Pro Democracy Riot Bristol

[sheffbag]

On 29/03/2021 at 16:59, 1980girl said:

Sheffbag you do seem to be amongst those who think that the protesters are wrong to gather in breach of the covid regulations (and I have now seen the courts ruling confirming the lawfulness of the initial regulations). All of the activities you have suggested would breach the regulations. Standing on your doorstep wouldn't and I have not suggested that it would. Gathering in your street on the pavement or in the road with your neighbours to express solidarity, gratitude, or support for a particular cause or organisation does breach the regulations. Lots of people did gather outside of their homes on the public highway and outside the buildings they work in to show support for the NHS, in breach of the covid regulations. Such scenes were filmed and broadcast by BBC. It's interesting to me that people have a different attitude towards those who gathered for this reason and those who gather outside for other reasons which would under ordinary circumstances be perfectly lawful.

No, Sheffbag is amongst those who for the last year has abided by the rules,  not seen relatives, missed holding loved ones, seen friends have to cancel their weddings, tried to support people who have lost their partners to Covid but cant go to see them.

Sheffbag is amongst those who took the advice and stayed socially distanced and within their bubble when required.

Sheffbag did support the NHS by clapping outside their house, socially distant away from others and respecting the rules. A bit like the people on here 

 

what Sheffbag DIDNT do was to meet up with a large group of other people intent on causing trouble disregarding the rules in place and trying to disrupt society and draining police resources after been told not meet up. a bit like these people here

 

For you to try and put the two of them together and say they are both the same is incredible.

You want to know why people have different attitudes to the 2 things? how about this

A is peaceful

A is observing the rules with regard to socially distancing from people outside your bubble

A is supporting people who are trying to save others from dying

 

B is a mob of people meeting up close together, many without masks stood side by side

B is draining public resources both with police time and the NHS time required to treat injuries caused by the "protesters" 

B is destroying properties including buildings and vehicles.

 

I'll let you figure out which is which

 

 

Edited March 31, 2021 by sheffbag

[Anna B]

2 hours ago, sheffbag said:

No, Sheffbag is amongst those who for the last year has abided by the rules,  not seen relatives, missed holding loved ones, seen friends have to cancel their weddings, tried to support people who have lost their partners to Covid but cant go to see them.

Sheffbag is amongst those who took the advice and stayed socially distanced and within their bubble when required.

Sheffbag did support the NHS by clapping outside their house, socially distant away from others and respecting the rules. A bit like the people on here 

 

what Sheffbag DIDNT do was to meet up with a large group of other people intent on causing trouble disregarding the rules in place and trying to disrupt society and draining police resources after been told not meet up. a bit like these people here

 

For you to try and put the two of them together and say they are both the same is incredible.

You want to know why people have different attitudes to the 2 things? how about this

A is peaceful

A is observing the rules with regard to socially distancing from people outside your bubble

A is supporting people who are trying to save others from dying

 

B is a mob of people meeting up close together, many without masks stood side by side

B is draining public resources both with police time and the NHS time required to treat injuries caused by the "protesters" 

B is destroying properties including buildings and vehicles.

 

I'll let you figure out which is which

 

 

A gets totally ignored and no mention in the media so no one knows there are other people feeling exactly like them. 

B gets lurid headlines with front page headlines and pictures, is universally condemned by all, and the original cause is irredeemably tarnished.

 

Let's hope the media start reporting peaceful demonstrations fairly and factually.

 

 

Edited March 31, 2021 by Anna B

[AKAMD]

So why did the government choose the middle of a pandemic to introduce legislation that would obviously arouse protest?  Doesn't take much working out does it?

[apelike]

1 hour ago, AKAMD said:

So why did the government choose the middle of a pandemic to introduce legislation that would obviously arouse protest?  Doesn't take much working out does it?

They introduced the bill which is not the same as introducing legislation as to become law it needs Royal Assent. IIRC it was first put forward in 2019? It had is second reading in Parliament, which was done on an agreed timeline, and this reading passed with a vote of 359 to 263 in favour of the legislation. It will now go on to be scrutinised by legislators and then on to its next stage with another vote in the Commons. Once that is done then it will be passed to the Lords for their votes and any proposed amendments and bounced back to the Commons, so it's far from being law just yet.

