Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 903416)

Shouting Pre Crime.....no evidence just you tube videos, here's mine.

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 903423)

I would not say a you tube video is evidence, after all you would not believe a official announcement or news report, so why should I believe a video posted off the internet?

Originally Posted by wadey (Post 903465)

The original idea of Policing was to arrest people before they commited a crime

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 903439)

Unless you were present at the filming, how can you say they are real.
Reading about it on the Internet does not mean it's truth anymore than reading a newspaper.

Originally Posted by steeljack (Post 903440)

think it's called preventive detention, hardly a new thing ;)

Originally Posted by Eric (Post 903493)

Not in the States anyway.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 903467)

Well they did that wi me in the 60s:D

Originally Posted by steeljack (Post 903494)

no need to get sarky because Labour came in second (in Canada) ;)

Originally Posted by wadey (Post 903465)

The original idea of Policing was to arrest people before they commited a crime

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 903439)

Unless you were present at the filming, how can you say they are real.
Reading about it on the Internet does not mean it's truth anymore than reading a newspaper.

Originally Posted by wadey (Post 903465)

The original idea of Policing was to arrest people before they commited a crime

Originally Posted by wadey (Post 903569)

Probably

" A constable may arrest without a warrant -

(a) anyone who is about to commit an arrestable offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an arrestable offence."

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 903611)

Everything I have seen, I have no proof other than Youtube and some websites, so how can I believe this???

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 903611)

Everything I have seen, I have no proof other than Youtube and some websites, so how can I believe this???

Originally Posted by ***Mr D*** (Post 903608)

I cannot 100% but what part/s are you saying are not real?



A "Crime" being a key word here.



Can you be more specific on what is an arrestable offence?

I also dont think you need a warrant to arrest someone.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 903654)

If a bloke is walking down the street towards a bank wearing a striped sweater and balaclava, with a sawn off shotgun under his arm I think the local plod would be quite within their rights to arrest this said guy for going equipped and do so without a warrant so long as they read him (or her) their rights. think that seems to cover it:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 903665)

Mr D, I am afraid that we can never agree on this. I refuse to take seriously You Tube videos as evidence of 9/11, bin laden is alive, princess Di, Chemtrails, Bilderberg, Moon landing hoax, TWA 800 shootdown, I could go on. Just because it is on the internet does not make it true, you and others on here tell the rest of us we should question everything we see and hear, well I am questioning, so far apart from some videos, I do not see any hard physical evidence...
You see the problem is this, for every conspiracy theory that comes out, there is enough evidence to prove otherwise, in the case of some, Moon landing, Princess Di, TWA 800, 9/11 etc there is physical hard evidence, not you tube videos...

Enjoy

Originally Posted by ***Mr D*** (Post 903663)

You DONT need a warrant to arrest someone. :confused:

The above is a silly example realy, just walking with a shotgun would get armed responce on the scene pretty quick I would say.:rolleyes:

The Video's are people who said they where going to stage PEACEFULL demonstrations at the royal wedding, thats all, and got arrested in there own home (charley) or on the street (a senior Professor of Anthropology and friends being one) PRIOR to the event.

Pre Crime, but what was the crime they where going to commit? Is free speech not allowed in this country now?

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 903681)

One simple difference, I watched the Twin Towers attack and for that matter the 7/7 bombings live on TV as they happened

Originally Posted by ***Mr D*** (Post 903663)

The Video's are people who said they where going to stage PEACEFULL demonstrations at the royal wedding, thats all, and got arrested in there own home (charley)

Pre Crime, but what was the crime they where going to commit? Is free speech not allowed in this country now?

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany (Post 903729)

Because your hero has got previous (listen in real carefully from about the 36 second point in the 1st clip you put up) he's been charged for a previous offence & as such is deemed likely to "re-offend" & that is the reason he's being pulled in.

Police powers

Points 3 & 10 should answer your question. So if something happened to you & yours or your property you'd be okay with it would you ? Especially if the scrote had form & was known to the Police, you'd not want him lifted ? I certainly wouldn't want to live in your world mate.

