On 30/03/2025 11:48 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/29/25 14:47, GB wrote:
On 29/03/2025 12:52, The Todal wrote:
A bit of googling and it seems that the targets of the police wrath
are actually "Youth Demand" who campaign in favour of boycotting
Israel and combatting climate change. They were hoping to organise
demonstrations that would "shut down London". So instead of punishing
the deed, the police now try to stop the deed by arresting the
organisers before the protest has actually been finalised.
I have no idea what was going on, but assuming they were conspiring to
commit a criminal act, isn't the conspiracy itself an arrestable
offence?
In which case, the police were acting entirely properly?>
Any action against conspiracy should be proportionate.
Conspiracy is a derivative crime, lesser than the actual crime people
are conspiring to commit. None of Youth Demand's actual crimes seem that
serious. Well not serious in a criminal sense, perhaps they are
politically effective. Crimes such as painting the Cenotaph, or sitting
outside Kier Starmer's house can be dealt with as and when they actually
occur.
The problem with punishing the deed, is that many people, probably a
majority of people, agree with Youth Demand. Any serious punishment for
an actual crime creates martyrs.
How on earth can you say that when you cannot say what they demand?
So we have extrajudicial punishments, intimidation, removal of their
phones and laptops.
There would have to be a court order for that. Or alternatively,
credible suspicion of a crime or conspiracy to commit crime.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/03/2025 11:46 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/30/25 11:35, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 08:32 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
As an aside, were they Quakers or were they just hiring the hall?
If the answer to the last question is "No, not Quakers, just hiring >>>>>> the room", in what sense is the rented room a place of worship?
Having been to a meeting a couple of months ago at the Euston Road QMH, >>>>> it felt just like an ordinary conference centre, with many smallish
rooms over a couple of floors. Not just one big room.
That's what I thought.
There used to be a Society of Frends hall right opposite the premises
we lived in (Liverpool city centre, 1960-1961). I never entered the
building or even noticed anyone using it, but there was absolutely no
sense of sacredness or religion about it.
I'm not saying that that is the correct test, but other churches and
buildings I remember, including a synagogue opposite the house we
lived in for the first seven years of my life, all had a palpable air
of piety and spirituality about them.
I think one of the main ideas of the Protestant movement was a rejection >>> of idolatry, icons, and other ostentatious displays of sacredness and
piety.
But no-one would be able to mistake the look of a typical C19 Anglican church.
That's because Henry VIII still regarded himself as a Catholic.
Only an English
Catholic with him in charge rather than the Pope; that being the only real difference. And that tradition stlll applies with High Church Anglicans who are often outwardsly indistinguishable from Cathoilcs except they won't
have any saints dating from after the Reformation. The Coronation exemplifies that, being full of religious mumbo jumbo. Elizabeth II's anyway I don't regard Big Ears as a true King so never watched his coronation.
which was probably a travesty in any case.
Protestants on the other hand claim that the Bible is the only source of religious truth. Not priests or bishops etc And generally don't pray to saints
or any other intermediaries. Which was helped by the arrival of printing
and more people being able to read. However without the central authority
in the form of a Pope this led to the possibility of numerous breakaways. The Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians. Reformed Presbyterians
Ian Paisley etc and "dissenters" generally were breakaways from other forms of Protestantism, who they accused of slipping or backsliding not from the Catholic Church
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/03/2025 09:54 AM, Spike wrote:
GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 29/03/2025 12:52, The Todal wrote:
A bit of googling and it seems that the targets of the police wrath are >>>>> actually "Youth Demand" who campaign in favour of boycotting Israel and >>>>> combatting climate change. They were hoping to organise demonstrations >>>>> that would "shut down London". So instead of punishing the deed, the >>>>> police now try to stop the deed by arresting the organisers before the >>>>> protest has actually been finalised.
I have no idea what was going on, but assuming they were conspiring to >>>> commit a criminal act, isn't the conspiracy itself an arrestable offence?
In which case, the police were acting entirely properly?
I'm not sure why it took 20 police officers to arrest 6 women, but that's >>>> an operational detail.
One wonders what the reaction of the authorities would have been had the >>> people concerned hired a meeting room in a religious building serving a
minority ethnic group.
ISTR such a mother and baby club held in a local authority building, that >>> had a presentation which included the phrase “It is faad (your duty) to go
to Sharm (Syria)”, merely had a notice placed on the door in time for the >>> club’s next meeting saying that the club wouldn’t be meeting there.
Why was that?
I suspect that the LA, whose hall it was, didn’t want to get caught up in a terrorist investigation.
On 30/03/2025 09:38 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/03/2025 11:46 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/30/25 11:35, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 08:32 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
As an aside, were they Quakers or were they just hiring the hall?
If the answer to the last question is "No, not Quakers, just hiring >>>>>>> the room", in what sense is the rented room a place of worship?
Having been to a meeting a couple of months ago at the Euston Road >>>>>> QMH,
it felt just like an ordinary conference centre, with many smallish >>>>>> rooms over a couple of floors. Not just one big room.
That's what I thought.
There used to be a Society of Frends hall right opposite the premises >>>>> we lived in (Liverpool city centre, 1960-1961). I never entered the
building or even noticed anyone using it, but there was absolutely no >>>>> sense of sacredness or religion about it.
I'm not saying that that is the correct test, but other churches and >>>>> buildings I remember, including a synagogue opposite the house we
lived in for the first seven years of my life, all had a palpable air >>>>> of piety and spirituality about them.
I think one of the main ideas of the Protestant movement was a
rejection
of idolatry, icons, and other ostentatious displays of sacredness and
piety.
But no-one would be able to mistake the look of a typical C19
Anglican church.
That's because Henry VIII still regarded himself as a Catholic.
I know. He wasn't the full shilling, was he? He thought himself to be
clever, but did'nt even know (or admit) what the word "catholic" means.
Only an English
Catholic with him in charge rather than the Pope; that being the only
real
difference. And that tradition stlll applies with High Church
Anglicans who
are often outwardsly indistinguishable from Cathoilcs except they won't
have any saints dating from after the Reformation. The Coronation
exemplifies that, being full of religious mumbo jumbo. Elizabeth II's
anyway
I don't regard Big Ears as a true King so never watched his coronation.
which was probably a travesty in any case.
Protestants on the other hand claim that the Bible is the only source of
religious truth. Not priests or bishops etc And generally don't pray
to saints
or any other intermediaries. Which was helped by the arrival of printing
and more people being able to read. However without the central authority
in the form of a Pope this led to the possibility of numerous
breakaways.
The Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians. Reformed Presbyterians
Ian Paisley etc and "dissenters" generally were breakaways from other
forms
of Protestantism, who they accused of slipping or backsliding not from
the
Catholic Church
I am awell aware of what happened in England during the sixteenth
century (though less familiar with what happened in Scotland). If there
is one part of early modern history which is always taught in English Catholic schools, it is the time (just after of the War of the Roses) of
the Tudors, especially the severe breach of central coronation oaths by
the son of the last legitimate king of that line, Henry VII, and the subsequent appropriation of the property of the Church by the English
state.
But none of this makes any difference to the point I was making, which
is that whilst churches, synagogues and those mosques and temples whose interiors I have seen are designed and built (as far as possible and as permitted by resources) to exude a sense of sprituality, Quaker meeting
halls are not. Actually, neither is/was the Anglican HQ building in
Liverpool (Church House in Hanover Street, where I have been in the past
for secular meetings; it may still exist amid what is now an area of
resort).
The claim or insinuation (by some) that persons commercially hiring a
SoF hall for a political meeting are somehow given "sanctuary" by being
there is just silly.
On 30/03/2025 09:38 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/03/2025 11:46 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/30/25 11:35, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 08:32 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
As an aside, were they Quakers or were they just hiring the hall?
If the answer to the last question is "No, not Quakers, just hiring >>>>>>> the room", in what sense is the rented room a place of worship?
Having been to a meeting a couple of months ago at the Euston Road QMH, >>>>>> it felt just like an ordinary conference centre, with many smallish >>>>>> rooms over a couple of floors. Not just one big room.
That's what I thought.
There used to be a Society of Frends hall right opposite the premises >>>>> we lived in (Liverpool city centre, 1960-1961). I never entered the
building or even noticed anyone using it, but there was absolutely no >>>>> sense of sacredness or religion about it.
I'm not saying that that is the correct test, but other churches and >>>>> buildings I remember, including a synagogue opposite the house we
lived in for the first seven years of my life, all had a palpable air >>>>> of piety and spirituality about them.
I think one of the main ideas of the Protestant movement was a rejection >>>> of idolatry, icons, and other ostentatious displays of sacredness and
piety.
But no-one would be able to mistake the look of a typical C19 Anglican church.
That's because Henry VIII still regarded himself as a Catholic.
I know. He wasn't the full shilling, was he? He thought himself to be
clever, but did'nt even know (or admit) what the word "catholic" means.
Only an English
Catholic with him in charge rather than the Pope; that being the only real >> difference. And that tradition stlll applies with High Church Anglicans who >> are often outwardsly indistinguishable from Cathoilcs except they won't
have any saints dating from after the Reformation. The Coronation
exemplifies that, being full of religious mumbo jumbo. Elizabeth II's anyway >> I don't regard Big Ears as a true King so never watched his coronation.
which was probably a travesty in any case.
Protestants on the other hand claim that the Bible is the only source of
religious truth. Not priests or bishops etc And generally don't pray to saints
or any other intermediaries. Which was helped by the arrival of printing
and more people being able to read. However without the central authority
in the form of a Pope this led to the possibility of numerous breakaways. >> The Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians. Reformed Presbyterians
Ian Paisley etc and "dissenters" generally were breakaways from other forms >> of Protestantism, who they accused of slipping or backsliding not from the >> Catholic Church
I am awell aware of what happened in England during the sixteenth
century (though less familiar with what happened in Scotland). If there
is one part of early modern history which is always taught in English Catholic schools, it is the time (just after of the War of the Roses) of
the Tudors, especially the severe breach of central coronation oaths by
the son of the last legitimate king of that line, Henry VII, and the subsequent appropriation of the property of the Church by the English state.
But none of this makes any difference to the point I was making, which
is that whilst churches, synagogues and those mosques and temples whose interiors I have seen are designed and built (as far as possible and as permitted by resources) to exude a sense of sprituality, Quaker meeting
halls are not. Actually, neither is/was the Anglican HQ building in
Liverpool (Church House in Hanover Street, where I have been in the past
for secular meetings; it may still exist amid what is now an area of
resort).
The claim or insinuation (by some) that persons commercially hiring a
SoF hall for a political meeting are somehow given "sanctuary" by being
there is just silly.
On 31/03/2025 10:24, JNugent wrote:
I am awell aware of what happened in England during the sixteenth
century (though less familiar with what happened in Scotland). If there
is one part of early modern history which is always taught in English
Catholic schools, it is the time (just after of the War of the Roses) of
the Tudors, especially the severe breach of central coronation oaths by
the son of the last legitimate king of that line, Henry VII, and the
subsequent appropriation of the property of the Church by the English
state.
But none of this makes any difference to the point I was making, which
is that whilst churches, synagogues and those mosques and temples whose
interiors I have seen are designed and built (as far as possible and as
permitted by resources) to exude a sense of sprituality, Quaker meeting
halls are not. Actually, neither is/was the Anglican HQ building in
Liverpool (Church House in Hanover Street, where I have been in the past
for secular meetings; it may still exist amid what is now an area of
resort).
The claim or insinuation (by some) that persons commercially hiring a
SoF hall for a political meeting are somehow given "sanctuary" by being
there is just silly.
Nobody said "sanctuary" as far as I know - maybe you can quote some
links. At no stage would the people who were arrested need any form of sanctuary.
The claim that the only places of worship that deserve protection from marauding police officers need to have elegant pillars, paintings,
statues, altars, other trappings of donor wealth, is to use your phrase
"just silly".
On 3/30/25 15:41, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 11:48 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/29/25 14:47, GB wrote:
On 29/03/2025 12:52, The Todal wrote:
A bit of googling and it seems that the targets of the police wrath
are actually "Youth Demand" who campaign in favour of boycotting
Israel and combatting climate change. They were hoping to organise
demonstrations that would "shut down London". So instead of punishing >>>>> the deed, the police now try to stop the deed by arresting the
organisers before the protest has actually been finalised.
I have no idea what was going on, but assuming they were conspiring to >>>> commit a criminal act, isn't the conspiracy itself an arrestable
offence?
In which case, the police were acting entirely properly?>
Any action against conspiracy should be proportionate.
Conspiracy is a derivative crime, lesser than the actual crime people
are conspiring to commit. None of Youth Demand's actual crimes seem that >>> serious. Well not serious in a criminal sense, perhaps they are
politically effective. Crimes such as painting the Cenotaph, or sitting
outside Kier Starmer's house can be dealt with as and when they actually >>> occur.
The problem with punishing the deed, is that many people, probably a
majority of people, agree with Youth Demand. Any serious punishment for
an actual crime creates martyrs.
How on earth can you say that when you cannot say what they demand?
Eh? They clearly tell us what they demand.
Cite: <https://youthdemand.org/>
Quote:
===
The government is engaging in absolute evil. They are enabling genocide
in Palestine by sending money and arms to Israel. They are contributing
to the murder of billions to keep the fossil fuel profits flowing.
Young people are stepping up to resist this nightmare.We are demanding
that the government must:
Stop all trade with Israel:impose a total trade embargo on Israel.
