|
Post by jontifree on Mar 30, 2011 13:01:45 GMT 1
The point I would make in response jontifree is that you are piling the violent people (who largely didn't get arrested) in with the non-violent protest by UK Uncut (who largely did get arrested). another link with eye witness information: gu.com/p/2z4je/twI'm not piling anyone up with anyone else. I'm asking why they go dressed like that for a peaceful protest regardless of where it is.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 30, 2011 13:05:56 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 30, 2011 13:07:31 GMT 1
The point I would make in response jontifree is that you are piling the violent people (who largely didn't get arrested) in with the non-violent protest by UK Uncut (who largely did get arrested). another link with eye witness information: gu.com/p/2z4je/twI'm not piling anyone up with anyone else. I'm asking why they go dressed like that for a peaceful protest regardless of where it is. But you are. You said: "Why do "peaceful" protesters wear balaclava's and carry smoke bombs? At the start of the video it states that they were carrying out a "peaceful occupation" of Fortnum & Mason. That will be a "peaceful occupation" that included criminal damage." 1) The people who occupied Fortnum and Mason did not wear balaclavas. 2) The people who occupied Fortnum and Mason did not carry smoke bombs. 3) The charge of criminal damage against the people who occupied Fortnum and Mason was dropped.
|
|
|
Post by jontifree on Mar 30, 2011 13:50:09 GMT 1
OK Sean
"Why do "peaceful" protesters wear balaclava's and carry smoke bombs?
At the start of the video it states that they were carrying out a "peaceful occupation" of Fortnum & Mason. That will be a "peaceful occupation" that included criminal damage."
The pictures I have seen, which is all I can judge it on, showed smased windows at F&M. That is criminal damage is it not? Regardless of any damage a protest on private property without the express permission of the land owner is against the law.
Now can anyone answer my question...Why do "peaceful" protesters wear balaclava's and carry smoke bombs?
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Mar 30, 2011 15:59:23 GMT 1
Peaceful protestors have been known to cover their faces in objection to being filmed by the authorities and/or media, as they consider the act of being filmed to be a presumption of guilt. Start filming a policeman without asking first, and if they tell you to stop, you get an idea why they consider it fair to cover their own identity in the inverse situation.
The smoke bombs? No excuse at all. People carrying those can't be considered peaceful protestors.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 30, 2011 17:50:16 GMT 1
Let's stop focussing on the minor vandalism of such 'national treasures' as Santander and Lloyds and turn attention to the social vandalism of those who want to 'reform' (ie flog off to profiteers) the entirity of our public services.
The 'ohhhh, what ghastly ruffians' schtick we're getting from right wingers is nauseatingly hypocritical given the brutal society they're intent on creating.
Their cuts programme will do far more damage to our society than a few broken windows and a bit of spray paint.
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Mar 30, 2011 18:48:36 GMT 1
It's certainly possible. I'd prefer it if they didn't sell off the duties of national and local government in service provision to for-profit organisations, as the simple term "for-profit" automatically means "Some of the money isn't going to the purpose of the money".
Can't see that happening though, unless public services learn how to be more efficient in and of themselves. That would probably require some *real* changes to how they work though, rather than the flawed implementation that normally occurs by either blindly slashing (Con) or blindly throwing money at it (Lab).
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Mar 30, 2011 19:18:33 GMT 1
Sean, As it is private property, technically you do, although, it is an open invite!! thought the shop had been closed, and they broke in, which then ment that the open invite had been withdrawn therefore tresspassing!! Fair play Downie you don't half post some b******s on here. An open invite to a shop ? The shop was closed ? invite withdrawn therefore trespassing ? Bloody hell those shoppers inside must have been trespassing as well !!
