Braverman

[Iron-awe]

He goes down the route you say NI after coming to the end of his debating road and not convincing people he is right, nowt worse then a vain arrogant person.

[Deereyme66]

The million dollar question NI 🤷‍♂️

[64]

at least we’re not talking about the subject, he’s won

[Iron-awe]

….but as usual lost his dignity.

[Northumbiron]

I’m sure Ms B will do something over next few days to rekindle the debate!

[Heath]

“All you lot can do is snipe and attack me while failing to demonstrate any understanding of the real problem”.

Yeah right. Isn’t it amazing that you are the only one on here who understands the real problem?

Life must be real tough for you having to mix with people who never understand the real problem.

Having read the thread I find it amazing that you are the only one who doesn’t understand what the thread is about.

Life must be real tough for you not understanding what everyone else is talking about.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights

[Heath]

As for Braverman, she’s showing herself to be more useless and dangerous than Ms Patel and on a par, if that’s possible, with Truss.

Ironic that, as a lawyer, she used to defend asylum seekers. She would call herself a lefty lawyer.

[64]

I want my topic back,this vile woman is attacking the vulnerable and being backed in her rhetoric by our national mouthpiece the BBC

[Heath]

I’ll give you the topic back with her additions to the proposed public order bill.

“Rather worryingly, the Home Secretary Suella Braverman added a last minute amendment to the bill which will allow her to apply for injunctions against anyone she deems ‘likely’ to carry out protests that could cause ‘serious disruption’ to ‘key national infrastructure’, prevent access to ‘essential’ goods or services, or have a ‘serious adverse effect on public safety’. What this is clearly designed to do is stop protests before they’ve even happened. So much for the Tory mantra of being the party of ‘liberty’.”

“The bill defines illegal protest as acts causing “serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation”. “Serious disruption” has been taken to include noise, meaning that in effect it can be used to shut down any protest”.

One of the most sinister aspects of the bill are the ‘serious disruption prevention orders’(SDPO), which can be imposed on people who have participated in at least 2 protests within a 5 year period. Crucially, they can be imposed on an individual irrespective of whether or not they have been convicted of an offence and can be served with a two-year order forbidding them from attending further protests.

As George Monbiot writes in the Guardian: “Like prisoners on probation, they may be required to report to “a particular person at a particular place at … particular times on particular days”, “to remain at a particular place for particular periods” and to submit to wearing an electronic tag. They may not associate “with particular persons”, enter “particular areas” or use the internet to encourage other people to protest. If you break these terms, you face up to 51 weeks in prison. So much for “civilised” and “democratic”.

[64]

we’re sleep walking into a police state while idiots who claim to back freedom attack the opposition claiming it’s them that want this

[Siderite]

These things seem to be backsliding, but I am not sure about a ‘police state.’ We’re not anywhere near that stage. Case in point being that yourself and bpg can talk of such without repercussion.

[64]

OH really,police taking loudhailers off protesters outside parliament ? It’s the very defintion

[Siderite]

Police states went a lot further than that.

[64]

we’re sleepwalkimng into one I said,not in one yet

[64]

https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/m25-just-stop-oil-arrest-journalist-b2221179.html

[Bucksiron]

Nobody has any issue with people protesting, in fact the complete opposite. But nobody has the right to stop people from carrying out their legitimate day-to-day life or business, which is what we’re seeing with the ‘Just Stop Oil’ protests.

[64]

Arresting journalists? Very sinister

[Siderite]

Bucksiron wrote:

Nobody has any issue with people protesting, in fact the complete opposite. But nobody has the right to stop people from carrying out their legitimate day-to-day life or business, which is what we’re seeing with the ‘Just Stop Oil’ protests.

And journalists don’t have a right to cover the situation? That is the situation being alluded to, not the protests.

[Bucksiron]

What, when that journalist is on a motorway bridge?

[Siderite]

Oh, so you admit it’s not about protests now. Your previous response suggested otherwise. I don’t think putting a journalist in custody was the right response.

[64]

Are you being deliberately obtuse ?>there are footpaths on Mway bridges,they are public rights of way .What next arresting kids for waving at Lorry drivers?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Siderite

[Bucksiron]

Ah, my mistake, in which case I apologise. Of course she shouldn’t have been arrested.

2 users thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights, Siderite

[Author]

Posts