You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I doubt this rioting was incited by police, but it has definitely happened before, so I don't see why it wouldn't happen again.
Also, sort your quoting out.
There’s a weird group on this forum who seem to thrive on the idea of chaos and violent disorder, but I suspect it’s just keyboard warriors over frothing their soya frappuccinos.
pmsl.. why is there no like button on here?
Organised by who?
The Kaiser Chiefs?
The Kaiser Chiefs?
Nah, they just predicted it. Should get them off the hook.
But how did they know? Makes you think
It amazes me how the police always manage to leave a lone van completely unattended behind enemy lines in these situations....so forgetful of them.
"I say PC Knacker, don't tell me you've left the van open and unlocked with a box of matches on the front seat again!"
We seem to want a justice system that focuses on punishment, not reducing crime.
UK recidivism – 75% of ex-inmates reoffend within nine years of release, and 39.3% within the first twelve months.
Norway – 20% after two years and about 25% after five years.
Now this I can properly get behind. Needs at least a generation of upfront investment to get the longterm savings back in justice, social services etc, so no party with its eyes on a 5 year election cycle will be interested.
Not sure what it has to do with lasts nights trouble in Bristol though.
In the last 20 years there has never been sustained riots, to my knowledge, in term time.
In the last 20 years there has never been sustained riots, to my knowledge, in term time. Just saying.
Something else to pin on the teaching unions?
It amazes me how the police always manage to leave a lone van completely unattended behind enemy lines in these situations….so forgetful of them
Let's not let the facts get in the way of conjecture and speculation - the Police van that was torched was parked in a parking bay restricted for police vehicles. I have been delivering food to homeless people being housed in the YMCA hostel adjacent through the pandemic. 90% of the time we have delivered over the last year there has been one or more Police vans parked there!
I wanna riot, a riot of my own!
Anyway, life’s a riot, with spy versus spy...
chewkw
What are they protesting?
Anyway, life’s a riot, with spy versus spy…
Rape = 5 years in jail
Defacing statue = 10 years in jail
‘Some people might think it’s disproportionate’
I’m usually sceptical about the actions of the police, but at the last two big events in Bristol- the mini riot this week and the statue toppling- they seem to have been admirably restrained. Unlike their Met counterparts.
Rape = maximum sentence of life imprisonment (starting point of 5 years for Cat 3/Culpability B sentencing).
Defacing statue = proposed maximum sentence of 10 years in jail.
The statue one may still be considered disproportionate but it’s a little disingenuous to compare the maximum for one against the minimum for the other.
Not disingenuous at all, due to recent CPS guidance rape has all but been decriminalised. The conviction rates are obscenely low and unlikely to improve. We're fast heading back to the 70's or earlier for the offence, complete with some officers victim blaming/shaming.
Yep the Bristol police have actually been very good.
The protesters have been very naughty but tbh what do you expect the COVID fatigue syndrome is kicking in and some people are going to take advantage of an opportunity to do mischief.
Also as I point out to my OAP mum that her local protest March to save Cosham hospital being sold off to housing developers would likely have been illegal under the new bill.
What guidance is that? I looked for it the other day after a similar comment and couldn’t find it.
The mood music around this is getting steadily nastier.
The leader of the local Police Federation using the term 'animals' to describe rioters is instructive.
He may think that and he may well be right, but he should not say it. There is supposed to be a non-emotional impartiality to policing and that is not it. 'We' as a country used to pride ourselves on decency (no matter how illusory).
The current gang in Downing Street have achieved their position by mobilising indecent urges in people - xenophobia, nationalism etc. The direction that this is taking is never going to be good. They have achieved power by eroding decency.
I read that the van was out of MOT since January and had been left 'as a prop'. I was wrong about the LP standing on the sidelines, Toby Perkins made his position very clear on how appropriate the use of the baton had been. I'm sure he enjoyed it.