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Mar 30, 2011 20:20:47 GMT 1
Sean, As it is private property, technically you do, although, it is an open invite!! thought the shop had been closed, and they broke in, which then ment that the open invite had been withdrawn therefore tresspassing!! Fair play Downie you don't half post some b******s on here. An open invite to a shop ? The shop was closed ? invite withdrawn therefore trespassing ? Bloody hell those shoppers inside must have been trespassing as well !! Jamo, Downie is talking about implied permission. For example, people have implied permission from a shop owner to enter the shop - keeping it simple, for the purposes of perusing or buying the goods therin. If you're not doing that, then you could be comitting a trespass. Certainly I doubt F&M would permit a sit in protest at their store. These people then become trespassers. If you commit a criminal offence, then you're aggravating the trespass. I'm getting bored of armchair lawyers bleating on about how harshly they are treated for breaking the law, despite not knowing what the law is they are disputing. It's on a par with drivers banging on about how unjust their speeding ticket was. Break the law, get caught, have the back bone to accept it. Implied permission, in the context of real property, means means conduct or words or both that imply that an owner or occupant of land has agreed to another person's use of or ability to enter land.A trespass to land is any interference with a person's property rights in his land. This may constitute entering the property without authorization, occupying someone else's land, or placing objects (frequently rubbish) on the land, among other things.Aggravated Trespass. An offence under s.69 of the Criminal justice and public order act 1994. A person is guilty of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on another's land (see: Trespass to land) and carries out any act with the intention of disrupting a lawful activity being carried out on or adjacent to that land.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2011 20:33:24 GMT 1
Sean, As it is private property, technically you do, although, it is an open invite!! thought the shop had been closed, and they broke in, which then ment that the open invite had been withdrawn therefore tresspassing!! Fair play Downie you don't half post some b******s on here. An open invite to a shop ? The shop was closed ? invite withdrawn therefore trespassing ? Bloody hell those shoppers inside must have been trespassing as well !! Another crass reply from you to someone who is expressing his views on the subject which differ from yours. Are you sure you were part of the "PEACEFUL" demonstration. You seem to be an angry old man.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Mar 30, 2011 20:42:51 GMT 1
Jamo, Downie is talking about implied permission. For example, people have implied permission from a shop owner to enter the shop - keeping it simple, for the purposes of perusing or buying the goods therin. If you're not doing that, then you could be comitting a trespass. Certainly I doubt F&M would permit a sit in protest at their store. These people then become trespassers. If you commit a criminal offence, then you're aggravating the trespass. I'm getting bored of armchair lawyers bleating on about how harshly they are treated for breaking the law, despite not knowing what the law is they are disputing. It's on a par with drivers banging on about how unjust their speeding ticket was. Break the law, get caught, have the back bone to accept it. Implied permission, in the context of real property, means means conduct or words or both that imply that an owner or occupant of land has agreed to another person's use of or ability to enter land.A trespass to land is any interference with a person's property rights in his land. This may constitute entering the property without authorization, occupying someone else's land, or placing objects (frequently rubbish) on the land, among other things.Aggravated Trespass. An offence under s.69 of the Criminal justice and public order act 1994. A person is guilty of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on another's land (see: Trespass to land) and carries out any act with the intention of disrupting a lawful activity being carried out on or adjacent to that land.Really ? And the bit about the shop being closed ? and therefore the `invite` being withdrawn ? and the hundreds of shoppers who were in these locked premises apparently not shopping nor dining ? all apparently trespassing but not being arrested ?
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 30, 2011 20:54:43 GMT 1
Would you break the law for a cause you believed in El Pres?
After all, it's not as if our laws are passed down on tablets of stone from god, more like written by self interested politicians at the behest self interested business people.
Did you agree with pensioners being jailed for non-payment of poll tax? Would this come under 'break the law, get caught, have the back bone to accept it', for you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2011 21:21:33 GMT 1
Ok Jamo, just for you, I will try to simplify even further.
A shop is owned by someone, be it an individual or an entity such as Sainsburys, As EP has put this, people can enter under implied invitation by having the open sign up!! get the drift so far!! this is, in laymans terms, an open invite, this does not distract from the fact that it is still private property!!
At any time the owner, or indeed an agent of the owner can remove that invite to any individual or group and ask you to leave the premises!! if you refuse then you become a trespasser, it really is quite simple.
If the shop is closed then it is obvious that the owner does not want anyone in the shop, therefore, there is no invite either implied or direct!! again, very simple stuff that even year 4-5 kids at school seem able to grasp!!
If you have any difficulty in understanding this, please ask, and I will arrange a 1 on 1 session with any primary school teacher for you!!