Originally Posted by walkinman221 (Post 903780)

There were many groups and individuals who wanted to protest on the day of the wedding, but the police said weeks before, no permission would be granted for any demonstrations by anybody, and as dig says if the groups or individuals had previous form they would have their collars felt so to speak.Just imagine the logistics of not only policing effectively the royal wedding but also letting every drum banging leftie, right wing, republican, islamic, christian,nutter have their own little shindig as well. It was never going to happen was it come on get a grip..

Originally Posted by ***Mr D*** (Post 903823)

OK, I listened in real carefully, and hear the term suspicion, he wasnt charged for previous.

Originally Posted by ***Mr D*** (Post 903823)

Cant you see really why he was pulled in.

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany (Post 903885)

Suggest you listen again "D" using both ears & you'll hear these rather quaint expressions such as "Reasonable grounds" "Conspired with others" "Aggravated trespass" "Identified by eyewitnesses" & to finish off "Arrest necessary to deal promptly with the allegations". Seems pretty clear to me he's got "previous" or why would they bother ?



I ask you the same ? Our wisdom comes from our experience, and our experience comes from our foolishness

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany (Post 903885)

Suggest you listen again "D" using both ears & you'll hear these rather quaint expressions such as "Reasonable grounds" "Conspired with others" "Aggravated trespass" "Identified by eyewitnesses" & to finish off "Arrest necessary to deal promptly with the allegations". Seems pretty clear to me he's got "previous" or why would they bother ?



I ask you the same ? Our wisdom comes from our experience, and our experience comes from our foolishness

Originally Posted by ***Mr D*** (Post 903935)

I state again suspicion. You really believe that the police wouldnt make things up?

Why would they bother, because he was silly enough to go on youtube & TV saying he was going to be at the royal wedding stating his opinions on his loud speaker. Which is what he does, Nothing Illegal, just he seems to be gettng to much media attention and this would divert some attention from the ritual that was taking place.

Lets see if he gets charged / convicted with anything.

Have you any comments on video 2.

Originally Posted by walkinman221 (Post 903979)

If they didnt consider him a threat why would they "make things up" , i mean its not like they had a lot on that day is it:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by walkinman221 (Post 903979)

If they didnt consider him a threat why would they "make things up" , i mean its not like they had a lot on that day is it:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 904020)

Its just like football hooligans the police sort um out before they do out wrong prevention is best form of deterrent:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by ***Mr D*** (Post 904033)

A threat? How is he a threat?



Hooligans will cause damage, harm to others.

All he and others where going to do is talk on a loud speakers, hand out flyers, hold signs up, ect which is (At this moment) legal in this country.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 904035)

These cretins are just bloody minded anarchist, with a thirst for the limelight, better to get them of the streets before the rest of the public take offence, (which was quite possible on this day) a cause real problems, think its called nipping it in the bud BEFORE it gets out of hand, sorted;)

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 905119)

isnt it a bit counter productive to have to ask permission to stage a protest ?

dear mr cameron i wish to stage a protest is that ok?

mr cameron - err no not today iv got a headache now go away .

i thought the whole idea of freedom of speech and the right to protest was that you didnt have to ask permission to do so

the two most successful protests i can think of are the polltax and fuel blockade protests and their success i would suggest was down to the government not been aksed for permission to hold them

mind you good old tony blair soon made sure it could never happen again and made protesting an act of terrorism so even if you use your right to protest you can end up been arrested as a terrorist and held longer without charge than what you would for mugging an old lady.

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 905119)

isnt it a bit counter productive to have to ask permission to stage a protest ?

dear mr cameron i wish to stage a protest is that ok?

mr cameron - err no not today iv got a headache now go away .

i thought the whole idea of freedom of speech and the right to protest was that you didnt have to ask permission to do so

the two most successful protests i can think of are the polltax and fuel blockade protests and their success i would suggest was down to the government not been aksed for permission to hold them

mind you good old tony blair soon made sure it could never happen again and made protesting an act of terrorism so even if you use your right to protest you can end up been arrested as a terrorist and held longer without charge than what you would for mugging an old lady.