I read that the van was out of MOT since January and had been left ‘as a prop’
Was that on tinfoilhelmet.com?
I shouldn't read much into the van presence, the Police station location means that road is basically their car park.
' tinfoilhelmet'. Jeez, can't you come up with an original 'funny' between gardening and slavering at a Griggs? This constant grinding out of the same old carp seems more like a condition than an attitude.
‘ tinfoilhelmet’. Jeez, can’t you come up with an original ‘funny’ between gardening and slavering at a Griggs? This constant grinding out of the same old carp seems more like a condition than an attitude.
And making comments on social media suggesting that the van was some sort of prop left to facilitate the escalation of the violence by the authorities without either a link to some evidence or an indication that you are joking is what, exactly?
The Avon and Somerset Police Federation branded the rioters as “animals” who were “hell bent” on carrying out “politically motivated attacks” on officers who feared for their lives.
Inspector Andy Roebuck, chair of the Avon and Somerset Police Federation, said: "They tried to set fire to a police van with officers inside. To my mind that is attempted murder. I spoke to two officers who said they genuinely feared they would be killed. We should not have to put up with this.”
Insp Roebuck said ultra-left activists had launched a "premeditated" and "orchestrated" attack using the cover of the ‘Kill the Bill’ demonstration that had marched peacefully through the city.
See; using language and rhetoric such as this, is only going to inflame things further. The use of the term 'ultra left' (my bold) definitely politicises his argument. And there we have it. With absolutely no idea as to the individual political affiliations of those involved, he's made an assumption that they were 'ultra left'. They may well have been, but that's irrelevant. He's clearly shown what 'side' he's on. Battle lines drawn.
‘ tinfoilhelmet’. Jeez, can’t you come up with an original ‘funny’ between gardening and slavering at a Griggs? This constant grinding out of the same old carp seems more like a condition than an attitude.
Well I'd be interesting to hear what the correct response should be to what is clearly a load of evidence-free, conspiracy-theory claptrap, dreamt up by somebody with the curtains permanently drawn in their bedroom at their mums house, who subscribes to David Icke's Youtube channel and thinks that we're ruled by lizard overlords?
The police deliberately leaving vehicles to be torched as part of a conspiracy by the Government to 'organise' a riot?
Meanwhile, back in the real world....
Who mentioned 'conspiracy'? I thought it might have been placed there as a prop for a rendition of the Pirates of Penzance.
Protesting being “anti-democratic”...?
Isn’t protest something that is positively democratic?
Having attended 2 BLM protests in lockdown, carefully managed and safely organised - you can protest and maintain focus on public health.
Alternative view on things:
From my limited experience of protests it's all too plausible really.
I would suggest that sir did not search too hard for the rape guidance case!
Here's the case dismissal where the CPS celebrate their victory and details of those that brought it pointing out the flaws. https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-statement-judgment-judicial-review-prosecution-rape-and-serious-sexual-offences
The changes have not been shown to be unlawful but their effect is to further reduce prosecutions from the poor levels currently. See also the requirement to be digitally strip-searched to get any progress when reporting a rape.
Effectively a clear run unless the victim is particularly strong. (Guess what the particularly strong may well be those that don't get raped).
From my limited experience of protests it’s all too plausible really.
I've been present at quite a few protest 'riots' (many moons ago I might add), and all of them were started by police violence against peaceful protesters. I've also been at many protests where riots didn't occur (see my comments previously about the Iraq war march), and that was because the policing was very light touch. The clear conclusion I draw from this is that police commanders, no doubt operating under political influence or instruction, decide when they want a riot to occur. They know what will happen when they wade in with batons, dogs and horses, and they always get what they want.
It was the actual guidance I was after, not just a press release about the judicial review finding that the language changes had not had the effect claimed, but not to worry - I found it eventually.
I fail to see how this guidance amounts to ‘de facto legalisation of rape’, but each to their own.