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Mar 30, 2011 21:26:38 GMT 1
Ok Jamo, just for you, I will try to simplify even further. A shop is owned by someone, be it an individual or an entity such as Sainsburys, As EP has put this, people can enter under implied invitation by having the open sign up!! get the drift so far!! this is, in laymans terms, an open invite, this does not distract from the fact that it is still private property!! At any time the owner, or indeed an agent of the owner can remove that invite to any individual or group and ask you to leave the premises!! if you refuse then you become a trespasser, it really is quite simple. If the shop is closed then it is obvious that the owner does not want anyone in the shop, therefore, there is no invite eiter implied or direct!! again, very simple stuff that even year 4-5 kids at school seem able to grasp!! If you have any difficulty in understanding this, please ask, and I will arrange a 1 on 1 session with any primary school teacher for you!! If you are Fine with the above but Fortnum and Mason was neither closed nor were the protestors asked to leave by shop staff, so not a trespass by the above definition?
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Mar 30, 2011 21:32:33 GMT 1
Fine with the above but Fortnum and Mason was neither closed nor were the protestors asked to leave by shop staff, so not a trespass by the above definition? You're flogging a dead horse there my friend ! What we need is to get a local 4 or 5 year old primary school pupil to explain that particular flaw in his original post to him, could prove difficult !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2011 21:34:36 GMT 1
And you were there?? you know that to be fact!! I would imagine that you will be called as a key witness to those that are charged then.........
Me, I aint sure what happened, but seems like the shop owners are pretty p**sed about it myself!!
Seems like we have many experts on here, Jamo especially, now, I will AGAIN state that I was under the impression that the shop was closed!! if this is not the case, and the protesters just enetered, and left when asked, then there will be no problem in them proving this in a court of law.............
Again, I could be wrong< but for any charge of trespass there has to be a complaint, and the CPS will not allow a charge to brought unless they are 80% certain of a conviction!! But obvioulsy all of you who are stating fact, will know better than I, but I certainly will not be GULLIBLE in believing the MEDIA about what happened on Saturday, same as will not be GULLIBLE in believeing everything that is on UK Uncuts website or there version of events!!
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Mar 30, 2011 21:43:19 GMT 1
Would you break the law for a cause you believed in El Pres? After all, it's not as if our laws are passed down on tablets of stone from god, more like written by self interested politicians at the behest self interested business people. Did you agree with pensioners being jailed for non-payment of poll tax? Would this come under 'break the law, get caught, have the back bone to accept it', for you? Ace, most of the time I see life in lots of shades of grey...not wholly black and white. However, it is quite simple that to break the law, you should be punished as the law determines. For me personally, if I believed strongly in something, I would wholeheartedly be prepared to do whatever it took to achieve it. I would also accept responsibility for my actions. I believed strongly enough in certain principles, that I left the armed forces voluntarily, 6 years short of gaining a full pension that would have seen me set for life. Why? Because I was not prepared to take the pay and rewards for supporting something that was skewed with my new found principles. As for Jamo's last post about whether F&M was closed or open, or if the staff asked the protestors to leave, it matters not, as it is a public order offence and the offence is committed regardless...
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Mar 30, 2011 21:49:09 GMT 1
And you were there?? you know that to be fact!! I would imagine that you will be called as a key witness to those that are charged then......... Me, I aint sure what happened, but seems like the shop owners are pretty p**sed about it myself!! If you look at the videos online you can clearly see the protestors being told by the police not to leave the shop for their own safety, and that they wouldn't be arrested when they did leave. Obviously I wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure the lawyers dealing with the protestors will be using that as evidence. Nor have I seen any comment from the shop owners that they asked to police to remove the people from the shop What really concerns me is the apparent lack of action the police took against these attacking the Santander and top shop buildings, they just seemed to stand by and let it happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2011 21:50:23 GMT 1
Ok Jamo, just for you, I will try to simplify even further. A shop is owned by someone, be it an individual or an entity such as Sainsburys, As EP has put this, people can enter under implied invitation by having the open sign up!! get the drift so far!! this is, in laymans terms, an open invite, this does not distract from the fact that it is still private property!! At any time the owner, or indeed an agent of the owner can remove that invite to any individual or group and ask you to leave the premises!! if you refuse then you become a trespasser, it really is quite simple. If the shop is closed then it is obvious that the owner does not want anyone in the shop, therefore, there is no invite eiter implied or direct!! again, very simple stuff that even year 4-5 kids at school seem able to grasp!! If you have any difficulty in understanding this, please ask, and I will arrange a 1 on 1 session with any primary school teacher for you!! If you are Fine with the above but Fortnum and Mason was neither closed nor were the protestors asked to leave by shop staff, so not a trespass by the above definition? Matt, were you there?? have you been arrested and charged, because if the answer to either or both of those is No, then you are going by hearsay and would strongly suggest you wait until the outcome of any court case!!
