• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Sick sick world what is wrong with people

Gotta love the these “patriots” being directo
Jurgen the German said:
Football hooliganism these days is committed by such a tiny minority of people, as are these far right protests. And gladly we’ve witnessed the counter protests which seem to have larger numbers of people attending.
There was criticism of how the police handled some of the pro-Palestinian protests earlier this year and I think some to the criticism was fairly reasonable. Not sure if I agree with the whole two tier policing angle as has been suggested but I’d say the police took the path of least resistance when it came to not arresting some of the people at those marches. I’d imagine Jewish people probably had similar fears for their safety as Muslims have had since the stabbings in Southport, albeit the far right marches have been violent and I’m not suggesting the Palestine marches were but there were most definitely people who should have been arrested at some of those marches.
Click to expand...
police vary their approach to protests based on the type of threat they represent and whether best to de-escalate and contain or confront and prevent.

These thugs can to loot destroy and attack therefore contain and de-escalate was never a viable prospect.

It’s not two tier policing, it’s planning and strategising to manage to manage two different types of events one being a protest march and the other being a riot.

It’s simply basic common sense and if you can’t understand that I don’t know what to say to you
 
Crab.C.Nesbitt said:
Gotta love the these “patriots” being directo

police vary their approach to protests based on the type of threat they represent and whether best to de-escalate and contain or confront and prevent.

These thugs can to loot destroy and attack therefore contain and de-escalate was never a viable prospect.

It’s not two tier policing, it’s planning and strategising to manage to manage two different types of events one being a protest march and the other being a riot.

It’s simply basic common sense and if you can’t understand that I don’t know what to say to you
Click to expand...

A lot of antisemitism went unchecked at some of those marches. The police also suggesting people were acting “too Jewish” in front of the protesters. A YouGuv poll revealed only 31% of Britons approved of the met’s handling of the protests so it’s not in my head and they definitely could have handled them better. As I said, they took the path of least resistance. For the record, I think they’ve dealt with these far right protests very well.
 
thfcsteff said:
Hmmm...'creaming my undies'...a bit hysterical don't you think?

I know my long posts bore you, so all I'll say is, take a look at how the US Supreme Court system is now rigged towards the far right/ultra Christian agenda. And consider who (in ANY instance) is in charge. And then consider what that person/party might wish to make a 'benefit-losing-law-breaking' offence. You see the slide here? A bit like dictatorships really. What laws count? What laws don't? What's the cut-off 'law break'? Who decides what that is? I personally do not see a hungry single mum who cannot afford to properly feed her kid who might steal food as the same level of 'law breaking' as some macaron punching minorities in the head and trying to set fire to properties. But you see, you or someone else might. It gets messy fast.

For many reasons which would doubtless lead to another 'too long' post, I disagree with your idea.
Click to expand...
You might disagree with it, but it will happen.

The left through the media have been behaving like the morale judges for years, the right do it through force and aggression, look at the disgusting laws in America telling women they can't have abortions in certain states. Which is quite clearly very wrong.

We have been heading down the road to dictatorship for a while now. Political parties telling you how to think and if you don't agree with them then you make you out to be an extremist.

It was one of my reasons for voting leave over brexit. Freedom, the freedom for independent thought and behaviour. It is the most important thing.

We do not agree on Political matters but then why should we?

I don't agree with your opinions but I would fight to the death for you to have them, that was a little hysterical but you get the gist.

Don't understand the need that people have that their view on anything is the correct one, for example I think we are over paying for Solanke, others will not.

Yes of course the are different levels of crime, a single mum stealing food for a child won't be given a tough punishment. The controllers will not want the masses revolting. For example steff those scum that set fire to a building with people in it should be done for attempted murder.

But the controllers of society will start taking away people's benefits and welfare if they do not adhere to societies rules.

This slide towards governments having more control over us is why I voted brexit and buy bitcoin.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
You might disagree with it, but it will happen.

The left through the media have been behaving like the morale judges for years, the right do it through force and aggression, look at the disgusting laws in America telling women they can't have abortions in certain states. Which is quite clearly very wrong.

We have been heading down the road to dictatorship for a while now. Political parties telling you how to think and if you don't agree with them then you make you out to be an extremist.

It was one of my reasons for voting leave over brexit. Freedom, the freedom for independent thought and behaviour. It is the most important thing.

We do not agree on Political matters but then why should we?

I don't agree with your opinions but I would fight to the death for you to have them, that was a little hysterical but you get the gist.

Don't understand the need that people have that their view on anything is the correct one, for example I think we are over paying for Solanke, others will not.

Yes of course the are different levels of crime, a single mum stealing food for a child won't be given a tough punishment. The controllers will not want the masses revolting. For example steff those scum that set fire to a building with people in it should be done for attempted murder.

But the controllers of society will start taking away people's benefits and welfare if they do not adhere to societies rules.

This slide towards governments having more control over us is why I voted brexit and buy bitcoin.
Click to expand...

Lots to agree with there.

Essentially, I think where you and I find common ground is in the fact we both wish for more tolerance and acceptance of a general 'middle' in society. I'd say we both agree that the levels of polarisation on all sides have become deafening and utterly destructive.

I wish you'd taken the time to read some of my initial, longer replies. We agree on far more than you might imagine. I disagree with Brexit (and Bitcoin for that matter) only because I believe neither services society, and only service the very wealthy. But as you said, the privilege of being able to disagree is one we have to cherish.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Don't understand the need that people have that their view on anything is the correct one, for example I think we are over paying for Solanke, others will not.
Click to expand...

Well, in most things there is a clear dialectic, and this is no different.