Make the rich pay: raise £1Tr by 2030 from the super rich and fossil
fuel elite to pay damages to communities and countries harmed by fossil
fuel burning.
===
So we have extrajudicial punishments, intimidation, removal of their
phones and laptops.
There would have to be a court order for that. Or alternatively,
credible suspicion of a crime or conspiracy to commit crime.
Ok, perhaps I used the term badly. I meant deliberately using the investigative process as a punishment, without any intention to seek a conviction.
On 31/03/2025 10:24, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 09:38 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/03/2025 11:46 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/30/25 11:35, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 08:32 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
As an aside, were they Quakers or were they just hiring the hall?
If the answer to the last question is "No, not Quakers, just hiring >>>>>>>> the room", in what sense is the rented room a place of worship?
Having been to a meeting a couple of months ago at the Euston
Road QMH, it felt just like an ordinary conference centre, with
many smallish rooms over a couple of floors. Not just one big room.
That's what I thought.
There used to be a Society of Frends hall right opposite the premises >>>>>> we lived in (Liverpool city centre, 1960-1961). I never entered the >>>>>> building or even noticed anyone using it, but there was absolutely no >>>>>> sense of sacredness or religion about it.
I'm not saying that that is the correct test, but other churches and >>>>>> buildings I remember, including a synagogue opposite the house we
lived in for the first seven years of my life, all had a palpable air >>>>>> of piety and spirituality about them.
I think one of the main ideas of the Protestant movement was a
rejection of idolatry, icons, and other ostentatious displays of>
sacredness and piety.
But no-one would be able to mistake the look of a typical C19
Anglican church.
That's because Henry VIII still regarded himself as a Catholic.
I know. He wasn't the full shilling, was he? He thought himself to be
clever, but did'nt even know (or admit) what the word "catholic" means.
Only an English Catholic with him in charge rather than the Pope; that
being the only real difference. And that tradition stlll applies with
High Church Anglicans who are often outwardsly indistinguishable from
Cathoilcs except they won't have any saints dating from after the
Reformation. The Coronation exemplifies that, being full of religious
mumbo jumbo. Elizabeth II's anyway I don't regard Big Ears as a true
King so never watched his coronation. which was probably a travesty in
any case.
Protestants on the other hand claim that the Bible is the only source of >>> religious truth. Not priests or bishops etc And generally don't pray
to saints or any other intermediaries. Which was helped by the arrival
of printing and more people being able to read. However without the central >>> authority in the form of a Pope this led to the possibility of numerous >>> breakaways.
The Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians. Reformed Presbyterians >>> Ian Paisley etc and "dissenters" generally were breakaways from other
forms of Protestantism, who they accused of slipping or backsliding not
from the Catholic Church
I am awell aware of what happened in England during the sixteenth
century (though less familiar with what happened in Scotland). If
there is one part of early modern history which is always taught in
English Catholic schools, it is the time (just after of the War of the
Roses) of the Tudors, especially the severe breach of central
coronation oaths by the son of the last legitimate king of that line,
Henry VII, and the subsequent appropriation of the property of the
Church by the English state.
But none of this makes any difference to the point I was making, which
is that whilst churches, synagogues and those mosques and temples
whose interiors I have seen are designed and built (as far as possible
and as permitted by resources) to exude a sense of sprituality, Quaker
meeting halls are not. Actually, neither is/was the Anglican HQ
building in Liverpool (Church House in Hanover Street, where I have
been in the past for secular meetings; it may still exist amid what is
now an area of resort).
The claim or insinuation (by some) that persons commercially hiring a
SoF hall for a political meeting are somehow given "sanctuary" by
being there is just silly.
Nobody said "sanctuary" as far as I know - maybe you can quote some
links. At no stage would the people who were arrested need any form of sanctuary.
The claim that the only places of worship that deserve protection from marauding police officers need to have elegant pillars, paintings,
statues, altars, other trappings of donor wealth, is to use your phrase
"just silly".
But we could use another analogy. Maybe a nineteenth century church in
your local community might have a church hall used by choirs or the
local scouts or cubs. How would it be if the hall and also the church
itself was broken into by police in search of some hippies who had hired
the hall to talk about possible protests against climate change? Locks
and doors damaged, people being handcuffed and led away as if they had
broken the law by their thoughtcrime? Would it be proportionate or considerate or would it be seen by everyone as a massive intimidatory
show of force to discourage the church from letting out its hall to
clubs or societies that might be critical of the government?
On 3/30/25 15:41, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 11:48 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/29/25 14:47, GB wrote:
On 29/03/2025 12:52, The Todal wrote:
A bit of googling and it seems that the targets of the police wrath
are actually "Youth Demand" who campaign in favour of boycotting
Israel and combatting climate change. They were hoping to organise
demonstrations that would "shut down London". So instead of punishing >>>>> the deed, the police now try to stop the deed by arresting the
organisers before the protest has actually been finalised.
I have no idea what was going on, but assuming they were conspiring to >>>> commit a criminal act, isn't the conspiracy itself an arrestable
offence?
In which case, the police were acting entirely properly?>
Any action against conspiracy should be proportionate.
Conspiracy is a derivative crime, lesser than the actual crime people
are conspiring to commit. None of Youth Demand's actual crimes seem that >>> serious. Well not serious in a criminal sense, perhaps they are
politically effective. Crimes such as painting the Cenotaph, or sitting
outside Kier Starmer's house can be dealt with as and when they actually >>> occur.
The problem with punishing the deed, is that many people, probably a
majority of people, agree with Youth Demand. Any serious punishment for
an actual crime creates martyrs.
How on earth can you say that when you cannot say what they demand?
Eh? They clearly tell us what they demand.
Cite: <https://youthdemand.org/>
Quote:
===
The government is engaging in absolute evil. They are enabling genocide
in Palestine by sending money and arms to Israel. They are contributing
to the murder of billions to keep the fossil fuel profits flowing.
Young people are stepping up to resist this nightmare.We are demanding
that the government must:
Stop all trade with Israel:impose a total trade embargo on Israel.
Make the rich pay: raise £1Tr by 2030 from the super rich and fossil
fuel elite to pay damages to communities and countries harmed by fossil
fuel burning.
===
On 30/03/2025 09:38 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/03/2025 11:46 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/30/25 11:35, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 08:32 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
As an aside, were they Quakers or were they just hiring the hall?
If the answer to the last question is "No, not Quakers, just hiring >>>>>>> the room", in what sense is the rented room a place of worship?
Having been to a meeting a couple of months ago at the Euston Road QMH, >>>>>> it felt just like an ordinary conference centre, with many smallish >>>>>> rooms over a couple of floors. Not just one big room.
That's what I thought.
There used to be a Society of Frends hall right opposite the premises >>>>> we lived in (Liverpool city centre, 1960-1961). I never entered the
building or even noticed anyone using it, but there was absolutely no >>>>> sense of sacredness or religion about it.
I'm not saying that that is the correct test, but other churches and >>>>> buildings I remember, including a synagogue opposite the house we
lived in for the first seven years of my life, all had a palpable air >>>>> of piety and spirituality about them.
I think one of the main ideas of the Protestant movement was a rejection >>>> of idolatry, icons, and other ostentatious displays of sacredness and
piety.
But no-one would be able to mistake the look of a typical C19 Anglican church.
That's because Henry VIII still regarded himself as a Catholic.
I know. He wasn't the full shilling, was he? He thought himself to be clever, but
did'nt even know (or admit) what the word "catholic" means.
Only an English
Catholic with him in charge rather than the Pope; that being the only real >> difference. And that tradition stlll applies with High Church Anglicans who >> are often outwardsly indistinguishable from Cathoilcs except they won't
have any saints dating from after the Reformation. The Coronation
exemplifies that, being full of religious mumbo jumbo. Elizabeth II's anyway >> I don't regard Big Ears as a true King so never watched his coronation.
which was probably a travesty in any case.
Protestants on the other hand claim that the Bible is the only source of
religious truth. Not priests or bishops etc And generally don't pray to saints
or any other intermediaries. Which was helped by the arrival of printing
and more people being able to read. However without the central authority
in the form of a Pope this led to the possibility of numerous breakaways. >> The Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians. Reformed Presbyterians
Ian Paisley etc and "dissenters" generally were breakaways from other forms >> of Protestantism, who they accused of slipping or backsliding not from the >> Catholic Church
I am awell aware of what happened in England during the sixteenth century (though less
familiar with what happened in Scotland). If there is one part of early modern history
which is always taught in English Catholic schools, it is the time (just after of the
War of the Roses) of the Tudors, especially the severe breach of central coronation
oaths by the son of the last legitimate king of that line, Henry VII, and the subsequent appropriation of the property of the Church by the English state.
But none of this makes any difference to the point I was making,
is that whilst churches, synagogues and those mosques and temples whose interiors I
have seen are designed and built (as far as possible and as permitted by resources) to
exude a sense of sprituality, Quaker meeting halls are not. Actually, neither is/was
the Anglican HQ building in Liverpool (Church House in Hanover Street, where I have
been in the past for secular meetings; it may still exist amid what is now an area of
resort).
The claim or insinuation (by some) that persons commercially hiring a SoF hall for a
political meeting are somehow given "sanctuary" by being there is just silly.
On 31/03/2025 10:08 AM, Pancho wrote:
Eh? They clearly tell us what they demand.
Cite: <https://youthdemand.org/>
Quote:
===
The government is engaging in absolute evil. They are enabling genocide
in Palestine by sending money and arms to Israel. They are contributing
to the murder of billions to keep the fossil fuel profits flowing.
Young people are stepping up to resist this nightmare.We are demanding
that the government must:
Stop all trade with Israel:impose a total trade embargo on Israel.
Make the rich pay: raise £1Tr by 2030 from the super rich and fossil
fuel elite to pay damages to communities and countries harmed by fossil
fuel burning.
===
If that is what YD demand, how can you say - or even suggest - that a majority of people support it?
It seems a reasonable projection that if exporting countries started to
deny Israel the the means of defending itself, it would, relatively
soon, be unable to fight bacxk against those of its neighbours
determined to wipe it and its people out.
Would a majority agree with that as an outcome?
On 29/03/2025 12:35, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 11:49:32 +0000, The Todal wrote:
https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/quakers-condemn-police-raid-on-westminster-meeting-house
Police broke into a Quaker Meeting House last night (27 March) and
arrested six young people holding a meeting over concerns for the
climate and Gaza.
Quakers in Britain strongly condemned the violation of their place of
worship which they say is a direct result of stricter protest laws
removing virtually all routes to challenge the status quo.
Just before 7.15pm more than 20 uniformed police, some equipped with
tasers, forced their way into Westminster Meeting House. They broke open >>> the front door without warning or ringing the bell first, searching the
whole building and arresting six women attending the meeting in a hired
room.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order
Act 2023 have criminalised many forms of protest and allow police to
halt actions deemed too disruptive.
A bit of googling and it seems that the targets of the police wrath are actually "Youth Demand" who campaign in favour of boycotting Israel and combatting climate change. They were hoping to organise demonstrations
that would "shut down London". So instead of punishing the deed, the
police now try to stop the deed by arresting the organisers before the protest has actually been finalised.
On 2025-03-31, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 10:24, JNugent wrote:
I am awell aware of what happened in England during the sixteenth
century (though less familiar with what happened in Scotland). If there
is one part of early modern history which is always taught in English
Catholic schools, it is the time (just after of the War of the Roses) of >>> the Tudors, especially the severe breach of central coronation oaths by
the son of the last legitimate king of that line, Henry VII, and the
subsequent appropriation of the property of the Church by the English
state.
But none of this makes any difference to the point I was making, which
is that whilst churches, synagogues and those mosques and temples whose
interiors I have seen are designed and built (as far as possible and as
permitted by resources) to exude a sense of sprituality, Quaker meeting
halls are not. Actually, neither is/was the Anglican HQ building in
Liverpool (Church House in Hanover Street, where I have been in the past >>> for secular meetings; it may still exist amid what is now an area of
resort).
The claim or insinuation (by some) that persons commercially hiring a
SoF hall for a political meeting are somehow given "sanctuary" by being
there is just silly.
Nobody said "sanctuary" as far as I know - maybe you can quote some
links. At no stage would the people who were arrested need any form of
sanctuary.
The claim that the only places of worship that deserve protection from
marauding police officers need to have elegant pillars, paintings,
statues, altars, other trappings of donor wealth, is to use your phrase
"just silly".
Claiming that Quaker Meeting Houses don't have a "sense of spirituality"
is also pretty silly. It betrays an almost complete lack of understanding
of the meaning of the word "spirituality": "characterized by sensitivity
to or appreciation of emotional, philosophical, or mystical matters and
*lack of concern for material values* or pursuits" (my emphasis).
Claiming that Quaker Meeting Houses don't have a "sense of spirituality"
is also pretty silly. It betrays an almost complete lack of understanding
of the meaning of the word "spirituality": "characterized by sensitivity
to or appreciation of emotional, philosophical, or mystical matters and
*lack of concern for material values* or pursuits" (my emphasis).
On 31/03/2025 12:42 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 31/03/2025 10:24, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 09:38 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/03/2025 11:46 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/30/25 11:35, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 08:32 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
As an aside, were they Quakers or were they just hiring the hall?
If the answer to the last question is "No, not Quakers, just hiring >>>>>>>>> the room", in what sense is the rented room a place of worship?
Having been to a meeting a couple of months ago at the EustonThat's what I thought.
