|
U-Know! Forum » NEW FEATURE: Advice to Demonstrators After the Trashing of Millbank |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
keith a 9572 posts |
Nov 19, 2010, 09:00
|
||
Interesting you should go and edit another recent post in this thread before replying here.
|
|||
|
keith a 9572 posts |
Nov 19, 2010, 09:14
|
||
|
"The Protection From Harassment Act - supposedly to defend vulnerable women against stalker ex partners - is most commonly used to get injunctions to defend corporations from peaceful protests." Unless you can back that up with evidence, I don't think that's true. There's been others... |
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Nov 19, 2010, 10:25
Nov 19, 2010, 10:16
|
||
|
keith a wrote: Unless you can back that up with evidence, I don't think that's true. There's been others... Yeah, it's true. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/141/14107.htm (2 seconds with google turned that up) Can't think of a better site to find proof cited (scroll down to civil injunctions) Also true is the misuse of sections of the Prevention of Terrorism act, which I've personally witnessed used at free parties for stop n search. But hey, my link covers that anyway so I don't actually have to detail my own experiences to you.
|
|||
|
keith a 9572 posts |
Nov 19, 2010, 10:54
|
||
|
"We noted in our report that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is sometimes being used against protesters"... is a million miles away from... "The Protection From Harassment Act - supposedly to defend vulnerable women against stalker ex partners - is most commonly used to get injunctions to defend corporations from peaceful protests."
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Nov 19, 2010, 11:06
|
||
|
Seriously ? Are you taking the piss here ? Or do you not get how parliamentary committees work, or use language ? Can you stop and think why it actually got raised in this particular Human Rights Joint committee ? Do you honestly think a single, or a few rare events would have got it raised ? Get a grip, it got raised because it is, in fact, "most commonly used". I'm the first to say that 'the plural of anecdote isn't data' but for gods sake let me know if you're actually being serious or just want to personally undermine Merrick with piss-poor pedantry. I mean, do you think that the metric of total misues of these laws is actually available ? How do you think these stats are collected, by whom, and in what form they take. I mean. FFS. How is your reality ? It must be great mate. Those of us who actually have a history of protest and direct action see these misuses of power constantly. Maybe like myself Merrick can no longer be arsed to defend his statements to those who have neither experience or first clue about what actually goes on.
|
|||
Myers 151 posts |
Nov 19, 2010, 11:17
|
||
|
Merrick edited one of my posts in reply. I said he made a crass statement, he took that out altogether in my supposed quote. He is more like a politician than he thinks!
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Nov 19, 2010, 11:58
|
||
|
Actually, don't bother yourself. Well, do if you like, but I can't be arsed as I said in my last post. Actually did myself a disservice there, and Merrick too (soz). I am actually happy to debate with anyone from any background and experience. However, people such as yourself who will not let pesky things like facts or evidence change your carefully fashioned world view (and wow, there's an awful lot of others like you on these forums now), are pointless to talk to. You just fall back on some silly pedantry or 6th form debating style devils advocatism, and well, its futile for all involved tbh. So good day to you oh wilfully uninformed and blinkered one. PS : I would point you to articles on Libertys site as evidence too, but you're prolly one of those who think they're all filthy liars.
|
|||
|
Myers 151 posts |
Edited Nov 19, 2010, 12:17
Nov 19, 2010, 12:17
|
||
|
Wow. That was harsh, and hardly helpful to any kind of debate. Merrick always argues his case civilly, and respectfully, from what I have seen, that's something a few could learn from, my friend, no matter what side of the argument you come from.. Edited for embarrassing spelling mistake,...... Nothing else!
|
|||
|
keith a 9572 posts |
Nov 19, 2010, 12:20
|
||
|
You want to try calming down, Stray. Your blood pressure must be through the roof! It's not pedantry at all. You offered some supposed evidence with a patronising remark that it took you two seconds to find on the internet. I ignored the condescension but pointed out that what you found was a million miles away from what Merrick had said. As far as I'm concerned Merrick said something that is clearly untrue to prove his point. I don't like that. That's worse than '6th form' level debating. It's dishonest in my book. Anyone who lives in the real world will know that more problems happen in day to day life - in the home, with the neighbours, etc. That's where harassment notices are used in the main. I don't dispute that they are given to protesters - folk here are giving first hand evidence of that. But to suggest that this is the primary use is untrue. But calling someone who questions what he reads 'blinkered' is a great tool!
|
|||
|
Kid Calamity 9044 posts |
Nov 19, 2010, 13:38
|
||
| What a disappointment. I haven't seen... or rather didn't see the offending post before or indeed after the edits, but have to say it's not a proper way of conducting a discussion if earlier views are withdrawn. |
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