We are over-paying for Solanke and he is exactly what Ange wants and his system requires.

Two truths in one sentence!!!
 
thfcsteff said:
Well, in most things there is a clear dialectic, and this is no different.

We are over-paying for Solanke and he is exactly what Ange wants and his system requires.

Two truths in one sentence!!!
Click to expand...
Fight for my right to think what I want, SAY IT, the freedom will enrich your life steff.

As long as one is not inciting violence people should be allowed to think as they like, even if it is different to the herd.

Now run out into the street put your arms in the air and shout, the human race shall not be shackled, we shall be free.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
You might disagree with it, but it will happen.

The left through the media have been behaving like the morale judges for years, the right do it through force and aggression, look at the disgusting laws in America telling women they can't have abortions in certain states. Which is quite clearly very wrong.

We have been heading down the road to dictatorship for a while now. Political parties telling you how to think and if you don't agree with them then you make you out to be an extremist.

It was one of my reasons for voting leave over brexit. Freedom, the freedom for independent thought and behaviour. It is the most important thing.

We do not agree on Political matters but then why should we?

I don't agree with your opinions but I would fight to the death for you to have them, that was a little hysterical but you get the gist.

Don't understand the need that people have that their view on anything is the correct one, for example I think we are over paying for Solanke, others will not.

Yes of course the are different levels of crime, a single mum stealing food for a child won't be given a tough punishment. The controllers will not want the masses revolting. For example steff those scum that set fire to a building with people in it should be done for attempted murder.

But the controllers of society will start taking away people's benefits and welfare if they do not adhere to societies rules.

This slide towards governments having more control over us is why I voted brexit and buy bitcoin.
Click to expand...

I voted for Brexit as I didn't believe we need an other layer of government serving the needs of international capitalism.
We need to have some belief or view on life else we all become Mavis Reilly!
 
Jurgen the German said:
A lot of antisemitism went unchecked at some of those marches. The police also suggesting people were acting “too Jewish” in front of the protesters. A YouGuv poll revealed only 31% of Britons approved of the met’s handling of the protests so it’s not in my head and they definitely could have handled them better. As I said, they took the path of least resistance. For the record, I think they’ve dealt with these far right protests very well.
Click to expand...
Saying you’re not happy with the approach the police took to managing the pro Palestine protest march may be valid, but saying it represents a two tiered approach is wrong

One was a protest march and one was a riot. Different approaches required from the police.
 
Crab.C.Nesbitt said:
Saying you’re not happy with the approach the police took to managing the pro Palestine protest march may be valid, but saying it represents a two tiered approach is wrong

One was a protest march and one was a riot. Different approaches required from the police.
Click to expand...

Yes I did say I didn’t think it was a two tiered approach. I just feel they were too lenient at times. Fully accept those marches weren’t anywhere near as violent as the far right marches and I wasn’t trying to compare the marches, just the police response.
 
thfcsteff said:
Lots to agree with there.

Essentially, I think where you and I find common ground is in the fact we both wish for more tolerance and acceptance of a general 'middle' in society. I'd say we both agree that the levels of polarisation on all sides have become deafening and utterly destructive.

I wish you'd taken the time to read some of my initial, longer replies. We agree on far more than you might imagine. I disagree with Brexit (and Bitcoin for that matter) only because I believe neither services society, and only service the very wealthy. But as you said, the privilege of being able to disagree is one we have to cherish.
Click to expand...

For me a lot of us want the same ends, we just don't necessarily agree on how to achieve them.
The curse of the middle I suppose.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
I voted for Brexit as I didn't believe we need an other layer of government serving the needs of international capitalism.
We need to have some belief or view on life else we all become Mavis Reilly!
Click to expand...

I would like less government and when you look at the layers of government from local councils right up to the the EU it's ridiculous.
The trade off what we would lose by Brexit just wasn't worth it for me.
 
glasgowspur said:
I would like less government and when you look at the layers of government from local councils right up to the the EU it's ridiculous.
The trade off what we would lose by Brexit just wasn't worth it for me.
Click to expand...

It doesn't appear to have worked as I had hoped, I think referendums are not the way to govern a country and it should have been used as a tool to pressurize the EU for changes.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1821240963970281631

Now this, if true, I have a bit of a problem with. Not that I would personally care if any of these racists was unable to attend a Spurs game or any other game. I’d have no sympathy for them. But as a matter of principle it’s dangerous ground and a dangerous precedent. We have a legal system that has defined penalties for each type of crime. Arbitrarily deciding that someone involved in the riots is also banned from football grounds even though their offence had nothing to do with football just feels wrong. Are they banned from other sports events? Other activities? Let the courts sentence within the parameters of the law. Let the courts deal with riot and racism related incidents. Let football clubs - and the courts when applicable - deal with football related incidents. Don’t conflate the two.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1821240963970281631

Now this, if true, I have a bit of a problem with. Not that I would personally care if any of these racists was unable to attend a Spurs game or any other game. I’d have no sympathy for them. But as a matter of principle it’s dangerous ground and a dangerous precedent. We have a legal system that has defined penalties for each type of crime. Arbitrarily deciding that someone involved in the riots is also banned from football grounds even though their offence had nothing to do with football just feels wrong. Are they banned from other sports events? Other activities? Let the courts sentence within the parameters of the law. Let the courts deal with riot and racism related incidents. Let football clubs - and the courts when applicable - deal with football related incidents. Don’t conflate the two.
Click to expand...
100% with you on this.
Unless there is specific intelligence they intend on causing trouble at football; otherwise it is a very dangerous precedent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back