6 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It's a Pro Palestine March. They are not protesting to end the war. They are protesting the existence of Isreal.

Or so you tell us.

 

 

10 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It's a Pro Palestine March. They are not protesting to end the war. They are protesting the existence of Isreal.

 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Or so you tell us.

 

 

 

I think many of them wave both flags. Not mutually exclusive.

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

I think many of them wave both flags. Not mutually exclusive.

‘Think many’ is a bit of a fuzzy thing.

 

Not the kind of argument to deny people their right to peaceful protest.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

‘Think many’ is a bit of a fuzzy thing.

 

Not the kind of argument to deny people their right to peaceful protest.

 

 

 

I did not call for rights to be denied.

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I did not call for rights to be denied.

No you did not.

 

What you did is employ innuendo aligned with the arguments of those who wish to deny these rights.

 

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think many of them wave both flags. Not mutually exclusive.

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.

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I did not call for rights to be denied.

No you did not, nor did I say did, I said:

 

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What you did is employ innuendo aligned with the arguments of those who wish to deny these rights.

Strange bed fellows.

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

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

 

I think many of them protest both, yes. It's how many protests go. People do not necessarily have only one thing in mind.

As I said they do both, not seeing how it's aligned with this or that.

 

To answer your 'how many of' question, maybe we'll go back to the 'how many will attend' one, which you dodge.

I already addressed your question, if not mistaken. How many do you think are required for this to be a problem?

 

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No you did not, nor did I say did, I said:

 

Strange bed fellows.

'

I think you read what you want to read.

Mrs. Morch can be a handful at times, but 'strange'? Nah.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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

 

Chelsea firms?

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I think many of them protest both, yes. It's how many protests go. People do not necessarily have only one thing in mind.

As I said they do both, not seeing how it's aligned with this or that.

 

To answer your 'how many of' question, maybe we'll go back to the 'how many will attend' one, which you dodge.

I already addressed your question, if not mistaken. How many do you think are required for this to be a problem?

 

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). 

Oh gawd. Jeremy Corbyn is at the front of the march.

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Chelsea firms?

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.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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). 

 

Yeah, that's fine - but at which point, in your opinion, a protest might lose it's legitimacy? Or is this not a possibility, even?

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Oh gawd. Jeremy Corbyn is at the front of the march.

He was at the front of the March against the Iraq war too.

 

Pity it failed in It’s objectives.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

 

Surely not both marching together....end of days.

On the BBC live page protesters are throwing missiles at police

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

He was at the front of the March against the Iraq war too.

 

Pity it failed in It’s objectives.

 

Well, if this one fails he'll have one more try and that's it.

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

On the BBC live page protesters are throwing missiles at police

 

Precision-guided or indiscriminate fire?

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He was at the front of the March against the Iraq war too.

 

Pity it failed in It’s objectives.

Lol. Couldn't care less about him.

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

Lol. Couldn't care less about him.

 

Wonder if he's got Shams the puppeteer behind him.

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Precision-guided or indiscriminate fire?

I put Laughing emoji on that but it deserves a +1. Going to change it now

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, that's fine - but at which point, in your opinion, a protest might lose its legitimacy? Or is this not a possibility, even?

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.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Surely not both marching together....end of days.

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.
 

 

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Lol. Couldn't care less about him.

Odd you should mention him then:

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Oh gawd. Jeremy Corbyn is at the front of the march.

 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

 

 

 

If the protest, for example, brings a key speaker who goes on to incite the crowd, or if the lawlessness goes beyond what police can handily deal with. Just two easy hypothetical examples for problematic situations.

But you've basically made it clear that for you the answer is never. Alright. Each to his own.

 

I'm sure there are trouble makers on both sides.

Agent provocateur working for/against which side?

 

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

On the BBC live page protesters are throwing missiles at police

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

 

59 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It's a Pro Palestine March. They are not protesting to end the war. They are protesting the existence of Isreal.

All of them? Are you sure, or maybe such binary thinking makes a complex issue simple for you?

 

Here's a suggestion that might blow your mind - it's possible to object to the policies of the Israeli government without also objecting to the right of the country to exist.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Odd you should mention him then:

 

Why. I think it's fine to declare I don't care about anti semitics

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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

 

Quote where I was dishonest or apologize