EDL's Tommy Robinson arrested..yet again!

[melthebell]

Its not me that beieves that a God spoke to a man.

 

And it’s nothing to do with what I believe, its what is reported to have happened, a nutter, hit one of them so they were arrested, are you saying the article is incorrect.

 

---------- Post added 29-06-2013 at 14:24 ----------

 

 

Not sure that two people could be described as a demonstration.

same difference its an "official" walk, i should imagine you have to agree with the police the route and finer details etc

[JFKvsNixon]

Needing police permission to walk through a muslim area and the powers that be wonder why he gets more support every day.

 

Should there really be any muslim area`s?

 

No you need permission to carry out protests, they were granted permission to carry one out in a specific area, but of course the two EDL members ignored this and organised their "sponsored walk"

[flamingjimmy]

The right to protest should always be maintained, but there shouldn't be any automatic right to carry that protest where ever people want to.

 

Why not, if it's public land?

[maxmaximus]

same difference its an "official" walk, i should imagine you have to agree with the police the route and finer details etc

 

I've taken part in many walks, and never once agreed the route with the police.

 

No area should be out of bounds just because the ethnic group living in that area have a dislike or intolerance of another ethnic group.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Why not, if it's public land?

I'll agree with you, but it's an awful situation where people are marching past each other's churches, mosque and homes purely in order to antagonise each other - like the Orange Order.

 

Secondly, it's not even meant to be a protest. It's all done under the pretense of raising money for charity.

[melthebell]

As usual, extremist nazi-admirers are re-wording trouble and antagonism for innocuous and deceitful phrases in their desperate bid to hide their vile hypocrisy...

 

blimey some big words there, think i understand and like it

 

 

---------- Post added 29-06-2013 at 14:34 ----------

 

I'll agree with you, but it's an awful situation where people are marching past each other's churches, mosque and homes purely in order to antagonise each other - like the Orange Order.

 

Secondly, it's not even meant to be a protest. It's all done under the pretense of raising money for charity.

exactly like ive said before its all childish, its what both sides want, fear, anger and intolerance on both sides, it gives them oxygen to survive, all extremists

 

and niether side should be allowed to feed the hate

[flamingjimmy]

I'll agree with you, but it's an awful situation where people are marching past each other's churches, mosque and homes purely in order to antagonise each other - like the Orange Order.

It's a tricky one, but I firmly believe that the right to protest completely trumps anyone else's right to be offended.

 

If other people are so offended that they turn to violence, they should be punished, not the protesters.

 

Secondly, it's not even meant to be a protest. It's all done under the pretense of raising money for charity.

So it would seem, however no side is treating it like it's that.

[JFKvsNixon]

Why not, if it's public land?

 

I'd suggest that people's actions will always have an impact on other peoples lives and as such no individual right should take precedence over other peoples rights, there has to be a judgement.

 

The extreme example would be anti-abortionists protesting outside a clinic/hospital whist patients, some of whom may struggling to come to terms with their situation, are leaving. The protestors may well have a serious detrimental effect on one of the patients life. So whose rights are paramount in that situation?

[Chris_Sleeps]

I'd suggest that people's actions will always have an impact on other peoples lives and as such no individual right should take precedence over other peoples rights, there has to be a judgement.

Like Westboro Baptist Church protesting a funeral.

 

That's the problem with defending the right to protest. You have to defend idiots sometimes. They shouldn't do it, but they shouldn't be stopped either.

 

Messy.

[flamingjimmy]

I'd suggest that people's actions will always have an impact on other peoples lives and as such no individual right should take precedence over other peoples rights, there has to be a judgement.

Yes, but whose rights were being curtailed by a sponsored walk?

 

There is no right to not be offended.

The extreme example would be anti-abortionists protesting outside a clinic/hospital whist patients, some of whom may struggling to come to terms with their situation, are leaving. The protestors may well have a serious detrimental effect on one of the patients life. So whose rights are paramount in that situation.

I think that's completely different, those 'protests' target individuals as they enter/leave the clinics and are pure and simple harassment.

 

If they want to protest outside an abortion clinic, then that's fine, but they do not have the right to harass the vulnerable people who might want to use it.