Road QMH, it felt just like an ordinary conference centre, with >>>>>>>> many smallish rooms over a couple of floors. Not just one big room. >>
There used to be a Society of Frends hall right opposite the premises >>>>>>> we lived in (Liverpool city centre, 1960-1961). I never entered the >>>>>>> building or even noticed anyone using it, but there was absolutely no >>>>>>> sense of sacredness or religion about it.
I'm not saying that that is the correct test, but other churches and >>>>>>> buildings I remember, including a synagogue opposite the house we >>>>>>> lived in for the first seven years of my life, all had a palpable air >>>>>>> of piety and spirituality about them.
I think one of the main ideas of the Protestant movement was a
rejection of idolatry, icons, and other ostentatious displays of>
sacredness and piety.
But no-one would be able to mistake the look of a typical C19
Anglican church.
That's because Henry VIII still regarded himself as a Catholic.
I know. He wasn't the full shilling, was he? He thought himself to be
clever, but did'nt even know (or admit) what the word "catholic" means.
Only an English Catholic with him in charge rather than the Pope; that >>>> being the only real difference. And that tradition stlll applies with
High Church Anglicans who are often outwardsly indistinguishable from
Cathoilcs except they won't have any saints dating from after the
Reformation. The Coronation exemplifies that, being full of religious
mumbo jumbo. Elizabeth II's anyway I don't regard Big Ears as a true
King so never watched his coronation. which was probably a travesty in >>>> any case.
Protestants on the other hand claim that the Bible is the only source of >>>> religious truth. Not priests or bishops etc And generally don't pray
to saints or any other intermediaries. Which was helped by the arrival >>>> of printing and more people being able to read. However without the central
authority in the form of a Pope this led to the possibility of numerous >>>> breakaways.
The Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians. Reformed Presbyterians >>>> Ian Paisley etc and "dissenters" generally were breakaways from other
forms of Protestantism, who they accused of slipping or backsliding not >>>> from the Catholic Church
I am awell aware of what happened in England during the sixteenth
century (though less familiar with what happened in Scotland). If
there is one part of early modern history which is always taught in
English Catholic schools, it is the time (just after of the War of the
Roses) of the Tudors, especially the severe breach of central
coronation oaths by the son of the last legitimate king of that line,
Henry VII, and the subsequent appropriation of the property of the
Church by the English state.
But none of this makes any difference to the point I was making, which
is that whilst churches, synagogues and those mosques and temples
whose interiors I have seen are designed and built (as far as possible
and as permitted by resources) to exude a sense of sprituality, Quaker
meeting halls are not. Actually, neither is/was the Anglican HQ
building in Liverpool (Church House in Hanover Street, where I have
been in the past for secular meetings; it may still exist amid what is
now an area of resort).
The claim or insinuation (by some) that persons commercially hiring a
SoF hall for a political meeting are somehow given "sanctuary" by
being there is just silly.
Nobody said "sanctuary" as far as I know - maybe you can quote some
links. At no stage would the people who were arrested need any form of
sanctuary.
So why did some complain about arrests in a Society of Friends meeting
hall and the relative rarity of such an event?
They might not have used the word, but "sanctuary" is pretty much what
they are talking about if their view is that arrests should not be made
in such a place. Hence my use of inverted commas around the term (you
DID see those, yes?).
Arguing about whether the word was actually used is a simple semantic quibble.
I don't believe that any place of worship either has, or ought to have,
The claim that the only places of worship that deserve protection from
marauding police officers need to have elegant pillars, paintings,
statues, altars, other trappings of donor wealth, is to use your phrase
"just silly".
the protection of "sanctuary".
I was pointing out, in fact, more or less what you just said.
But we could use another analogy. Maybe a nineteenth century church in
your local community might have a church hall used by choirs or the
local scouts or cubs. How would it be if the hall and also the church
itself was broken into by police in search of some hippies who had hired
the hall to talk about possible protests against climate change? Locks
and doors damaged, people being handcuffed and led away as if they had
broken the law by their thoughtcrime? Would it be proportionate or
considerate or would it be seen by everyone as a massive intimidatory
show of force to discourage the church from letting out its hall to
clubs or societies that might be critical of the government?
Yes, it would be just as proportionate as breaking, of necessity, into
any other premises as part of the enforcement of criminal law, including
the crime of conspiracy to commit offences.
On 31/03/2025 10:08 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/30/25 15:41, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 11:48 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/29/25 14:47, GB wrote:
On 29/03/2025 12:52, The Todal wrote:
A bit of googling and it seems that the targets of the police wrath >>>>>> are actually "Youth Demand" who campaign in favour of boycotting
Israel and combatting climate change. They were hoping to organise >>>>>> demonstrations that would "shut down London". So instead of punishing >>>>>> the deed, the police now try to stop the deed by arresting the
organisers before the protest has actually been finalised.
I have no idea what was going on, but assuming they were conspiring to >>>>> commit a criminal act, isn't the conspiracy itself an arrestable
offence?
In which case, the police were acting entirely properly?>
Any action against conspiracy should be proportionate.
Conspiracy is a derivative crime, lesser than the actual crime people
are conspiring to commit. None of Youth Demand's actual crimes seem
that
serious. Well not serious in a criminal sense, perhaps they are
politically effective. Crimes such as painting the Cenotaph, or sitting >>>> outside Kier Starmer's house can be dealt with as and when they
actually
occur.
The problem with punishing the deed, is that many people, probably a
majority of people, agree with Youth Demand. Any serious punishment for >>>> an actual crime creates martyrs.
How on earth can you say that when you cannot say what they demand?
Eh? They clearly tell us what they demand.
Cite: <https://youthdemand.org/>
Quote:
===
The government is engaging in absolute evil. They are enabling genocide
in Palestine by sending money and arms to Israel. They are contributing
to the murder of billions to keep the fossil fuel profits flowing.
Young people are stepping up to resist this nightmare.We are demanding
that the government must:
Stop all trade with Israel:impose a total trade embargo on Israel.
Make the rich pay: raise £1Tr by 2030 from the super rich and fossil
fuel elite to pay damages to communities and countries harmed by fossil
fuel burning.
===
If that is what YD demand, how can you say - or even suggest - that a majority of people support it?
It seems a reasonable projection that if exporting countries started to
deny Israel the the means of defending itself, it would, relatively
soon, be unable to fight bacxk against those of its neighbours
determined to wipe it and its people out.
Would a majority agree with that as an outcome?
So we have extrajudicial punishments, intimidation, removal of their
phones and laptops.
There would have to be a court order for that. Or alternatively,
credible suspicion of a crime or conspiracy to commit crime.
Ok, perhaps I used the term badly. I meant deliberately using the
investigative process as a punishment, without any intention to seek a
conviction.
Police forces use analogous tactics all over the world. Usual suspects
are not allowed to forget that the forces of law and order have their
beady eyes on them.
Heck, even those who are not part of the usual suspects in any
meaningful sense are surveilled and recorded for the terrible offence of
not using public transport or a fairy-cycle.
On 29/03/2025 12:52, The Todal wrote:
On 29/03/2025 12:35, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 11:49:32 +0000, The Todal wrote:
https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/quakers-condemn-police-raid-on-westminster-meeting-house
Police broke into a Quaker Meeting House last night (27 March) and
arrested six young people holding a meeting over concerns for the
climate and Gaza.
Quakers in Britain strongly condemned the violation of their place of
worship which they say is a direct result of stricter protest laws
removing virtually all routes to challenge the status quo.
Just before 7.15pm more than 20 uniformed police, some equipped with
tasers, forced their way into Westminster Meeting House. They broke open >>>> the front door without warning or ringing the bell first, searching the >>>> whole building and arresting six women attending the meeting in a hired >>>> room.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order >>>> Act 2023 have criminalised many forms of protest and allow police to
halt actions deemed too disruptive.
A bit of googling and it seems that the targets of the police wrath are
actually "Youth Demand" who campaign in favour of boycotting Israel and
combatting climate change. They were hoping to organise demonstrations
that would "shut down London". So instead of punishing the deed, the
police now try to stop the deed by arresting the organisers before the
protest has actually been finalised.
Bit daft of them campaigning for two completely unrelated causes. Why
not have Youth Demand 1 and Youth Demand 2. So people can decide which
they want to support. Also Youth Demand 3, 4, 5, as many as they can
think of.
On 31 Mar 2025 at 13:33:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Yes, it would be just as proportionate as breaking, of necessity, into
any other premises as part of the enforcement of criminal law, including
the crime of conspiracy to commit offences.
It was only necessary or proportionate if it was really not a realistic alternative to summon them to an appointment at a police station with their solicitors. Or if they were in the act of committing a crime, which they clearly weren't. The essence of conspiracy is making a plan, not holding a particular meeting. It is not something you can catch people doing instantaneously.
On 31 Mar 2025 at 13:33:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 12:42 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 31/03/2025 10:24, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 09:38 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/03/2025 11:46 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/30/25 11:35, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 08:32 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
As an aside, were they Quakers or were they just hiring the hall? >>>
If the answer to the last question is "No, not Quakers, just hiring >>>>>>>>>> the room", in what sense is the rented room a place of worship?
Having been to a meeting a couple of months ago at the Euston >>>>>>>>> Road QMH, it felt just like an ordinary conference centre, with >>>>>>>>> many smallish rooms over a couple of floors. Not just one big room. >>>That's what I thought.
There used to be a Society of Frends hall right opposite the premises >>>>>>>> we lived in (Liverpool city centre, 1960-1961). I never entered the >>>>>>>> building or even noticed anyone using it, but there was absolutely no >>>>>>>> sense of sacredness or religion about it.
I'm not saying that that is the correct test, but other churches and >>>>>>>> buildings I remember, including a synagogue opposite the house we >>>>>>>> lived in for the first seven years of my life, all had a palpable air >>>>>>>> of piety and spirituality about them.
I think one of the main ideas of the Protestant movement was a
rejection of idolatry, icons, and other ostentatious displays of> >>>>>>> sacredness and piety.
But no-one would be able to mistake the look of a typical C19
Anglican church.
That's because Henry VIII still regarded himself as a Catholic.
I know. He wasn't the full shilling, was he? He thought himself to be
clever, but did'nt even know (or admit) what the word "catholic" means. >>>
Only an English Catholic with him in charge rather than the Pope; that >>>>> being the only real difference. And that tradition stlll applies with >>>>> High Church Anglicans who are often outwardsly indistinguishable from >>>>> Cathoilcs except they won't have any saints dating from after the
Reformation. The Coronation exemplifies that, being full of religious >>>>> mumbo jumbo. Elizabeth II's anyway I don't regard Big Ears as a true >>>>> King so never watched his coronation. which was probably a travesty in >>>>> any case.
Protestants on the other hand claim that the Bible is the only source of >>>>> religious truth. Not priests or bishops etc And generally don't pray >>>>> to saints or any other intermediaries. Which was helped by the arrival >>>>> of printing and more people being able to read. However without the central
authority in the form of a Pope this led to the possibility of numerous >>>>> breakaways.
The Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians. Reformed Presbyterians >>>>> Ian Paisley etc and "dissenters" generally were breakaways from other >>>>> forms of Protestantism, who they accused of slipping or backsliding not >>>>> from the Catholic Church
I am awell aware of what happened in England during the sixteenth
century (though less familiar with what happened in Scotland). If
there is one part of early modern history which is always taught in
English Catholic schools, it is the time (just after of the War of the >>>> Roses) of the Tudors, especially the severe breach of central
coronation oaths by the son of the last legitimate king of that line,
Henry VII, and the subsequent appropriation of the property of the
Church by the English state.
But none of this makes any difference to the point I was making, which >>>> is that whilst churches, synagogues and those mosques and temples
whose interiors I have seen are designed and built (as far as possible >>>> and as permitted by resources) to exude a sense of sprituality, Quaker >>>> meeting halls are not. Actually, neither is/was the Anglican HQ
building in Liverpool (Church House in Hanover Street, where I have
been in the past for secular meetings; it may still exist amid what is >>>> now an area of resort).
The claim or insinuation (by some) that persons commercially hiring a
SoF hall for a political meeting are somehow given "sanctuary" by
being there is just silly.
Nobody said "sanctuary" as far as I know - maybe you can quote some
links. At no stage would the people who were arrested need any form of
sanctuary.
So why did some complain about arrests in a Society of Friends meeting
hall and the relative rarity of such an event?
They might not have used the word, but "sanctuary" is pretty much what
they are talking about if their view is that arrests should not be made
in such a place. Hence my use of inverted commas around the term (you
DID see those, yes?).
Arguing about whether the word was actually used is a simple semantic
quibble.
I don't believe that any place of worship either has, or ought to have,
The claim that the only places of worship that deserve protection from
marauding police officers need to have elegant pillars, paintings,
statues, altars, other trappings of donor wealth, is to use your phrase
"just silly".
the protection of "sanctuary".
I was pointing out, in fact, more or less what you just said.
But we could use another analogy. Maybe a nineteenth century church in
your local community might have a church hall used by choirs or the
local scouts or cubs. How would it be if the hall and also the church
itself was broken into by police in search of some hippies who had hired >>> the hall to talk about possible protests against climate change? Locks
and doors damaged, people being handcuffed and led away as if they had
broken the law by their thoughtcrime? Would it be proportionate or
considerate or would it be seen by everyone as a massive intimidatory
show of force to discourage the church from letting out its hall to
clubs or societies that might be critical of the government?
Yes, it would be just as proportionate as breaking, of necessity, into
any other premises as part of the enforcement of criminal law, including
the crime of conspiracy to commit offences.