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 30, 2011 21:53:33 GMT 1
Would you break the law for a cause you believed in El Pres? After all, it's not as if our laws are passed down on tablets of stone from god, more like written by self interested politicians at the behest self interested business people. Did you agree with pensioners being jailed for non-payment of poll tax? Would this come under 'break the law, get caught, have the back bone to accept it', for you? Ace, most of the time I see life in lots of shades of grey...not wholly black and white. However, it is quite simple that to break the law, you should be punished as the law determines. For me personally, if I believed strongly in something, I would wholeheartedly be prepared to do whatever it took to achieve it. I would also accept responsibility for my actions. I believed strongly enough in certain principles, that I left the armed forces voluntarily, 6 years short of gaining a full pension that would have seen me set for life. Why? Because I was not prepared to take the pay and rewards for supporting something that was skewed with my new found principles. As for Jamo's last post about whether F&M was closed or open, or if the staff asked the protestors to leave, it matters not, as it is a public order offence and the offence is committed regardless... Thanks for that El Pres. I suppose if you break the law, you have to do it with your eyes open and prepared to suffer the possible consequences. Not sure I agree that you should be punished as the law determines. After all, not so long ago the law determined that you should be imprisoned if you were a practising homosexual. Today, in other parts of the world a woman can be stoned to death for committing adultery. I don't see man made laws as moral absolutes.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 30, 2011 21:53:47 GMT 1
The owners were p**sed may be a fact but it's not a clincher.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2011 21:55:31 GMT 1
We must have typed at the same time.
As for the lack of action, would not take that as what is actually happening, apparently there were 80 - 100 arrests to do with the riots caused by the groups after the students action last year, this was 2 - 5 weeks after the march's.
Personally< i think you will find that there will undoubtably be a lot of further arrests after full investigagtions have been carried out!!
As for video footage, well not botherd watching it, but if its genuine I am sure people may use it in defence, but let the judicial system be the judge eh!!
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Mar 30, 2011 21:56:44 GMT 1
Ace, most of the time I see life in lots of shades of grey...not wholly black and white. However, it is quite simple that to break the law, you should be punished as the law determines. For me personally, if I believed strongly in something, I would wholeheartedly be prepared to do whatever it took to achieve it. I would also accept responsibility for my actions. I believed strongly enough in certain principles, that I left the armed forces voluntarily, 6 years short of gaining a full pension that would have seen me set for life. Why? Because I was not prepared to take the pay and rewards for supporting something that was skewed with my new found principles. As for Jamo's last post about whether F&M was closed or open, or if the staff asked the protestors to leave, it matters not, as it is a public order offence and the offence is committed regardless... Thanks for that El Pres. I suppose if you break the law, you have to do it with your eyes open and prepared to suffer the possible consequences. Not sure I agree that you should be punished as the law determines. After all, not so long ago the law determined that you should be imprisoned if you were a practising homosexual. Today, in other parts of the world a woman can be stoned to death for committing adultery. I don't see man made laws as moral absolutes. Mate I'm refering to UK statute law - not across the world!! And of course Laws can be changed, often through direct action. I'm a simple bloke, as anyone who knows me will testify. Simply put, just because I disagree with someones views, it doesn't mean I don't think those views can not be expressed, just that they should be aware of the consequences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2011 21:57:21 GMT 1
The owners were p**sed may be a fact but it's not a clincher. Correct, the clincher would be in the gathering of evidence, and CPS will only allow charges if they are confident of a successful prosecution
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Mar 30, 2011 21:58:49 GMT 1
