subjected to must be horrific. 

Despising the protesters must be easy. 

What must be extremely difficult for your poor Daughter is how to feel about the millions of young British Boys and Men who not just risked but gave their lives to protect Freedoms, Liberties and the Constitution.  Freedoms and Liberties such as the right to protest.  A Constitution that states rules of Governance, such as the implementation of Laws. 

 

There is nothing stopping them from protesting legally.

[Crazy Alex]

18 hours ago, Chelseafan said:

That car driver may mow someone down but that's it.

 

That <deleted> who go's out and doesn't follow social distancing can infect many many people who in turn can infect many more, some of these may die.

 

How do you know if you are weak or not ? Do we say that everyone over 60 is "weak" and can never leave the house. Can grandparents never see their grand children again.

 

Honestly I despair. Governments aren't closing down economies for the fun of it. This is as bad as it gets.

 

The sooner people follow the rules, the sooner we can get back to some sort of normality what ever this will be.

 

First off, I would say it's not a matter of "weak". That stigmatizes people in a bad way. I've had the flu once in the past 30+ years. I am not susceptible.

 

The vast majority of people affected are older people. So actually, you raise a good point. Have the virus's target audience stay home. Everyone else should go on with their lives. Destroying the world's economy is not a solution. It's a disease worse than the virus.

[BeltAndRoad]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

There is nothing stopping them from protesting legally.

Except for the illegal implementation of lock down and social gathering laws.

[Chomper Higgot]

39 minutes ago, BeltAndRoad said:

Except for the illegal implementation of lock down and social gathering laws.

The legality of which can be challenged in the courts.

 

 

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, nausea said:

Since never, but if you deliberately flout the law then you take the consequences. You don't try to deliberately manipulate the media response. In a fascist state these guys and girls would've been beaten to a pulp - you know it, I know it. They are basically exploiting the system and relying on a soft response. A bad law, without popular support, never works, and I guess most people at the moment support lockdown. A few lefties see it as an excuse to make some kudos among themselves. 

Agree with all of that except the part about it being a few lefties.

Apparently the protests were organised by right wing groups.

[brucec64]

On 5/17/2020 at 2:27 PM, Krataiboy said:

Say hello to the new normal - a police state ruled over by a vainglorious, lying, dictatorial bully aided and abetted by an increasingly out-of-control and thuggish constabulary. 

 

Wild horses wouldn't drag me back.

 

 

Instead you moved to a place where normal police interrogation includes liberal use of a cattle prod. Nice one! ????

[brucec64]

On 5/17/2020 at 4:22 PM, 7by7 said:

He was standing there quietly with the officers until he sees he is being filmed.

 

He wasn't pushed to the ground; when he sees the cameras he drops to the ground and starts struggling.

 

Then the police have to restrain him.

He must be a football player with skills like that!

[7by7]

On 5/17/2020 at 2:14 PM, yogi100 said:

Why did the cops not just walk off and leave him on his knees and backside. By restraining him they gave him the attention he was looking for.

 At the start of the video he was being cuffed; obviously already under arrest.

 

On 5/17/2020 at 2:14 PM, yogi100 said:

What would have been achieved by restraining a person sitting on the ground in a public park.

He was not just sitting on the ground on a public park; he was resisting arrest. Notice how he is looking around at the start, sees he is being filmed (by a mate?) and then drops and starts to resist. An obvious set up.

 

On 5/17/2020 at 2:14 PM, yogi100 said:

And what exactly was he being arrested for. You just said he was standing with the officers peacefully. Why would they arrest him for that?

Presumably he was being arrested for the same reason as Corbyn and the others.

[7by7]

On 5/17/2020 at 2:38 PM, redwood1 said:

Yes they were breaking the law......The police were not wearing masks........The police were breaking the law...

 This may have already been pointed out; but at the moment there is no legal requirement in the UK to wear a mask whilst out in public.

[7by7]

14 hours ago, yogi100 said:

How many of the other 19 were focused upon while being arrested. How many of the others were reportedly 'resisting arrest and not cooperating.'

 

I did not introduce the video into the discussion. Where is the video of Worzel being arrested if in fact there is such a video.

 

Did you see the photo in the OP?

 

This one:

 

If by 'Worzel' you mean Corbyn; no video but a photograph:

 

Though he wasn't resisting arrest and so didn't have to be restrained.

[7by7]

4 hours ago, evadgib said:

I haven't felt the urge to weigh in on HMGs performance, not least because I knew full well you'd be doing so anyway, whether I liked it or not ????

Really?

 

Not like you to pass on a chance to try and defend the indefensible!

Edited May 18, 2020 by 7by7

[7by7]

4 hours ago, BeltAndRoad said:

Except for the illegal implementation of lock down and social gathering laws.

The implementation of the lockdown is not illegal because it was first brought in using emergency powers the government have and subsequently approved by Parliament. (Coronavirus: Parliamentary consent for the lockdown in England)

 

In this day and age there are plenty of ways of protesting other than gathering in large groups. Although I accept the latter is usually gathers greater media interest.