It was only necessary or proportionate if it was really not a realistic alternative to summon them to an appointment at a police station with their solicitors. Or if they were in the act of committing a crime, which they clearly weren't. The essence of conspiracy is making a plan, not holding a particular meeting. It is not something you can catch people doing instantaneously.
On 31/03/2025 13:20, JNugent wrote:
On 31/03/2025 10:08 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/30/25 15:41, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 11:48 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/29/25 14:47, GB wrote:
On 29/03/2025 12:52, The Todal wrote:
A bit of googling and it seems that the targets of the police wrath >>>>>>> are actually "Youth Demand" who campaign in favour of boycotting >>>>>>> Israel and combatting climate change. They were hoping to organise >>>>>>> demonstrations that would "shut down London". So instead of
punishing
the deed, the police now try to stop the deed by arresting the
organisers before the protest has actually been finalised.
I have no idea what was going on, but assuming they were
conspiring to
commit a criminal act, isn't the conspiracy itself an arrestable
offence?
In which case, the police were acting entirely properly?>
Any action against conspiracy should be proportionate.
Conspiracy is a derivative crime, lesser than the actual crime people >>>>> are conspiring to commit. None of Youth Demand's actual crimes seem
that
serious. Well not serious in a criminal sense, perhaps they are
politically effective. Crimes such as painting the Cenotaph, or
sitting
outside Kier Starmer's house can be dealt with as and when they
actually
occur.
The problem with punishing the deed, is that many people, probably a >>>>> majority of people, agree with Youth Demand. Any serious punishment
for
an actual crime creates martyrs.
How on earth can you say that when you cannot say what they demand?
Eh? They clearly tell us what they demand.
Cite: <https://youthdemand.org/>
Quote:
===
The government is engaging in absolute evil. They are enabling genocide
in Palestine by sending money and arms to Israel. They are contributing
to the murder of billions to keep the fossil fuel profits flowing.
Young people are stepping up to resist this nightmare.We are demanding
that the government must:
Stop all trade with Israel:impose a total trade embargo on Israel.
Make the rich pay: raise £1Tr by 2030 from the super rich and fossil
fuel elite to pay damages to communities and countries harmed by fossil
fuel burning.
===
If that is what YD demand, how can you say - or even suggest - that a
majority of people support it?
It seems a reasonable projection that if exporting countries started
to deny Israel the the means of defending itself, it would, relatively
soon, be unable to fight bacxk against those of its neighbours
determined to wipe it and its people out.
That's a very simplistic view. Normally the threat of embargos are
sufficient in all but the most extreme juntas.
Would a majority agree with that as an outcome?
If the terms were correct, I would say that becomes very likely. One
hope the government of the day would be more in tune with the
electorate. On the other hand the support for Reform suggests otherwise?
So we have extrajudicial punishments, intimidation, removal of their >>>>> phones and laptops.
There would have to be a court order for that. Or alternatively,
credible suspicion of a crime or conspiracy to commit crime.
Ok, perhaps I used the term badly. I meant deliberately using the
investigative process as a punishment, without any intention to seek a
conviction.
Police forces use analogous tactics all over the world. Usual suspects
are not allowed to forget that the forces of law and order have their
beady eyes on them.
Quite stealing two trainers during a protest in the UK would get you 18 months in gaol.
Heck, even those who are not part of the usual suspects in any
meaningful sense are surveilled and recorded for the terrible offence
of not using public transport or a fairy-cycle.
The UK state does use surveillance during protests and peaceful demonstrations.
Hence, I suspect a large proportion of the people in the country,
possibly a majority, are broadly sympathetic to the government taking
steps to encourage a more equatable society in Israel.
On 31/03/2025 10:08 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/30/25 15:41, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 11:48 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/29/25 14:47, GB wrote:
On 29/03/2025 12:52, The Todal wrote:
A bit of googling and it seems that the targets of the police wrath >>>>>> are actually "Youth Demand" who campaign in favour of boycotting
Israel and combatting climate change. They were hoping to organise >>>>>> demonstrations that would "shut down London". So instead of punishing >>>>>> the deed, the police now try to stop the deed by arresting the
organisers before the protest has actually been finalised.
I have no idea what was going on, but assuming they were conspiring to >>>>> commit a criminal act, isn't the conspiracy itself an arrestable
offence?
In which case, the police were acting entirely properly?>
Any action against conspiracy should be proportionate.
Conspiracy is a derivative crime, lesser than the actual crime people
are conspiring to commit. None of Youth Demand's actual crimes seem
that
serious. Well not serious in a criminal sense, perhaps they are
politically effective. Crimes such as painting the Cenotaph, or sitting >>>> outside Kier Starmer's house can be dealt with as and when they
actually
occur.
The problem with punishing the deed, is that many people, probably a
majority of people, agree with Youth Demand. Any serious punishment for >>>> an actual crime creates martyrs.
How on earth can you say that when you cannot say what they demand?
Eh? They clearly tell us what they demand.
Cite: <https://youthdemand.org/>
Quote:
===
The government is engaging in absolute evil. They are enabling genocide
in Palestine by sending money and arms to Israel. They are contributing
to the murder of billions to keep the fossil fuel profits flowing.
Young people are stepping up to resist this nightmare.We are demanding
that the government must:
Stop all trade with Israel:impose a total trade embargo on Israel.
Make the rich pay: raise £1Tr by 2030 from the super rich and fossil
fuel elite to pay damages to communities and countries harmed by fossil
fuel burning.
===
If that is what YD demand, how can you say - or even suggest - that a majority of people support it?
It seems a reasonable projection that if exporting countries started to
deny Israel the the means of defending itself, it would, relatively
soon, be unable to fight bacxk against those of its neighbours
determined to wipe it and its people out.
Would a majority agree with that as an outcome?
So we have extrajudicial punishments, intimidation, removal of their
phones and laptops.
There would have to be a court order for that. Or alternatively,
credible suspicion of a crime or conspiracy to commit crime.
Ok, perhaps I used the term badly. I meant deliberately using the
investigative process as a punishment, without any intention to seek a
conviction.
Police forces use analogous tactics all over the world. Usual suspects
are not allowed to forget that the forces of law and order have their
beady eyes on them.
Heck, even those who are not part of the usual suspects in any
meaningful sense are surveilled and recorded for the terrible offence of
not using public transport or a fairy-cycle.
On 2025-03-31, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2025 10:24, JNugent wrote:
I am awell aware of what happened in England during the sixteenth
century (though less familiar with what happened in Scotland). If there
is one part of early modern history which is always taught in English
Catholic schools, it is the time (just after of the War of the Roses) of >>> the Tudors, especially the severe breach of central coronation oaths by
the son of the last legitimate king of that line, Henry VII, and the
subsequent appropriation of the property of the Church by the English
state.
But none of this makes any difference to the point I was making, which
is that whilst churches, synagogues and those mosques and temples whose
interiors I have seen are designed and built (as far as possible and as
permitted by resources) to exude a sense of sprituality, Quaker meeting
halls are not. Actually, neither is/was the Anglican HQ building in
Liverpool (Church House in Hanover Street, where I have been in the past >>> for secular meetings; it may still exist amid what is now an area of
resort).
The claim or insinuation (by some) that persons commercially hiring a
SoF hall for a political meeting are somehow given "sanctuary" by being
there is just silly.
Nobody said "sanctuary" as far as I know - maybe you can quote some
links. At no stage would the people who were arrested need any form of
sanctuary.
The claim that the only places of worship that deserve protection from
marauding police officers need to have elegant pillars, paintings,
statues, altars, other trappings of donor wealth, is to use your phrase
"just silly".
Claiming that Quaker Meeting Houses don't have a "sense of spirituality"
is also pretty silly. It betrays an almost complete lack of understanding
of the meaning of the word "spirituality": "characterized by sensitivity
to or appreciation of emotional, philosophical, or mystical matters and
*lack of concern for material values* or pursuits" (my emphasis).
On 2025-03-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 3/30/25 11:35, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 08:32 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
As an aside, were they Quakers or were they just hiring the hall?
If the answer to the last question is "No, not Quakers, just hiring
the room", in what sense is the rented room a place of worship?
Having been to a meeting a couple of months ago at the Euston Road QMH, >>>> it felt just like an ordinary conference centre, with many smallish
rooms over a couple of floors. Not just one big room.
That's what I thought.
There used to be a Society of Frends hall right opposite the premises we >>> lived in (Liverpool city centre, 1960-1961). I never entered the
building or even noticed anyone using it, but there was absolutely no
sense of sacredness or religion about it.
I'm not saying that that is the correct test, but other churches and
buildings I remember, including a synagogue opposite the house we lived
in for the first seven years of my life, all had a palpable air of piety >>> and spirituality about them.
I think one of the main ideas of the Protestant movement was a
rejection of idolatry, icons, and other ostentatious displays of
sacredness and piety.
Indeed. It's about modesty. Denying the spirituality of Quaker meeting
houses on the basis that they're not fancy enough is missing the point
quite impressively.
On 2025-03-31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Claiming that Quaker Meeting Houses don't have a "sense of spirituality"
is also pretty silly. It betrays an almost complete lack of understanding
of the meaning of the word "spirituality": "characterized by sensitivity
to or appreciation of emotional, philosophical, or mystical matters and
*lack of concern for material values* or pursuits" (my emphasis).
I've been in only a few Quaker meeting houses but IME they may be
"plain" but in no way lack a sense of spirituality.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 14:49:01 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-03-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 3/30/25 11:35, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2025 08:32 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
As an aside, were they Quakers or were they just hiring the hall?
If the answer to the last question is "No, not Quakers, just hiring >>>>>> the room", in what sense is the rented room a place of worship?
Having been to a meeting a couple of months ago at the Euston Road QMH, >>>>> it felt just like an ordinary conference centre, with many smallish
rooms over a couple of floors. Not just one big room.
That's what I thought.
There used to be a Society of Frends hall right opposite the premises we >>>> lived in (Liverpool city centre, 1960-1961). I never entered the
building or even noticed anyone using it, but there was absolutely no
sense of sacredness or religion about it.
I'm not saying that that is the correct test, but other churches and
buildings I remember, including a synagogue opposite the house we lived >>>> in for the first seven years of my life, all had a palpable air of piety >>>> and spirituality about them.
I think one of the main ideas of the Protestant movement was a
rejection of idolatry, icons, and other ostentatious displays of
sacredness and piety.
Indeed. It's about modesty. Denying the spirituality of Quaker meeting
houses on the basis that they're not fancy enough is missing the point
quite impressively.
That's also kind of missing the point, though. Quakers don't have a concept of "consecrated ground" in the way that Anglicans and Catholics do.
On 4/1/25 22:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
That's also kind of missing the point, though. Quakers don't have a concept >> of "consecrated ground" in the way that Anglicans and Catholics do.
What is the point?
Many people consecrate their property, I myself have consecrated my
home. With an appropriate ceremony and voodoo enchantment. Is my home
now spiritual and protected in a way that the Quakers property is not?
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:47:38 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Many people consecrate their property, I myself have consecrated my
home. With an appropriate ceremony and voodoo enchantment. Is my home
now spiritual and protected in a way that the Quakers property is not?
Well, obviously if you don't belive in it then, to you, no ground is holy. And if you do believe in it, then, to you, the ground you believe is holy is holy, but not necessarily to other people. And as far as secular law is concerned, no ground is holy in statute law or case law even though it may
be in canon law.
Traditionally, though, law enforcement agencies in the UK have followed a policy of respecting religious groups' concepts of consecrated or sacred ground unless there are compelling reasons not to. Police would not normally enter a church, or a mosque, or a synagogue, against the wishes of the building's owners in order to perform an arrest unless there was no reasonable alternative.
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:47:38 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/1/25 22:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
That's also kind of missing the point, though. Quakers don't have a
concept of "consecrated ground" in the way that Anglicans and
Catholics do.
What is the point?
Many people consecrate their property, I myself have consecrated my
home. With an appropriate ceremony and voodoo enchantment. Is my home
now spiritual and protected in a way that the Quakers property is not?
Well, obviously if you don't belive in it then, to you, no ground is holy. And if you do believe in it, then, to you, the ground you believe is holy is holy, but not necessarily to other people. And as far as secular law is concerned, no ground is holy in statute law or case law even though it may
be in canon law.
Traditionally, though, law enforcement agencies in the UK have followed a policy of respecting religious groups' concepts of consecrated or sacred ground unless there are compelling reasons not to. Police would not normally enter a church, or a mosque, or a synagogue, against the wishes of the building's owners in order to perform an arrest unless there was no reasonable alternative.
However, my point here is that Quakers do not consider their own buildings
to be holy. Therefore, there is no sacred ground that needs to be respected.
On 02/04/2025 17:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
Traditionally, though, law enforcement agencies in the UK have followed a
policy of respecting religious groups' concepts of consecrated or sacred
ground unless there are compelling reasons not to. Police would not normally >> enter a church, or a mosque, or a synagogue, against the wishes of the
building's owners in order to perform an arrest unless there was no
reasonable alternative.
Is that the law, or subject to the opinions of individual magistrates or >judges? Do such law officers really refrain from issuing search or
arrest warrants if the premises are considered religious?
On 2025-04-02, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:47:38 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/1/25 22:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
That's also kind of missing the point, though. Quakers don't have a
concept of "consecrated ground" in the way that Anglicans and
Catholics do.
What is the point?
Many people consecrate their property, I myself have consecrated my
home. With an appropriate ceremony and voodoo enchantment. Is my home
now spiritual and protected in a way that the Quakers property is not?