Isn't the complicating factor here the need for the Police to be seen to not tolerate covid non-compliance?
I read that the van was out of MOT since January and had been left ‘as a prop’
Police vehicles are exempt from MOT's as they have regular checks
Perhaps it was an insurance job?
Isn’t the complicating factor here the need for the Police to be seen to not tolerate covid non-compliance?
I think you'll find that is the elephant shaped object in the room
I fail to see how this guidance amounts to ‘de facto legalisation of rape’, but each to their own.
If the prosecution rate falls to a point where a rape victim is extremely unlikely to see justice, then I suggest the description is fair.
Is the guidance the reason the conviction rate is so low? I would suggest not. The guidance is there to try and ensure that prosecutors consider all the potential evidential difficulties and things the defence will do to put doubt in the minds of the jury, so they can try and determine if the Full Code Test is met. (Whether you agree with the principles of the test is another matter).
Having investigated and reported dozens of rape cases in the last 18 years, I would respectfully suggest that the greatest hurdles are (1) proving to a jury beyond all reasonable doubt that specific aspects of events that are almost never independently witnessed happened, and (2) proving BARD that the perpetrator had a specific mens rea at a specific time.
Is the guidance the reason the conviction rate is so low?
No idea, which is why I didn't say it was. But what I am suggesting is that men can commit rape in the knowledge that they will almost certainly get away with it.
Fair enough, I thought you were agreeing with the new guidance = de facto legalisation of rape claim.
Indeed, the odds are not favour of victims. The reasons for this are unfortunately not straightforward.
Isn’t the complicating factor here the need for the Police to be seen to not tolerate covid non-compliance?
No the complication is the inability of police commanders to realise that public health offences are not public order offences.
There was widespread outrage when the force made the claims in a press release on Monday that “a total of 20 officers were assaulted or injured and two of them were taken to hospital after suffering broken bones. One of them also suffered a punctured lung,” the force had said.
But in an updated press release published on Wednesday, the force clarified this was not true, saying: “Thankfully, following a full medical assessment of the two officers taken to hospital, neither were found to have suffered confirmed broken bones.” Around the same time, a BBC reporter said on Twitter that Andy Marsh, the head of the Avon force, had admitted in a press conference that no officer had suffered a punctured lung.
🤔
So no broken bones, no punctured lung, but the narrative is already in place. Wonder what else they 'got wrong'?
So no broken bones, no punctured lung, but the narrative is already in place. Wonder what else they ‘got wrong’?
Yeah - strange that. Will Priti Vacant come back and correct her statements?
Wonder what else they ‘got wrong’?
That a suspect 'fell down the stairs', perhaps?
Will Priti Vacant come back and correct her statements?
If she follows correct protocol for her ilk she'll have the vacillating coppers 'liquidated'...
Real life Harry Enfield character..
I would like just a tiny bit of what he's on.
Actual LOLed at that. That's the best thing I've seen all week.
And I honestly don't what is, and what isn't real any more. It's all melded into one.
Meanwhile, in Myanmar....
Meanwhile, in Myanmar….
Are you suggesting that failure to protest against draconian new laws will leave us in a similar predicament?
So no broken bones, no punctured lung, but the narrative is already in place. Wonder what else they ‘got wrong’?
Could’ve been worse - thank god our brave boys in blue didn’t suffer any wasp stings or heat exhaustion like their plucky comrades at Kingsnorth.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/dec/15/kingsnorth-climate-change-environment-police
Seems like no evening of beating helpless people with clubs is complete without a lying report of police casualties.
I once read that the police figures of injuries sustained while on duty include things like falling off your chair and stubbing a toe on the edge of a desk. Incidentally compensation to the tune of thousands accompany these self inflicted 'accidents'
£3500 if the police dog bites another policeman.
Actual LOLed at that. That’s the best thing I’ve seen all week.
And I honestly don’t what is, and what isn’t real any more. It’s all melded into one.