Originally Posted by walkinman221 (Post 905172)

No not really, can you imagine if every tom dick or harry could just turn and protest.What would happen if huge numbers turned up, and they were bent on violence or destruction of property.The police and local councils, traders, and local residents need to be prepared for any possible disruption.;)

Originally Posted by walkinman221 (Post 905172)

No not really, can you imagine if every tom dick or harry could just turn and protest.What would happen if huge numbers turned up, and they were bent on violence or destruction of property.The police and local councils, traders, and local residents need to be prepared for any possible disruption.;)

Originally Posted by ***Mr D*** (Post 905161)

Exactly. At least someone gets it.;)

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 905176)

one could argue that if the government has upset the people to the extent that violent protests are breaking out they should perhaps have a rethink on things.

im all for giving a heads up to the police that a protest is been planned but having to ask if its ok to have a protest goes against democracy

Originally Posted by ***Mr D*** (Post 905174)

Why do some people always hear protest and think of violence & destruction.

Well Conditioned.;)

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 905311)

Maybe because it always turns out like that:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany (Post 905181)

Wrong :) For some forms of protest & demonstration no permission is required, so before you start getting all umpty with plod & the nation check the facts. The other week all over the local news & press Mums were protesting outside town halls & day care centres about cuts, Council workers picketing about job cuts, pretty sure they didn't ask to do so, yet they weren't moved on ! Why ? Probably because they weren't intent on disruption & goading the authorities into confrontation as appears to be the case in the clips you've posted. Have a read of the link below then see how much pish & wind is being spouted. ;)

Your rights - The Right of Peaceful Protest

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 905119)

isnt it a bit counter productive to have to ask permission to stage a protest ?

i thought the whole idea of freedom of speech and the right to protest was that you didnt have to ask permission to do so

the two most successful protests i can think of are the polltax and fuel blockade protests and their success i would suggest was down to the government not been aksed for permission to hold them

Originally Posted by ***Mr D*** (Post 905161)

Exactly. At least someone gets it.;)

Originally Posted by ***Mr D*** (Post 905367)

Whats wrong?

Originally Posted by ***Mr D*** (Post 905366)

Total Rubbish.

Maybe if you believe what the media says.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 905443)

Some how its hard to hide it when cameras are there to capture every move

Originally Posted by ***Mr D*** (Post 905441)

My whole point of the thred was the fact the A few people got arrested for something they had not done. (Pre Crime).

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 905581)

So where would you draw the line?

If the police know about a bomb plot do you want them to wait until people have been killed before they arrest the bombers so they are not arrested for pre-crime?

What about if the Police see a drunk about to get into a car and drive off, should they wait until he sets off or arrest him before he gets in?

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 905581)

So where would you draw the line?

If the police know about a bomb plot do you want them to wait until people have been killed before they arrest the bombers so they are not arrested for pre-crime?

What about if the Police see a drunk about to get into a car and drive off, should they wait until he sets off or arrest him before he gets in?

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 905672)

These arrests are an uncomfortable sign that yet another control mechanism forecasted in Orwell's 1984 is being used -
Thought Police - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The term "Thought Police", by extension, has come to refer to real or perceived enforcement of ideological correctness, or preemptive policing where a person is apprehended in anticipation of the possibility that they may commit a crime, in any modern or historical contexts."

Originally Posted by ***Mr D*** (Post 906077)

YouTube - British Politician - UK Establishment using Police State to Crush Resistance

Filmed at Defend the Right to Protest Meeting 5th May 2011
http://defendtherighttoprotest.org/

John McDonnell MP (Member of Parliament) explains how the British Government is giving the UK Police carte blanche to attack and attempt to crush the student and trade union uprising.

The Establishment has dealt the resistance an epic propaganda victory with their pathetic and childish pre-crime arrests.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 906093)

Just because they're an MP doesn't mean they aren't some kind of whack job, remember Gorgeous George;)