Edited March 31, 2021 by apelike

[Anna B]

3 hours ago, apelike said:

They introduced the bill which is not the same as introducing legislation as to become law it needs Royal Assent. IIRC it was first put forward in 2019? It had is second reading in Parliament, which was done on an agreed timeline, and this reading passed with a vote of 359 to 263 in favour of the legislation. It will now go on to be scrutinised by legislators and then on to its next stage with another vote in the Commons. Once that is done then it will be passed to the Lords for their votes and any proposed amendments and bounced back to the Commons, so it's far from being law just yet.

This bill would have passed almost unnoticed and unscrutinised by the people it affects most if it hadn't been for the protests.

Of course it has been introduced while so much else is going on, in the same manner as 'Good day for bad news' means unpalatable stuff can slip through under the radar.

Wake up people.

[apelike]

46 minutes ago, Anna B said:

This bill would have passed almost unnoticed and unscrutinised by the people it affects most if it hadn't been for the protests.

Of course it has been introduced while so much else is going on, in the same manner as 'Good day for bad news' means unpalatable stuff can slip through under the radar.

I think many posters on here of recent seem to be suffering a touch of paranoia recently, maybe it's because so much else is going on that they don't realise it. The bill was already known about by those who are in charge and that includes the opposition and Labour. Labour were just going to abstain from voting because they were unhappy with some aspects of it and that was it. It has only come to the fore because of the very people you are always complaining about and that is the media as they like a good bit of bad news to sell their rags. Because of the troubles at the Sarah Everard vigil and the action of the police there Labour then decided to vote against it because of the media publicity surrounding it as it was a good bit of bad news for them. The bill itself still has many stages to go through and as explained its reading was known about in advance as the timetable for reading bills is set by the speaker and parliament.

 

What is happening does not bode well for those who want to cause disruption and riot as all it does is strengthen the minds of those who make these laws to believe the bill is justifiable. If it does get passed unamended in the future then they also have helped it go through and get what they deserve. The trouble is they are either too thick to realise that or don't care and just want to cause problems because they can and I suspect it to be a mix of both.

 

BTW the people that it affects are by and large a minority and just like the majority of us they never have any say in this political system we have. Those decisions are up to our MP's and parliament as a whole as that is why we vote for them in the first place.

 

Edited April 1, 2021 by apelike

[sheffbag]

16 hours ago, Anna B said:

A gets totally ignored and no mention in the media so no one knows there are other people feeling exactly like them. 

B gets lurid headlines with front page headlines and pictures, is universally condemned by all, and the original cause is irredeemably tarnished.

 

Let's hope the media start reporting peaceful demonstrations fairly and factually.

 

 

Anna - A was the clap for carers which 1980's girl was saying was the same as the Bristol demonstrations. That received a lot of media coverage constantly during the time it was taking place.

[Anna B]

4 hours ago, sheffbag said:

Anna - A was the clap for carers which 1980's girl was saying was the same as the Bristol demonstrations. That received a lot of media coverage constantly during the time it was taking place.

I was talking generally about peaceful protesting. There have been some pretty big ones that were deliberately ignored by the media. The only ones they seem to want to mention are the ones that become aggressive and violent. And the method of 'kettling' for several hours is often what causes tempers to fray.

[ECCOnoob]

9 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I was talking generally about peaceful protesting. There have been some pretty big ones that were deliberately ignored by the media. The only ones they seem to want to mention are the ones that become aggressive and violent. And the method of 'kettling' for several hours is often what causes tempers to fray.

Which protests? 

[apelike]

11 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I was talking generally about peaceful protesting. There have been some pretty big ones that were deliberately ignored by the media. The only ones they seem to want to mention are the ones that become aggressive and violent. And the method of 'kettling' for several hours is often what causes tempers to fray.

Me bold. And that method of "kettling", after 12 years of debate in the courts, was deemed a lawful way for the police to control large crowds. The could of course put restrictions in place to help stop that... oh hang on!

Edited April 1, 2021 by apelike