Well, obviously if you don't belive in it then, to you, no ground is holy. >> And if you do believe in it, then, to you, the ground you believe is holy is >> holy, but not necessarily to other people. And as far as secular law is
concerned, no ground is holy in statute law or case law even though it may >> be in canon law.
Traditionally, though, law enforcement agencies in the UK have followed a
policy of respecting religious groups' concepts of consecrated or sacred
ground unless there are compelling reasons not to. Police would not normally >> enter a church, or a mosque, or a synagogue, against the wishes of the
building's owners in order to perform an arrest unless there was no
reasonable alternative.
However, my point here is that Quakers do not consider their own buildings >> to be holy. Therefore, there is no sacred ground that needs to be respected.
I think that is grossly over-simplifying things. For example: the
outrage caused by the incident this thread is about!
On 2025-04-02, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
However, my point here is that Quakers do not consider their own
buildings to be holy. Therefore, there is no sacred ground that needs
to be respected.
I think that is grossly over-simplifying things. For example: the
outrage caused by the incident this thread is about!
On 2025-04-02, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-02, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
However, my point here is that Quakers do not consider their own
buildings to be holy. Therefore, there is no sacred ground that needs
to be respected.
I think that is grossly over-simplifying things. For example: the
outrage caused by the incident this thread is about!
The Quakers have now held a vigil outside New [New New] Scotland Yard
with hundreds of attendees. They appear to be seriously miffed.
https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/silent-but-not-subdued-quakers-hold-vigil-at-scotland-yard
(Scroll down to the second image for a far better view of how many
people were there.)
On 04/04/2025 08:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-02, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-02, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
However, my point here is that Quakers do not consider their own
buildings to be holy. Therefore, there is no sacred ground that needs
to be respected.
I think that is grossly over-simplifying things. For example: the
outrage caused by the incident this thread is about!
The Quakers have now held a vigil outside New [New New] Scotland Yard
with hundreds of attendees. They appear to be seriously miffed.
https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/silent-but-not-subdued-quakers-hold-vigil-at-scotland-yard
(Scroll down to the second image for a far better view of how many
people were there.)
I greatly respect the Quakers, but isn't this a bit overdone?
The sanctuary of religious buildings, if it ever existed, went out of
the window in 1170 (murder of Thomas Becket).
If the owners allow their building to be used for an illegal gathering
then they shouldn't complain if it's raided.
Indeed, if the building had been used as a bomb factory, I'm sure the
Quakers would have applauded the police raid.
Perhaps, the Quakers rather approve of the meeting? If so, maybe they
should say that, and be prepared to suffer the opprobrium if London is seriously disrupted.
On 2025-04-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 04/04/2025 08:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-02, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-02, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
However, my point here is that Quakers do not consider their own
buildings to be holy. Therefore, there is no sacred ground that needs >>>>> to be respected.
I think that is grossly over-simplifying things. For example: the
outrage caused by the incident this thread is about!
The Quakers have now held a vigil outside New [New New] Scotland Yard
with hundreds of attendees. They appear to be seriously miffed.
https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/silent-but-not-subdued-quakers-hold-vigil-at-scotland-yard
(Scroll down to the second image for a far better view of how many
people were there.)
I greatly respect the Quakers, but isn't this a bit overdone?
The sanctuary of religious buildings, if it ever existed, went out of
the window in 1170 (murder of Thomas Becket).
Well, no, because the police generally do act a bit circumspect about invading churches etc. The Quakers' statement stays that this is the
first time in living memory that anyone has been arrested in a Quaker
Meeting Hall.
(And your example does not help your point, since the killing of Becket
on consecrated ground was far from consequence-free!)
If the owners allow their building to be used for an illegal gathering
then they shouldn't complain if it's raided.
There's several problems with that statement, the most obvious being
that you're assuming the gathering was illegal, but also that you're
assuming that the law is never an ass.
Indeed, if the building had been used as a bomb factory, I'm sure the
Quakers would have applauded the police raid.
Ok, but it wasn't being used as a bomb factory, and the Quakers would
not have let it be used as one. So I'm not sure what your point is
there.
Perhaps, the Quakers rather approve of the meeting? If so, maybe they
should say that, and be prepared to suffer the opprobrium if London is
seriously disrupted.
So that statement also has problems, the biggest being that you are
equating [allegedly] talking about causing disruption with actually
causing disruption.
On 04/04/2025 11:49, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 04/04/2025 08:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-02, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-02, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> However, my point here is that Quakers do not consider their own
buildings to be holy. Therefore, there is no sacred ground that needs >>>>>> to be respected.
I think that is grossly over-simplifying things. For example: the
outrage caused by the incident this thread is about!
The Quakers have now held a vigil outside New [New New] Scotland Yard
with hundreds of attendees. They appear to be seriously miffed.
https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/silent-but-not-
subdued-quakers-hold-vigil-at-scotland-yard
(Scroll down to the second image for a far better view of how many
people were there.)
I greatly respect the Quakers, but isn't this a bit overdone?
The sanctuary of religious buildings, if it ever existed, went out of
the window in 1170 (murder of Thomas Becket).
Well, no, because the police generally do act a bit circumspect about
invading churches etc. The Quakers' statement stays that this is the
first time in living memory that anyone has been arrested in a Quaker
Meeting Hall.
(And your example does not help your point, since the killing of Becket
on consecrated ground was far from consequence-free!)
If the owners allow their building to be used for an illegal gathering
then they shouldn't complain if it's raided.
There's several problems with that statement, the most obvious being
that you're assuming the gathering was illegal, but also that you're
assuming that the law is never an ass.
Indeed, if the building had been used as a bomb factory, I'm sure the
Quakers would have applauded the police raid.
Ok, but it wasn't being used as a bomb factory, and the Quakers would
not have let it be used as one. So I'm not sure what your point is
there.
Perhaps, the Quakers rather approve of the meeting? If so, maybe they
should say that, and be prepared to suffer the opprobrium if London is
seriously disrupted.
So that statement also has problems, the biggest being that you are
equating [allegedly] talking about causing disruption with actually
causing disruption.
You cannot be unaware of the concept of conspiracy.
In principle, I'm (pretty) sure we'd all agree that it's better to
arrest a group conspiring to cause a serious crime before they actually
do so?
In principle, I'm (pretty) sure we'd all agree that it's better to
arrest a group conspiring to cause a serious crime before they actually
do so?
On 05/04/2025 06:46, GB wrote:
In principle, I'm (pretty) sure we'd all agree that it's better to
arrest a group conspiring to cause a serious crime before they
actually do so?
Sensible people would agree with that.
On 04/04/2025 23:05, JNugent wrote:
On 04/04/2025 11:49, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 04/04/2025 08:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-02, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-02, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
However, my point here is that Quakers do not consider their own >>>>>>> buildings to be holy. Therefore, there is no sacred ground that
needs to be respected.
I think that is grossly over-simplifying things. For example: the
outrage caused by the incident this thread is about!
The Quakers have now held a vigil outside New [New New] Scotland Yard >>>>> with hundreds of attendees. They appear to be seriously miffed.
https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/silent-but-not-
subdued-quakers-hold-vigil-at-scotland-yard
(Scroll down to the second image for a far better view of how many
people were there.)
I greatly respect the Quakers, but isn't this a bit overdone?
The sanctuary of religious buildings, if it ever existed, went out of
the window in 1170 (murder of Thomas Becket).
Well, no, because the police generally do act a bit circumspect about
invading churches etc. The Quakers' statement stays that this is the
first time in living memory that anyone has been arrested in a Quaker
Meeting Hall.
(And your example does not help your point, since the killing of Becket
on consecrated ground was far from consequence-free!)
If the owners allow their building to be used for an illegal gathering >>>> then they shouldn't complain if it's raided.
There's several problems with that statement, the most obvious being
that you're assuming the gathering was illegal, but also that you're
assuming that the law is never an ass.
Indeed, if the building had been used as a bomb factory, I'm sure the
Quakers would have applauded the police raid.
Ok, but it wasn't being used as a bomb factory, and the Quakers would
not have let it be used as one. So I'm not sure what your point is
there.
Perhaps, the Quakers rather approve of the meeting? If so, maybe they
should say that, and be prepared to suffer the opprobrium if London is >>>> seriously disrupted.
So that statement also has problems, the biggest being that you are
equating [allegedly] talking about causing disruption with actually
causing disruption.
You cannot be unaware of the concept of conspiracy.
You can be unaware of the elements the prosecution need to prove to
establish that there has been a conspiracy.
On 05/04/2025 03:49, The Todal wrote:
On 04/04/2025 23:05, JNugent wrote:
You cannot be unaware of the concept of conspiracy.
You can be unaware of the elements the prosecution need to prove to
establish that there has been a conspiracy.
People still get convicted of conspiracy.
Complaints that it isn't fair don't often help persons guilty of
conspiracy to commit a crime, which is as it should be.
On 05/04/2025 06:46, GB wrote:
In principle, I'm (pretty) sure we'd all agree that it's better to
arrest a group conspiring to cause a serious crime before they actually
do so?
Sensible people would agree with that.
On 2025-04-05, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
In principle, I'm (pretty) sure we'd all agree that it's better to
arrest a group conspiring to cause a serious crime before they actually
do so?
Yes, arresting people who haven't yet committed any crimes is a great
way to run things and I can foresee no problems at all with that idea.
On 05/04/2025 17:19, JNugent wrote:
On 05/04/2025 06:46, GB wrote:
In principle, I'm (pretty) sure we'd all agree that it's better to
arrest a group conspiring to cause a serious crime before they
actually do so?
Sensible people would agree with that.
But would the sensible people have sufficient knowledge of the law to understand the difference between conspiring to cause a serious crime
and holding a discussion where various possible methods of protest can
be put forward and those methods either abandoned or adopted? Sometimes sensible people can be thick as pigshit.
It may be that sensible people just want strong and stable leadership,
and would like to see people led away in handcuffs and leg irons if they
have been discussing between themselves how to show Donald Trump that
his state visit does not meet with the universal enthusiasm he imagines
it should.
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 11:19:33 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 05/04/2025 06:46, GB wrote:
In principle, I'm (pretty) sure we'd all agree that it's better to
arrest a group conspiring to cause a serious crime before they actually
do so?
Sensible people would agree with that.
It depends on the circumstances and on the presumed meanings of the words being used. My definition of a serious crime might not be the same as the police's. Moreover, the word "conspiring" is itself ambiguous. It could
cover anything from buying the guns and explosives and issuing everyone
with a detailed plan of action, to a couple of pisshead students in the
pub saying "Hey, wouldn't it be a laugh to set fire to the university library, man?"
In the present case it seems likely that the 'conpirators' were discussing non-violent obstructive action a la Just Stop Oil. If so, I'd prefer the police to let them get on with it and then come down on them like a ton of bricks when they do, with long prison sentences for blocking motorways and
so on.
However, the police didn't seem to want to do that when JSO started it,
they just brought them cups of tea and threatened to arrest members of the public who urged more direct enforcement action. I'd like to have an explanation of that before they start arresting unarmed Quakers in meeting halls.
On 05/04/2025 17:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/04/2025 03:49, The Todal wrote:
On 04/04/2025 23:05, JNugent wrote:
You cannot be unaware of the concept of conspiracy.
You can be unaware of the elements the prosecution need to prove to
establish that there has been a conspiracy.
People still get convicted of conspiracy.
Complaints that it isn't fair don't often help persons guilty of
conspiracy to commit a crime, which is as it should be.
Complaints that it isn't fair? The issue is whether the police action
was lawful or unlawful, and whether the behaviour of the people meeting
in the Quaker building was lawful or unlawful. It isn't about whether
any of the people present at that meeting have been prosecuted or
convicted in the past for public order offences.
Quote
Last Thursday, six people from Youth Demand were arrested at a Quaker
House meeting on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.
More than 20 uniformed police, some equipped with Tasers, forced their
way into the Westminster meeting house.
However, Youth Demand said the publicity surrounding the raid had had
the effect of increasing awareness of their activities, and has resulted
in a large number of people signing up to join.
unquote
I was going to donate fifty quid to Youth Demand but their website
suggests that they have now raised 43k of their target of 40k.
So, how many of these conspirators were actually charged with offences,
do we know? Was it just Mr Catesby and Mr Fawkes, perhaps? Do you
approve of intimidatory tactics to dissuade people from going to left
wing discussion groups? Maybe you think the government of Iran has the right idea about how to suppress dissent.
quote
One of the women arrested and later released without charge told the
Guardian on Sunday of how they and others at the venue, including a life-drawing class with a naked model, were shocked when police entered. “These are welcome talks run every week and they are completely open to
the public, so anyone who has seen a poster and is interested can come
in and learn more. The police could have literally come along and sat down,” she said.
“Instead, we could see them gathering at the window and their little
hats were tapping on the glass. Then they forced the door open and burst
into a room with a group of women sitting in a circle. There was a life-drawing class in another room – with a model in the middle – and an elderly woman was in the toilet at the time.”
A student who was arrested at the talk said police had released her in
the middle of the night and that she was still waiting for them to
return a laptop, which she needed for exams, and a notebook containing
French notes from her coursework.
One of those arrested, Ella Grace-Taylor, aged 20, said the meeting had
been discussing the 1963 peace march in the US against racial
segregation in Alabama when they were alerted to “massive banging”. “Someone in the room saw a police officer through the window and two seconds later dozens of police swarmed. An officer grabbed my arm,
turned me around to face the wall and placed me in handcuffs. Some of
the others were sitting down, not doing anything, not resisting, and
they were also put in cuffs.”