 

There are currently 818 Parliamentary petitions; 27 of which deal directly with the lockdown. Of those just one calls for it's end; and at the time of writing that has attracted a mere 2326 signatures.

[BeltAndRoad]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

The implementation of the lockdown is not illegal because it was first brought in using emergency powers the government have and subsequently approved by Parliament.

Are you talking about a Law in the constitution or an illegal ACT. ?  Doesn't matter how you word it as the original, Control of Disease ACT. 1984.  Is unconstitutional.  You want to change the constitution?  fine.  State a case and have a referendum, unless of course you believe Britain's future should be decided by a few men in parliament or British citizens who when asked to sacrifice their lives for Britain.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

Piers Corbyn was interviewed on Talkradio this afternoon. Posting a link is a waste of time so 

Here's a link to the report of the interview on the Talk Radio website: Ian Collins brands Piers Corbyn’s coronavirus claims ‘bonkers’

 

There is also a recording of the interview in that link.

 

I can see why you only posted a precis rather than a link to the full interview!

[7by7]

7 minutes ago, BeltAndRoad said:

Are you talking about a Law in the constitution or an illegal ACT. ?  Doesn't matter how you word it as the original, Control of Disease ACT. 1984.  Is unconstitutional.  You want to change the constitution?  fine.  State a case and have a referendum, unless of course you believe Britain's future should be decided by a few men in parliament or British citizens who when asked to sacrifice their lives for Britain.

 

I'm talking about the legislation in the link you chose to remove from the quote of my post.

 

Namely Coronavirus: Parliamentary consent for the lockdown in England.

 

There is also the other Coronavirus Legislation.

 

Perhaps you can show me where any of this is contradictory to Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984

 

As for "unless of course you believe Britain's future should be decided by a few men in parliament." I believe in Parliamentary democracy.

 

Not sure what you mean by "or British citizens who when asked to sacrifice their lives for Britain." But my father spent 6 years of his life defending our Parliamentary democracy. Were he alive today he would be appalled that anyone should suggest he and his comrades should somehow overthrow it!

[BeltAndRoad]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

I'm talking about the legislation in the link you chose to remove from the quote of my post.

 

Namely Coronavirus: Parliamentary consent for the lockdown in England.

 

There is also the other Coronavirus Legislation.

 

Perhaps you can show me where any of this is contradictory to Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984

 

As for "unless of course you believe Britain's future should be decided by a few men in parliament." I believe in Parliamentary democracy.

 

Not sure what you mean by "or British citizens who when asked to sacrifice their lives for Britain." But my father spent 6 years of his life defending our Parliamentary democracy. Were he alive today he would be appalled that anyone should suggest he and his comrades should somehow overthrow it!

Your puplic health ACT 1984 came first

giving politicians perceived powers to be able to instate such things as lockdown laws

 

[7by7]

5 minutes ago, BeltAndRoad said:

Your puplic health ACT 1984 came first

giving politicians perceived powers to be able to instate such things as lockdown laws

 

Err, yes; 1984 did come before 2020.

 

My point is that your original assertion 

5 hours ago, BeltAndRoad said:

Except for the illegal implementation of lock down and social gathering laws.

is incorrect because the implementation of the measures is not illegal.

 

Nothing you have posted since shows otherwise. 

[BeltAndRoad]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Err, yes; 1984 did come before 2020.

 

My point is that your original assertion 

is incorrect because the implementation of the measures is not illegal.

 

Nothing you have posted since shows otherwise. 

Actually you are 100% right sorry, i misread some legal jargon. Thank God i was getting worried. but all good. Britain is as proud and united as ever.

Lets just concentrate on getting some sport back on our screens.

Edited May 18, 2020 by BeltAndRoad

[yogi100]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Utter hogwash.

 

Johnson’s Government have an unassailable majority of 87 seats in the Commons, there is absolutely nothing the combined votes of opposition parties can do to derail Government policies.

 

The chaotic response of the British Government is down to Johnson - he owns it and it owns him.

 

 

Johnson is a liberal politician. All UK politicians are required to be liberal these days.

[Chelseafan]

5 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

First off, I would say it's not a matter of "weak". That stigmatizes people in a bad way. I've had the flu once in the past 30+ years. I am not susceptible.

 

The vast majority of people affected are older people. So actually, you raise a good point. Have the virus's target audience stay home. Everyone else should go on with their lives. Destroying the world's economy is not a solution. It's a disease worse than the virus.

Now I know why they call you crazy ????

How do you know you're not susceptible ? How do you know if you are asymptomatic.

How long do we lock up the oldies ? 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years ? forever?

 

I do agree that we need to jump-start the economy though

 

[kingdong]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Utter hogwash.

 

Johnson’s Government have an unassailable majority of 87 seats in the Commons, there is absolutely nothing the combined votes of opposition parties can do to derail Government policies.

 

The chaotic response of the British Government is down to Johnson - he owns it and it owns him.

 

 

Still in the eu bound by their rules aren,t we?