It’s pretty crap reporting tbh, find a stoner and treat him as representative of something other than a stoner 🙂
Hmm I suppose it’s real when someone’s shoving you with a riot shield on your next peaceful protest in your post Brexit sanctioned police state as you protest at your local hospital being sold off for housing development 🙂
As my mum says ‘they won’t do that’ as I’m explaining they’ve already got a bill to do it nearly thru.
Reality bites as they say.
That’s the best thing I’ve seen all week.
I dunno...the video of the police dog biting another policeman was funnier I reckon.
Kevin Gately, Blair Peach, how long before we get a Georgette Floyd?
As my mum says ‘they won’t do that’ as I’m explaining they’ve already got a bill to do it nearly thru.
My mum said that 'Boris Johnson as leader would be the end of the Conservative Party'.
I told her it had already ended as it was basically now an English Nationalist Party.
It'll never happen here etc....
Hmm I suppose it’s real when someone’s shoving you with a riot shield on your next peaceful protest in your post Brexit sanctioned police state as you protest at your local hospital being sold off for housing development
Well that's what the government are warming up for.
In 6-18 months there is going to be a growing wave of protest as more and more people feel the impact of 'The Big Lie'.
Setting the them vs us narrative now is just doing your groundwork.
And I wonder - how long before some local beat policing is put in the hands of private security firms hiring 'locally recruited auxiliaries' so that the real police can deal with the growing unrest?
And I wonder – how long before some local beat policing is put in the hands of private security firms hiring ‘locally recruited auxiliaries’ so that the real police can deal with the growing unrest?
Ahh no need when you can get em for free- Specials.
Ahh no need when you can get em for free- Specials.
Who predate any of this Tory government, of course.
Police attacking legal observers:
It's quite disturbing how the BBC etc gleefully report on anti-democracy abuses by the Chinese authorities in Hong Kong, for example, yet are silent when similar happens here. It's an extremely sinister and worrying move by police, to now target those who are there simply to observe that the law is adhered to, particularly by the police. One step closer to fascism...
From the link (The Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers - no agenda there then).
The Legal Observers arrested were dressed in hi-vis jackets
do these legal observers have any credentials or do you just turn up and claim to be legal observers?
Despite being clearly identifiable as legal observers
Does a high vis jacket make you a legal observer?
that the police abuse the Coronavirus regulations to prevent protest
Not sure how the police are abusing the regulations when the regulations have banned gatherings for the time being, regulations that have gone through our democratic process.
If you are genuinely suggesting what has happened recently in the UK with what has happened in Hong Kong you are seriously trivialising the issues in Hong Kong.
We note that three of the four legal observers were from Black, Brown and Racialised Groups.
Not surprising when
four legal observers from Black Protest Legal Support
If there were 20 legal observers, 17 were white who didn't get arrested then that statement might have legs.
Personally I'd be more impressed if the legal observers were observing the legality of protestors trying to set fire to mini busses and smashing things up.
From the link (The Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers – no agenda there then).
Interesting that you've mentioned that. So I'll throw your own words back at you; no agenda there, then.
do these legal observers have any credentials or do you just turn up and claim to be legal observers?
There is an entire internet out there, for you to do your own research, and enlighten yourself, but I'll help you out a bit:
https://greenandblackcross.org/guides/what-is-a-legal-observer/
It really was as easy as just typing 'legal observer' inot Google. Really that easy. I will pick up one point I think needs clarification though:
"Legal observers are not:.. Lawyers"
They aren't there in a professional capacity, but they can be actual lawyers, as well as from myriad professions. I personally know a few lawyers who have attended demonstrations as 'legal observers'; some are barristers, and there's even a QC or two in there. I also know a black cab driver who's acted as a 'legal observer'.
Does a high vis jacket make you a legal observer?
It's purpose is to distinguish you as a 'legal observer', rather than a 'protestor', so that police don't use powers meant to be used for protestors, on them.