Following her arrest, Ella was held at a police station for than 12
hours and not allowed to telephone her parents or a solicitor. Her home
was raided by police a few hours later. Ella added, “None of us slept”. “I came home at 6am and my bed was stripped and my neatly organised homework was strewn all over the floor.”
unquote
On 05/04/2025 11:54, The Todal wrote:
On 05/04/2025 17:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/04/2025 03:49, The Todal wrote:
On 04/04/2025 23:05, JNugent wrote:
You cannot be unaware of the concept of conspiracy.
You can be unaware of the elements the prosecution need to prove to
establish that there has been a conspiracy.
People still get convicted of conspiracy.
Complaints that it isn't fair don't often help persons guilty of
conspiracy to commit a crime, which is as it should be.
Complaints that it isn't fair? The issue is whether the police action
was lawful or unlawful, and whether the behaviour of the people
meeting in the Quaker building was lawful or unlawful. It isn't about
whether any of the people present at that meeting have been prosecuted
or convicted in the past for public order offences.
Police action to prevent crime not lawful?
Quote
Last Thursday, six people from Youth Demand were arrested at a Quaker
House meeting on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.
More than 20 uniformed police, some equipped with Tasers, forced their
way into the Westminster meeting house.
However, Youth Demand said the publicity surrounding the raid had had
the effect of increasing awareness of their activities, and has
resulted in a large number of people signing up to join.
unquote
I was going to donate fifty quid to Youth Demand but their website
suggests that they have now raised 43k of their target of 40k.
So, how many of these conspirators were actually charged with
offences, do we know? Was it just Mr Catesby and Mr Fawkes, perhaps?
Do you approve of intimidatory tactics to dissuade people from going
to left wing discussion groups? Maybe you think the government of
Iran has the right idea about how to suppress dissent.
They've been out this morning, I see. Don't ask me to sympathise with
them and theior determination to harm people simply going about theor
lawful business in the Euston Road.
On 2025-04-05, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
In principle, I'm (pretty) sure we'd all agree that it's better to
arrest a group conspiring to cause a serious crime before they actually
do so?
Yes, arresting people who haven't yet committed any crimes is a great
way to run things and I can foresee no problems at all with that idea.
On 05/04/2025 14:42, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-05, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
In principle, I'm (pretty) sure we'd all agree that it's better to
arrest a group conspiring to cause a serious crime before they actually
do so?
Yes, arresting people who haven't yet committed any crimes is a great
way to run things and I can foresee no problems at all with that idea.
I'm trying to establish principles, rather than concentrating on a
particular case. So, let's assume that a group of criminals are
conspiring to slaughter some security guards and steal some gold.
In principle, do you agree that it's better to arrest them at the
conspiring stage, or do you think we should let them slaughter the
guards and then arrest them? From your ironical answer above, you seem
to be in favour of letting the guards be slaughtered.
On 05/04/2025 14:42, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-05, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
In principle, I'm (pretty) sure we'd all agree that it's better to
arrest a group conspiring to cause a serious crime before they actually
do so?
Yes, arresting people who haven't yet committed any crimes is a great
way to run things and I can foresee no problems at all with that idea.
I'm trying to establish principles, rather than concentrating on a
particular case. So, let's assume that a group of criminals are
conspiring to slaughter some security guards and steal some gold.
In principle, do you agree that it's better to arrest them at the
conspiring stage, or do you think we should let them slaughter the
guards and then arrest them? From your ironical answer above, you seem
to be in favour of letting the guards be slaughtered.
I already addressed the conspiracy issue in this case. The actual crimes Youth Demands have committed in the past have been minor. The ones they
are likely to commit in future are likely to be minor. These crimes can
be dealt with as and when they occur. In effect, in this specific case,
the unstated assumptions, that you neglected to discuss, dominate.
Following her arrest, Ella was held at a police station for than 12
hours and *not allowed to telephone her parents or a solicitor*. Her home
was raided by police a few hours later.
On 4/5/25 22:27, GB wrote:
On 05/04/2025 14:42, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-05, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
In principle, I'm (pretty) sure we'd all agree that it's better to
arrest a group conspiring to cause a serious crime before they actually >>>> do so?
Yes, arresting people who haven't yet committed any crimes is a great
way to run things and I can foresee no problems at all with that idea.
I'm trying to establish principles, rather than concentrating on a
particular case. So, let's assume that a group of criminals are
conspiring to slaughter some security guards and steal some gold.
In principle, do you agree that it's better to arrest them at the
conspiring stage, or do you think we should let them slaughter the
guards and then arrest them? From your ironical answer above, you
seem to be in favour of letting the guards be slaughtered.
You are trying to establish a principle on the basis of unstated, but
almost certainly false, assumptions.
The assumption that conspiracy leads to a crime.
The assumption that there is no downside to arresting people.
The assumption that conspiracy can be reliably identified.
The assumption that arresting conspirators prevents the crime occurring.
The problem with principles is that many people misapply them, use them
as an abstraction to justify some inequality that they support. An
inequality that they could not justify from first principles.
I already addressed the conspiracy issue in this case. The actual crimes Youth Demands have committed in the past have been minor. The ones they
are likely to commit in future are likely to be minor. These crimes can
be dealt with as and when they occur. In effect, in this specific case,
the unstated assumptions, that you neglected to discuss, dominate.
On 05/04/2025 17:54, The Todal wrote:
Following her arrest, Ella was held at a police station for than 12 hours and *not
allowed to telephone her parents or a solicitor*. Her home was raided by police a few
hours later.
s. 58 of PACE 1984 allows the suspect to consult a solicitor privately at any time.
The suspect's right to legal advice is not absolute and may be delayed under s. 58(8)
of PACE 1984 where:
. the suspect has been arrested in connection with an indictable offence (including an
either-way offence); and
. an officer of at least the rank of superintendent authorises the delay on the ground
that the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that if the suspect was permitted
to exercise his right to receive legal advice it will:
(a) lead to interference with or harm to evidence connected with an indictable
offence or interference with or physical injury to other persons; or
(b) lead to the alerting of other persons suspected of having committed such an
offence but not yet arrested for it; or
(c) hinder the recovery of any property obtained as a result of such an offence.
I must admit that I am all agog to hear what the grounds were for delaying access to a
solicitor for 12 hours.
On 04/04/2025 11:49, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If the owners allow their building to be used for an illegal gathering
then they shouldn't complain if it's raided.
There's several problems with that statement, the most obvious being
that you're assuming the gathering was illegal, but also that you're
assuming that the law is never an ass.
So that statement also has problems, the biggest being that you are
equating [allegedly] talking about causing disruption with actually
causing disruption.
You cannot be unaware of the concept of conspiracy.
On 06/04/2025 10:14, Pancho wrote:
I already addressed the conspiracy issue in this case. The actual
crimes Youth Demands have committed in the past have been minor. The
ones they are likely to commit in future are likely to be minor. These
crimes can be dealt with as and when they occur. In effect, in this
specific case, the unstated assumptions, that you neglected to
discuss, dominate.
If you are right about the minor nature of what they were discussing,
then you are right that it could have been dealt with as and when it
happens.
OTOH, the phrase that sticks in my mind is "shut down London". That's
more than minor.
This discussion is really about whether the police over-reacted. That
depends on the gravity of what the group were planning, and I don't
think that's been disclosed?
The Todal wrote:And today their "Just Stop London" protest got underway ...
it seems that the targets of the police wrath
are actually "Youth Demand" who campaign in favour of boycotting
Israel and combatting climate change. They were hoping to organise
demonstrations that would "shut down London". So instead of punishing
the deed, the police now try to stop the deed by arresting the
organisers before the protest has actually been finalised.
I have no idea what was going on, but assuming they were conspiring to
commit a criminal act, isn't the conspiracy itself an arrestable offence?
In which case, the police were acting entirely properly?
On 4/6/25 12:27, GB wrote:
Yes, but many political groups make stupid, grandiose, claims about
things they have no reasonable chance of achieving. If they had told attendees to go back to their homes and prepare for government, would
you be concerned they might win the next election?
On 06/04/2025 23:24, Pancho wrote:
On 4/6/25 12:27, GB wrote:
Yes, but many political groups make stupid, grandiose, claims aboutApparently, they said they would close down London. That's not at all
things they have no reasonable chance of achieving. If they had told
attendees to go back to their homes and prepare for government, would
you be concerned they might win the next election?
the same as "We will have a civil disobedience campaign to return
library books 3 days late", for example.
We have had multiple example of groups closing major traffic routes,
which if the DM is to be believed has cost at least one life. That's a credible threat. It's easy to carry out. It's been carried out multiple times.
So, it's not at all a stupid grandiose claim, I'm afraid.
GB wrote:
The Todal wrote:And today their "Just Stop London" protest got underway ...
it seems that the targets of the police wrath are actually "Youth
Demand" who campaign in favour of boycotting Israel and combatting
climate change. They were hoping to organise demonstrations that
would "shut down London". So instead of punishing the deed, the
police now try to stop the deed by arresting the organisers before
the protest has actually been finalised.
I have no idea what was going on, but assuming they were conspiring to
commit a criminal act, isn't the conspiracy itself an arrestable offence?
In which case, the police were acting entirely properly?
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/11/pro-palestinian-protesters- pelted-eggs-blocking-traffic/>
Reader mode works if you're pay-walled.
Andy Burns wrote:
Reader mode works if you're pay-walled.
Can't read it. Don't know how to use "reader mode".
The Todal wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Reader mode works if you're pay-walled.
Can't read it. Don't know how to use "reader mode".
<https://www.makeuseof.com/enable-reader-mode-chrome-firefox>
Unfortunately it shows only a few more words before being Subscription.
On 11/04/2025 19:06, GB wrote:
On 06/04/2025 23:24, Pancho wrote:
On 4/6/25 12:27, GB wrote:Apparently, they said they would close down London. That's not at all
Yes, but many political groups make stupid, grandiose, claims about
things they have no reasonable chance of achieving. If they had told
attendees to go back to their homes and prepare for government, would
you be concerned they might win the next election?
the same as "We will have a civil disobedience campaign to return
library books 3 days late", for example.
We have had multiple example of groups closing major traffic routes,
which if the DM is to be believed has cost at least one life. That's a
credible threat. It's easy to carry out. It's been carried out
multiple times.
So, it's not at all a stupid grandiose claim, I'm afraid.
"We will close down London" is plainly an impossible dream. Nobody, not
even the Luftwaffe, has managed to close down London.
But there is a right to demonstrate, and it does not depend on whether
the slogan is, or is not, too ambitious. And yes, there is a right to obstruct the passage of pedestrian and vehicle traffic for the purposes
of a demonstration, and there have been countless numbers of marches
from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square, proving that the right does exist.
The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 10(1) of the Convention. It includes the right to receive and impart information and
ideas without interference by a public authority. Article 11(1) of the Convention guarantees the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association with others, which includes the right to organise, and the
right to take part in, a protest, vigil or other gathering. Section 6 of
the Human Rights Act 1998 ("the HRA") makes it unlawful for a public authority, which includes a police officer, to act in a way which is incompatible with these rights. To that end, s 3 of the HRA requires a
public authority to interpret and apply the law compatibly with the Convention rights, where it is possible to do so.
The right to be free from such interference or restriction is not
absolute. Article 10(2) authorises interferences, and Article 11(2)
permits restrictions, where these are prescribed by domestic law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of one or more of the
legitimate aims specified in the relevant provision. The right to be
free from such interference or restriction is not absolute. Article
10(2) authorises interferences, and Article 11(2) permits restrictions,
where these are prescribed by domestic law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of one or more of the legitimate aims specified in
the relevant provision. The concept of necessity carries with it a requirement that the interference be proportionate, going no further
than is necessary.
I imagine you have to "Sign up to read this article free"
On 11/04/2025 17:39, Andy Burns wrote:
GB wrote:
The Todal wrote:And today their "Just Stop London" protest got underway ...
it seems that the targets of the police wrath are actually "Youth
Demand" who campaign in favour of boycotting Israel and combatting
climate change. They were hoping to organise demonstrations that
would "shut down London". So instead of punishing the deed, the
police now try to stop the deed by arresting the organisers before
the protest has actually been finalised.
I have no idea what was going on, but assuming they were conspiring
to commit a criminal act, isn't the conspiracy itself an arrestable
offence?
In which case, the police were acting entirely properly?
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/11/pro-palestinian-
protesters- pelted-eggs-blocking-traffic/>
Reader mode works if you're pay-walled.
Can't read it. Don't know how to use "reader mode".
The Todal wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Reader mode works if you're pay-walled.
Can't read it. Don't know how to use "reader mode".
<https://www.makeuseof.com/enable-reader-mode-chrome-firefox>
On 12/04/2025 10:38, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Reader mode works if you're pay-walled.
Can't read it. Don't know how to use "reader mode".
<https://www.makeuseof.com/enable-reader-mode-chrome-firefox>
No such available experiment in Chrome, it seems, but now available
under More Tools. Unfortunately it shows only a few more words before
being Subscription.
On 11/04/2025 19:06, GB wrote:
On 06/04/2025 23:24, Pancho wrote:
On 4/6/25 12:27, GB wrote:Apparently, they said they would close down London. That's not at all
Yes, but many political groups make stupid, grandiose, claims about
things they have no reasonable chance of achieving. If they had told
attendees to go back to their homes and prepare for government, would
you be concerned they might win the next election?
the same as "We will have a civil disobedience campaign to return
library books 3 days late", for example.