Fine with the above but Fortnum and Mason was neither closed nor were the protestors asked to leave by shop staff, so not a trespass by the above definition? Matt, were you there?? have you been arrested and charged, because if the answer to either or both of those is No, then you are going by hearsay and would strongly suggest you wait until the outcome of any court case!! Well a message board is going to be dead boring if we can't use a bit of hearsay! I've read a number of different reports on the sit in, and seen videos and none suggest the shop was closed, and in the videos you can clearly see shoppers going around the shop buying stuff. Same videos show police officers telling protestors not to leave the store. Court case will be the best way to sort it out, but still fail to see how arresting people in the F&M protest and putting them through an expensive court case is more in the public interest than targeting and arresting people causing criminal damage out in the streets
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 30, 2011 22:03:30 GMT 1
Isn't this more deserving of the public's rage than a sit in at F&Ms? Lloyds Banking Group, one of the banks bailed out by the taxpayer, has handed its new chief executive António Horta-Osório a package of up to £13.4m after luring him from his previous employer with a £4.6m "golden hello".www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/30/lloyds-antonio-horta-osorio-pay-deal-sharesI thought we were 'all in it together', I thought there was 'no money left'. Although, to be fair, someone in the public sector is still guaranteed a 'gold plated pension'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2011 22:11:45 GMT 1
Isn't this more deserving of the public's rage than a sit in at F&Ms? Lloyds Banking Group, one of the banks bailed out by the taxpayer, has handed its new chief executive António Horta-Osório a package of up to £13.4m after luring him from his previous employer with a £4.6m "golden hello".www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/30/lloyds-antonio-horta-osorio-pay-deal-sharesI thought we were 'all in it together', I thought there was 'no money left'. Although, to be fair, someone in the public sector is still guaranteed a 'gold plated pension' I really dont care, The Government of the day had the chance to put in clauses and conditions when it bailed out the banks, but failed to do so. The banks have us over the coals, and regardless what is said, no one can do squat about it the chance was there and was passed by, same as we can do about oil and the price of petrol. Living in a fair world was a lesson I must have missed at school, but what a private company wishes to pay its staff is entirely up to them.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 30, 2011 22:15:06 GMT 1
Isn't this more deserving of the public's rage than a sit in at F&Ms? Lloyds Banking Group, one of the banks bailed out by the taxpayer, has handed its new chief executive António Horta-Osório a package of up to £13.4m after luring him from his previous employer with a £4.6m "golden hello".www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/30/lloyds-antonio-horta-osorio-pay-deal-sharesI thought we were 'all in it together', I thought there was 'no money left'. Although, to be fair, someone in the public sector is still guaranteed a 'gold plated pension' I really dont care, The Government of the day had the chance to put in clauses and conditions when it bailed out the banks, but failed to do so. The banks have us over the coals, and regardless what is said, no one can do squat about it the chance was there and was passed by, same as we can do about oil and the price of petrol. Living in a fair world was a lesson I must have missed at school, but what a private company wishes to pay its staff is entirely up to them. Lloyds Banking Group, one of the banks bailed out by the taxpayerFind it odd that you 'really don't care' about this, but are very concerned by 'marauding ruffians'.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Mar 30, 2011 22:15:58 GMT 1
Matt, were you there?? have you been arrested and charged, because if the answer to either or both of those is No, then you are going by hearsay and would strongly suggest you wait until the outcome of any court case!! Downie if you didn't rely on hearsay and rumour your post count on here would be reduced by 75%, just a tad rich to accuse others of something similar. Back to Fortnum and Masons. No doubt there will be further arrests but come the court cases just watch them fall by the wayside when the lawyers get into the actions of The Met at that location
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2011 22:22:50 GMT 1
Shrewsace
I really dont care because there is nothing I can do about it, the damage is done.
We can leave it to the Government of the day, but they still cannot dictate what a private company pays someone!! and if they impose sanctions and new rule on the banks, they will still pass those on to the individual with higher interest rates and more bank charges.
Or shall I live an angry life because the banks, and oil companies are screwing us every minute of the day??
|
|