Not surprising when
four legal observers from Black Protest Legal Support
Not all people connected with Black Protest Legal Support are people of colour. I know two who are very white. So there you go. It's often not a good idea to make assumptions.
Not sure how the police are abusing the regulations when the regulations have banned gatherings for the time being, regulations that have gone through our democratic process.
Lots of confusion surround all this, not least from the police themselves, so I'll forgive you for making that mistake. I'll point you instead towards the recent High Court ruling on the matter:
"Police officers are using coronavirus regulations to break up socially distanced demonstrations even though the country’s largest police force has conceded in a landmark legal case that people have a right to protest during the current national lockdown.
The Metropolitan police admitted in the high court on Friday that it had discretion on how to respond to protests and it could not impose a blanket ban on demonstrations, after the force was challenged by the organisers of the planned vigil to remember Sarah Everard in south London."
If you are genuinely suggesting what has happened recently in the UK with what has happened in Hong Kong you are seriously trivialising the issues in Hong Kong.
I'm not. I was merely pointing out that the BBC and other 'mainstream' media outlets have neglected to mention that 'legal observers' were attacked by police. Something that also happened in Hong Kong, which the western media reported on, extensively.
We've already seen that the police have lied about injuries to officers, during the protests, and we've also seen that it is likely that various media outlets have differing agendas when it comes to reporting facts. It really is worth pointing out that the Sarah Everard vigil was not in fact a protest, and had not been 'organised' by anyone as such, so police were in breach of the current emergency legislation.
so police were in breach of the current emergency legislation.
So the emergency legislation allowed more than 2 people to meet up?
I'm not happy with the Policing, but I also don't see how a gathering like that was legal, unless I'm missing something in the small print. And if the law is being broken, that's kind of why we have the Police?
I'm not sure which side is trying to have its cake and eat it, probably both.
I notice the report out on the Policing of the vigil criticises the Covid legislation the Police were supposedly enforcing fir being too vague. That I can agree with.
@csb the clue is in the words health (generally no violence involved unless the Met are policing) and order (preventing a breach of the peace and preventing violence (some of the Met's and Bristol's finest were in breach of public order).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
No comment.
Anything asked = No Comment.
99% of people who come to deal with the police hand it all to them by engaging. I know nothing, so am saying nothing. Build yer own case.
EG. It's like drink driving. Blow in the device and it reads a point over and you'll have that on the permanent record,affecting your insurance, but refuse to engage and all they can do you for is failing to provide. This is not a drink drive conviction.
No comment.
Anything asked = No Comment.99% of people who come to deal with the police hand it all to them by engaging. I know nothing, so am saying nothing. Build yer own case.
99% - I wish!
No Comment will be the best option in some situations, and not the best option in others. Don’t forget about adverse inference. The best thing to do is speak to a solicitor, they will advise the best option for the particular situation.
EG. It’s like drink driving. Blow in the device and it reads a point over and you’ll have that on the permanent record,affecting your insurance, but refuse to engage and all they can do you for is failing to provide. This is not a drink drive conviction.
Not good advice. 1) Failing to provide is much easier to prove, the police are more than happy for you to do that. 2) Insurance companies will wonder how shitfaced were you that failing to provide was the least worst option, just like they do with failing to identify the driver vs speeding offences.
but refuse to engage and all they can do you for is failing to provide. This is not a drink drive conviction.
As I understand it the punishment is the same, and the insurance implications certainly are.
In Scotland, no inference can be drawn from not answering questions during interview.
However, it is not always the best choice...
I am aware of a interviewee who chose to no comment and interview and subsequently received a fraud conviction.
If they had answered the questions, it may have been possible for them to have been considered a witness, rather than an offender.
You’re quite right, that is the legal position, but I’m not convinced that jurors don’t sometimes still draw such an inference.
EG. It’s like drink driving.
It's not.