We have had multiple example of groups closing major traffic routes,
which if the DM is to be believed has cost at least one life. That's a
credible threat. It's easy to carry out. It's been carried out
multiple times.
So, it's not at all a stupid grandiose claim, I'm afraid.
"We will close down London" is plainly an impossible dream. Nobody, not
even the Luftwaffe, has managed to close down London.
But there is a right to demonstrate, and it does not depend on whether
the slogan is, or is not, too ambitious. And yes, there is a right to obstruct the passage of pedestrian and vehicle traffic for the purposes
of a demonstration, and there have been countless numbers of marches
from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square, proving that the right does exist.
The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 10(1) of the Convention. It includes the right to receive and impart information and
ideas without interference by a public authority. Article 11(1) of the Convention guarantees the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association with others, which includes the right to organise, and the
right to take part in, a protest, vigil or other gathering.
Section 6 of
the Human Rights Act 1998 ("the HRA") makes it unlawful for a public authority, which includes a police officer, to act in a way which is incompatible with these rights. To that end, s 3 of the HRA requires a
public authority to interpret and apply the law compatibly with the Convention rights, where it is possible to do so.
The right to be free from such interference or restriction is not
absolute. Article 10(2) authorises interferences, and Article 11(2)
permits restrictions, where these are prescribed by domestic law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of one or more of the
legitimate aims specified in the relevant provision. The right to be
free from such interference or restriction is not absolute. Article
10(2) authorises interferences, and Article 11(2) permits restrictions,
where these are prescribed by domestic law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of one or more of the legitimate aims specified in
the relevant provision. The concept of necessity carries with it a requirement that the interference be proportionate, going no further
than is necessary.
The Todal wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Reader mode works if you're pay-walled.
Can't read it. Don't know how to use "reader mode".
<https://www.makeuseof.com/enable-reader-mode-chrome-firefox>
kat wrote:
Unfortunately it shows only a few more words before being Subscription.
Even if you reload the page once you're in reader mode? I get all the text that
way ...
On 12/04/2025 06:36, kat wrote:
On 12/04/2025 10:38, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Reader mode works if you're pay-walled.
Can't read it. Don't know how to use "reader mode".
<https://www.makeuseof.com/enable-reader-mode-chrome-firefox>
No such available experiment in Chrome, it seems, but now available under
More Tools. Unfortunately it shows only a few more words before being
Subscription.
Try: www.12ft.io
On 12/04/2025 10:38, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Reader mode works if you're pay-walled.
Can't read it. Don't know how to use "reader mode".
<https://www.makeuseof.com/enable-reader-mode-chrome-firefox>
Many thanks! Useful feature.
I wonder which people, or group, pelted the demonstrators with eggs.
That is plainly an assault and the police ought to have arrested the egg-throwers.
On 12/04/2025 15:16, JNugent wrote:
On 12/04/2025 06:36, kat wrote:
On 12/04/2025 10:38, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Reader mode works if you're pay-walled.
Can't read it. Don't know how to use "reader mode".
<https://www.makeuseof.com/enable-reader-mode-chrome-firefox>
No such available experiment in Chrome, it seems, but now available
under More Tools. Unfortunately it shows only a few more words before
being Subscription.
Try: www.12ft.io
"You don't have permission to access this page"
On 12/04/2025 13:28, Andy Burns wrote:
kat wrote:
Unfortunately it shows only a few more words before being Subscription.
Even if you reload the page once you're in reader mode? I get all the text that
way ...
Made no difference.:-(
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 11:04:33 +0100, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 12/04/2025 13:28, Andy Burns wrote:
kat wrote:
Unfortunately it shows only a few more words before being Subscription. >>>Even if you reload the page once you're in reader mode? I get all the text that
way ...
Made no difference.:-(
Here: try this instead.
Archived version: https://archive.is/h2UtY
Nick
Passers-by threw a “shower of eggs” at the crowd of activists in Farringdon Road and a truck attempted to drive through them, according
to Youth Demand, which organised the protest.
On 14/04/2025 11:57, Nick Odell wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 11:04:33 +0100, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 12/04/2025 13:28, Andy Burns wrote:
kat wrote:
Unfortunately it shows only a few more words before being Subscription. >>>>Even if you reload the page once you're in reader mode? I get all the text that
way ...
Made no difference.:-(
Here: try this instead.
Archived version: https://archive.is/h2UtY
Nick
QUOTE:
...blocked traffic in central London.
Youth Demand activists with orange flares and banners reading “Free Palestine” and “Stop Arming Israel” took to the streets in the Moorgate district, Farringdon Road and Fenchurch Street.
Passers-by threw a “shower of eggs” at the crowd of activists in Farringdon Road and a truck attempted to drive through them, according
to Youth Demand, which organised the protest.
The group blocked each street for about 20 minutes on Friday morning. ENDQUOTE
But... but... but... apparently they were not conspiring to commit these offences when arrested a week or two back.
On 14 Apr 2025 at 20:06:32 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/04/2025 11:57, Nick Odell wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 11:04:33 +0100, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 12/04/2025 13:28, Andy Burns wrote:
kat wrote:
Unfortunately it shows only a few more words before being Subscription. >>>>>Even if you reload the page once you're in reader mode? I get all the text that
way ...
Made no difference.:-(
Here: try this instead.
Archived version: https://archive.is/h2UtY
Nick
QUOTE:
...blocked traffic in central London.
Youth Demand activists with orange flares and banners reading “Free
Palestine” and “Stop Arming Israel” took to the streets in the Moorgate
district, Farringdon Road and Fenchurch Street.
Passers-by threw a “shower of eggs” at the crowd of activists in
Farringdon Road and a truck attempted to drive through them, according
to Youth Demand, which organised the protest.
The group blocked each street for about 20 minutes on Friday morning.
ENDQUOTE
But... but... but... apparently they were not conspiring to commit these
offences when arrested a week or two back.
It may of course be that some where so conspiring, but just not the small group of women the police chose to arrest.
QUOTE:
...blocked traffic in central London.
Youth Demand activists with orange flares and banners reading “Free Palestine” and “Stop Arming Israel” took to the streets in the Moorgate district, Farringdon Road and Fenchurch Street.
Passers-by threw a “shower of eggs” at the crowd of activists in Farringdon Road and a truck attempted to drive through them, according
to Youth Demand, which organised the protest.
The group blocked each street for about 20 minutes on Friday morning. ENDQUOTE
But... but... but... apparently they were not conspiring to commit these offences when arrested a week or two back.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:06:32 -0500, JNugent wrote:
QUOTE:
...blocked traffic in central London.
Youth Demand activists with orange flares and banners reading “Free
Palestine” and “Stop Arming Israel” took to the streets in the Moorgate
district, Farringdon Road and Fenchurch Street.
Passers-by threw a “shower of eggs” at the crowd of activists in
Farringdon Road and a truck attempted to drive through them, according
to Youth Demand, which organised the protest.
The group blocked each street for about 20 minutes on Friday morning.
ENDQUOTE
But... but... but... apparently they were not conspiring to commit these
offences when arrested a week or two back.
I expect they were. But they didn't close down the M25 for several hours which is what you said they were going to do.
It's a matter of proportion. If you think it is appropriate for the police
to mount mob-handed raids on a bunch of kids who are planning to sit down
in the street for a few minutes, then we'll just have to accept that your priorities are different from mine.
It's a pity we aren't told what happened to them. I would like to think
they were arrested and charged with obstruction and will now be suitably punished. We shall have to see whether the police have learned their
lesson - that that is what ordinary people want.
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 11:04:33 +0100, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 12/04/2025 13:28, Andy Burns wrote:
kat wrote:
Unfortunately it shows only a few more words before being Subscription. >>>Even if you reload the page once you're in reader mode? I get all the text that
way ...
Made no difference.:-(
Here: try this instead.
Archived version: https://archive.is/h2UtY
Nick
On 15/04/2025 08:51, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:06:32 -0500, JNugent wrote:
QUOTE:
...blocked traffic in central London.
Youth Demand activists with orange flares and banners reading “Free
Palestine” and “Stop Arming Israel” took to the streets in the Moorgate
district, Farringdon Road and Fenchurch Street.
Passers-by threw a “shower of eggs” at the crowd of activists in
Farringdon Road and a truck attempted to drive through them, according
to Youth Demand, which organised the protest.
The group blocked each street for about 20 minutes on Friday morning.
ENDQUOTE
But... but... but... apparently they were not conspiring to commit these >>> offences when arrested a week or two back.
I expect they were. But they didn't close down the M25 for several hours
which is what you said they were going to do.
It's a matter of proportion. If you think it is appropriate for the
police
to mount mob-handed raids on a bunch of kids who are planning to sit down
in the street for a few minutes, then we'll just have to accept that your
priorities are different from mine.
It's a pity we aren't told what happened to them. I would like to think
they were arrested and charged with obstruction and will now be suitably
punished. We shall have to see whether the police have learned their
lesson - that that is what ordinary people want.
According to that article
"The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for comment but Youth Demand claimed that none of its activists had been arrested."
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:06:32 -0500, JNugent wrote:
QUOTE:
...blocked traffic in central London.
Youth Demand activists with orange flares and banners reading “Free
Palestine” and “Stop Arming Israel” took to the streets in the Moorgate
district, Farringdon Road and Fenchurch Street.
Passers-by threw a “shower of eggs” at the crowd of activists in
Farringdon Road and a truck attempted to drive through them, according
to Youth Demand, which organised the protest.
The group blocked each street for about 20 minutes on Friday morning.
ENDQUOTE
But... but... but... apparently they were not conspiring to commit these
offences when arrested a week or two back.
I expect they were. But they didn't close down the M25 for several hours which is what you said they were going to do.
It's a matter of proportion. If you think it is appropriate for the police
to mount mob-handed raids on a bunch of kids who are planning to sit down
in the street for a few minutes, then we'll just have to accept that your priorities are different from mine.
It's a pity we aren't told what happened to them. I would like to think
they were arrested and charged with obstruction and will now be suitably punished. We shall have to see whether the police have learned their
lesson - that that is what ordinary people want.
On 15/04/2025 05:56, kat wrote:
On 15/04/2025 08:51, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:06:32 -0500, JNugent wrote:
QUOTE:
...blocked traffic in central London.
Youth Demand activists with orange flares and banners reading “Free
Palestine” and “Stop Arming Israel” took to the streets in the Moorgate
district, Farringdon Road and Fenchurch Street.
Passers-by threw a “shower of eggs” at the crowd of activists in
Farringdon Road and a truck attempted to drive through them, according >>>> to Youth Demand, which organised the protest.
The group blocked each street for about 20 minutes on Friday morning.
ENDQUOTE
But... but... but... apparently they were not conspiring to commit these >>>> offences when arrested a week or two back.
I expect they were. But they didn't close down the M25 for several hours >>> which is what you said they were going to do.
It's a matter of proportion. If you think it is appropriate for the
police
to mount mob-handed raids on a bunch of kids who are planning to sit down >>> in the street for a few minutes, then we'll just have to accept that your >>> priorities are different from mine.
It's a pity we aren't told what happened to them. I would like to think
they were arrested and charged with obstruction and will now be suitably >>> punished. We shall have to see whether the police have learned their
lesson - that that is what ordinary people want.
According to that article
"The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for comment but Youth Demand
claimed that none of its activists had been arrested."
Deniable culpability.
Ready resort to dishonesty as well as total disregard for the rights of others.
On 15/04/2025 15:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Apr 2025 at 20:17:48 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 05:56, kat wrote:
On 15/04/2025 08:51, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:06:32 -0500, JNugent wrote:
QUOTE:
...blocked traffic in central London.
Youth Demand activists with orange flares and banners reading “Free >>>>>> Palestine” and “Stop Arming Israel” took to the streets in the Moorgate
district, Farringdon Road and Fenchurch Street.
Passers-by threw a “shower of eggs” at the crowd of activists in >>>>>> Farringdon Road and a truck attempted to drive through them, according >>>>>> to Youth Demand, which organised the protest.
The group blocked each street for about 20 minutes on Friday morning. >>>>>> ENDQUOTE
But... but... but... apparently they were not conspiring to commit these >>>>>> offences when arrested a week or two back.
I expect they were. But they didn't close down the M25 for several hours >>>>> which is what you said they were going to do.
It's a matter of proportion. If you think it is appropriate for the
police
to mount mob-handed raids on a bunch of kids who are planning to sit down >>>>> in the street for a few minutes, then we'll just have to accept that your >>>>> priorities are different from mine.
It's a pity we aren't told what happened to them. I would like to think >>>>> they were arrested and charged with obstruction and will now be suitably >>>>> punished. We shall have to see whether the police have learned their >>>>> lesson - that that is what ordinary people want.
According to that article
"The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for comment but Youth Demand >>>> claimed that none of its activists had been arrested."
Deniable culpability.
Ready resort to dishonesty as well as total disregard for the rights of
others.
I think that's really a bit hard on the Metropolitan police; I am sure they >> still have some good apples.
I have a feeling that the last time I heard or read anything like that
was in the primary school playground. :-)
On 15 Apr 2025 at 20:17:48 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 05:56, kat wrote:
On 15/04/2025 08:51, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:06:32 -0500, JNugent wrote:
QUOTE:
...blocked traffic in central London.
Youth Demand activists with orange flares and banners reading “Free >>>>> Palestine” and “Stop Arming Israel” took to the streets in the Moorgate
district, Farringdon Road and Fenchurch Street.
Passers-by threw a “shower of eggs” at the crowd of activists in >>>>> Farringdon Road and a truck attempted to drive through them, according >>>>> to Youth Demand, which organised the protest.
The group blocked each street for about 20 minutes on Friday morning. >>>>> ENDQUOTE
But... but... but... apparently they were not conspiring to commit these >>>>> offences when arrested a week or two back.
I expect they were. But they didn't close down the M25 for several hours >>>> which is what you said they were going to do.
It's a matter of proportion. If you think it is appropriate for the
police
to mount mob-handed raids on a bunch of kids who are planning to sit down >>>> in the street for a few minutes, then we'll just have to accept that your >>>> priorities are different from mine.
It's a pity we aren't told what happened to them. I would like to think >>>> they were arrested and charged with obstruction and will now be suitably >>>> punished. We shall have to see whether the police have learned their
lesson - that that is what ordinary people want.
According to that article
"The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for comment but Youth Demand >>> claimed that none of its activists had been arrested."
Deniable culpability.
Ready resort to dishonesty as well as total disregard for the rights of
others.
I think that's really a bit hard on the Metropolitan police; I am sure they still have some good apples.
On 15 Apr 2025 at 22:41:31 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 15:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Apr 2025 at 20:17:48 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 05:56, kat wrote:
On 15/04/2025 08:51, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:06:32 -0500, JNugent wrote:
QUOTE:
...blocked traffic in central London.
Youth Demand activists with orange flares and banners reading “Free >>>>>>> Palestine” and “Stop Arming Israel” took to the streets in the Moorgate
district, Farringdon Road and Fenchurch Street.
Passers-by threw a “shower of eggs” at the crowd of activists in >>>>>>> Farringdon Road and a truck attempted to drive through them, according >>>>>>> to Youth Demand, which organised the protest.
The group blocked each street for about 20 minutes on Friday morning. >>>>>>> ENDQUOTE
But... but... but... apparently they were not conspiring to commit these
offences when arrested a week or two back.
I expect they were. But they didn't close down the M25 for several hours >>>>>> which is what you said they were going to do.
It's a matter of proportion. If you think it is appropriate for the >>>>>> police
to mount mob-handed raids on a bunch of kids who are planning to sit down
in the street for a few minutes, then we'll just have to accept that your
priorities are different from mine.
It's a pity we aren't told what happened to them. I would like to think >>>>>> they were arrested and charged with obstruction and will now be suitably >>>>>> punished. We shall have to see whether the police have learned their >>>>>> lesson - that that is what ordinary people want.
According to that article
"The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for comment but Youth Demand >>>>> claimed that none of its activists had been arrested."
Deniable culpability.
Ready resort to dishonesty as well as total disregard for the rights of >>>> others.
I think that's really a bit hard on the Metropolitan police; I am sure they >>> still have some good apples.
I have a feeling that the last time I heard or read anything like that
was in the primary school playground. :-)
You must have gone to a rough primary school.
At my primary we thought the
police were our friends. Quite a nice suburb though.
On 15/04/2025 16:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Apr 2025 at 22:41:31 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 15:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Apr 2025 at 20:17:48 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 05:56, kat wrote:
On 15/04/2025 08:51, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:06:32 -0500, JNugent wrote:
QUOTE:
...blocked traffic in central London.
Youth Demand activists with orange flares and banners reading “Free >>>>>>>> Palestine” and “Stop Arming Israel” took to the streets in the Moorgate
district, Farringdon Road and Fenchurch Street.
Passers-by threw a “shower of eggs” at the crowd of activists in >>>>>>>> Farringdon Road and a truck attempted to drive through them, according >>>>>>>> to Youth Demand, which organised the protest.
The group blocked each street for about 20 minutes on Friday morning. >>>>>>>> ENDQUOTE
But... but... but... apparently they were not conspiring to commit these
offences when arrested a week or two back.
I expect they were. But they didn't close down the M25 for several hours
which is what you said they were going to do.
It's a matter of proportion. If you think it is appropriate for the >>>>>>> police
to mount mob-handed raids on a bunch of kids who are planning to sit down
in the street for a few minutes, then we'll just have to accept that your
priorities are different from mine.
It's a pity we aren't told what happened to them. I would like to think >>>>>>> they were arrested and charged with obstruction and will now be suitably
punished. We shall have to see whether the police have learned their >>>>>>> lesson - that that is what ordinary people want.
According to that article
"The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for comment but Youth Demand >>>>>> claimed that none of its activists had been arrested."
Deniable culpability.
Ready resort to dishonesty as well as total disregard for the rights of >>>>> others.
I think that's really a bit hard on the Metropolitan police; I am sure they
still have some good apples.
I have a feeling that the last time I heard or read anything like that
was in the primary school playground. :-)
You must have gone to a rough primary school.
It was in a tough area, certainly. But many, many miles from the
Metropolitan Police District.
At my primary we thought the
police were our friends. Quite a nice suburb though.
Did you *hear* the whooshing sound?
On 15 Apr 2025 at 20:17:48 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 05:56, kat wrote:
On 15/04/2025 08:51, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:06:32 -0500, JNugent wrote:
QUOTE:
...blocked traffic in central London.
Youth Demand activists with orange flares and banners reading “Free >>>>> Palestine” and “Stop Arming Israel” took to the streets in the Moorgate
district, Farringdon Road and Fenchurch Street.
Passers-by threw a “shower of eggs” at the crowd of activists in >>>>> Farringdon Road and a truck attempted to drive through them, according >>>>> to Youth Demand, which organised the protest.
The group blocked each street for about 20 minutes on Friday morning. >>>>> ENDQUOTE
But... but... but... apparently they were not conspiring to commit these >>>>> offences when arrested a week or two back.
I expect they were. But they didn't close down the M25 for several hours >>>> which is what you said they were going to do.
It's a matter of proportion. If you think it is appropriate for the
police
to mount mob-handed raids on a bunch of kids who are planning to sit down >>>> in the street for a few minutes, then we'll just have to accept that your >>>> priorities are different from mine.
It's a pity we aren't told what happened to them. I would like to think >>>> they were arrested and charged with obstruction and will now be suitably >>>> punished. We shall have to see whether the police have learned their
lesson - that that is what ordinary people want.
According to that article
"The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for comment but Youth Demand >>> claimed that none of its activists had been arrested."
Deniable culpability.
Ready resort to dishonesty as well as total disregard for the rights of
others.
I think that's really a bit hard on the Metropolitan police; I am sure they still have some good apples.
On 15/04/2025 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think that's really a bit hard on the Metropolitan police; I am
sure they still have some good apples.
They may well have good apples. The issue is they don't generally stand
up against the bad ones.
On 15/04/2025 15:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Apr 2025 at 20:17:48 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 05:56, kat wrote:
According to that article
"The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for comment but Youth
Demand
claimed that none of its activists had been arrested."
Deniable culpability.
Ready resort to dishonesty as well as total disregard for the rights of
others.
I think that's really a bit hard on the Metropolitan police; I am sure
they
still have some good apples.
I have a feeling that the last time I heard or read anything like that
was in the primary school playground. :-)
On 2025-04-15, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think that's really a bit hard on the Metropolitan police; I am
sure they still have some good apples.
They may well have good apples. The issue is they don't generally stand
up against the bad ones.
That is, of course, the part of the "bad apple" saying that the police
always forget when saying that a guilty officer was just "one bad apple": "one bad apple spoils the barrel".
Apparently it's all the fault of the Osmonds, who in 1971 released
a song which contained the factually-incorrect lyrics "one bad apple
don't spoil the whole bunch, girl".
I suspect you are right that the major problem with the police is that
the pressure to support their colleagues is far stronger in general than
the moral imperative to reveal wrongdoing within the ranks.
On 16/04/2025 10:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-15, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think that's really a bit hard on the Metropolitan police; I am
sure they still have some good apples.
They may well have good apples. The issue is they don't generally stand
up against the bad ones.
That is, of course, the part of the "bad apple" saying that the police
always forget when saying that a guilty officer was just "one bad apple":
"one bad apple spoils the barrel".
Apparently it's all the fault of the Osmonds, who in 1971 released
a song which contained the factually-incorrect lyrics "one bad apple
don't spoil the whole bunch, girl".
I suspect you are right that the major problem with the police is that
the pressure to support their colleagues is far stronger in general than
the moral imperative to reveal wrongdoing within the ranks.
I also blame how the media portray a rogue police officer by implying
poor behaviour is endemic in police forces.
Also, how pressure groups bent on misandry have a voice out of
proportion to the population.
On 16/04/2025 10:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-15, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think that's really a bit hard on the Metropolitan police; I am
sure they still have some good apples.
They may well have good apples. The issue is they don't generally stand
up against the bad ones.
That is, of course, the part of the "bad apple" saying that the police
always forget when saying that a guilty officer was just "one bad apple":
"one bad apple spoils the barrel".
Apparently it's all the fault of the Osmonds, who in 1971 released
a song which contained the factually-incorrect lyrics "one bad apple
don't spoil the whole bunch, girl".
I suspect you are right that the major problem with the police is that
the pressure to support their colleagues is far stronger in general than
the moral imperative to reveal wrongdoing within the ranks.
I also blame how the media portray a rogue police officer by implying
poor behaviour is endemic in police forces.
Also, how pressure groups bent on misandry have a voice out of
proportion to the population.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 15:51:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-15, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think that's really a bit hard on the Metropolitan police; I am
sure they still have some good apples.
They may well have good apples. The issue is they don't generally stand >>>> up against the bad ones.
That is, of course, the part of the "bad apple" saying that the police
always forget when saying that a guilty officer was just "one bad apple": >>> "one bad apple spoils the barrel".
Apparently it's all the fault of the Osmonds, who in 1971 released
a song which contained the factually-incorrect lyrics "one bad apple
don't spoil the whole bunch, girl".
I suspect you are right that the major problem with the police is that
the pressure to support their colleagues is far stronger in general than >>> the moral imperative to reveal wrongdoing within the ranks.
I also blame how the media portray a rogue police officer by implying
poor behaviour is endemic in police forces.
Perhaps because it is fairly obvious that it is so endemic?
Also, how pressure groups bent on misandry have a voice out of
proportion to the population.
I fail to see that problem.
On 16/04/2025 16:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 15:51:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-15, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think that's really a bit hard on the Metropolitan police; I am
sure they still have some good apples.
They may well have good apples. The issue is they don't generally stand >>>>> up against the bad ones.
That is, of course, the part of the "bad apple" saying that the police >>>> always forget when saying that a guilty officer was just "one bad apple": >>>> "one bad apple spoils the barrel".
Apparently it's all the fault of the Osmonds, who in 1971 released
a song which contained the factually-incorrect lyrics "one bad apple
don't spoil the whole bunch, girl".
I suspect you are right that the major problem with the police is that >>>> the pressure to support their colleagues is far stronger in general than >>>> the moral imperative to reveal wrongdoing within the ranks.
I also blame how the media portray a rogue police officer by implying
poor behaviour is endemic in police forces.
Perhaps because it is fairly obvious that it is so endemic?
You have been suitably taken in by pressure groups that seem to hate
male police officers.
Also, how pressure groups bent on misandry have a voice out of
proportion to the population.
I fail to see that problem.
You must be suitably brainwashed by interested parties, no offence intended.
Two examples that show the issue.
1) Andrea Leadsom says men shouldn't work with vulnerable people. I took
that to also imply she didn't trust her husband to look after her
children when young, but hey. Either way she was not chastised for her misandry and kept her post.
2) Sir Tim Hunt on his observations about girls crying and had to step
down or be sacked.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 20:28:58 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 16:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 15:51:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-15, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think that's really a bit hard on the Metropolitan police; I am >>>>>>> sure they still have some good apples.
They may well have good apples. The issue is they don't generally stand >>>>>> up against the bad ones.
That is, of course, the part of the "bad apple" saying that the police >>>>> always forget when saying that a guilty officer was just "one bad apple": >>>>> "one bad apple spoils the barrel".
Apparently it's all the fault of the Osmonds, who in 1971 released
a song which contained the factually-incorrect lyrics "one bad apple >>>>> don't spoil the whole bunch, girl".
I suspect you are right that the major problem with the police is that >>>>> the pressure to support their colleagues is far stronger in general than >>>>> the moral imperative to reveal wrongdoing within the ranks.
I also blame how the media portray a rogue police officer by implying
poor behaviour is endemic in police forces.
Perhaps because it is fairly obvious that it is so endemic?
You have been suitably taken in by pressure groups that seem to hate
male police officers.
Also, how pressure groups bent on misandry have a voice out of
proportion to the population.
I fail to see that problem.
You must be suitably brainwashed by interested parties, no offence intended. >>
Two examples that show the issue.
1) Andrea Leadsom says men shouldn't work with vulnerable people. I took
that to also imply she didn't trust her husband to look after her
children when young, but hey. Either way she was not chastised for her
misandry and kept her post.
The idea that women should do the caring is a classical patriarchal view with which most men seem to agree! That ain't misandry, that's misogyny
2) Sir Tim Hunt on his observations about girls crying and had to step
down or be sacked.
I think why his comments were objectionable was not about crying, but wanting to deal with the problem of love affairs at work by having an all-male scientific workforce! Rather than, for instance, an all female one. That's pretty sad by any standards, except perhaps public shools'. At least if men fall in love with each other they don't let it obstruct their Duty; I suppose.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 13:45:34 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,889 |
| Posted today: | 1 |