1 Like
Thereās a government confident that its policy will be well received by the public.
Second thought; fucking hell.
So snipers have never been deployed before at a British government party conference, come on. Iād be amazed if there werenāt any. As for the protestors shouting āscumā at everyone, oh the irony.
Itās the old classic. Shouts vs sniper rounds 
When the police are militarised to such a degree, and deployed for such obviously trivial shit, the democratic maxim of never putting your troops on the ground looks a bit weak.
Pap, either you ignored or mis-read my post. I believe that all government party conferences in the past 20 years or so would have had police snipers on rooftops due to the threat of terrorism. I donāt believe this has anything to do with the anti-austerity protests. I may be wrong of course. As for your comment " Itās the old classic. Shouts vs sniper rounds", come on FFS, how often do you hear of police firing at protestors on the streets of Britain?
The police do enough shady stuff with protestors anyway. Look at the complete fucking mess they made with their undercover work, infiltrating groups of people, leaving babies behind. The general point is this. I find it deeply uncomfortable that our authorities apparently see the British people as the enemy. That includes infiltrating political groups and orchestrating entrapment scenarios, and of course, pointing sniper rifles at protestors.
Still, if we were ever in any doubt about who they serveā¦
So it was foreigners who caused 7/7 was it? A bit racist there Pap 
Pap, you do like to exagerate, āour authorities apparently see the British people as the enemyā. It is the job of the police to find the criminal element, yes amongst our own population. Me thinks youāre a little bit paranoid mate.
I imagine that party conferences are a security nightmare for the police. You have pretty much the entire government of the day in one place with hundreds of delegates coming and going. Frankly I would be more shocked if there were no armed police.
I donāt really understand your argument. Iāve qualified my paranoia with real life examples of the police overstepping their original remit. There are loads more that we could run through, but yes, when the police are used to subvert the democratic process, or act as provocateurs to turn peaceful and credible groups into violent and marginalised ones, I think you can legimitately say that they act against the people they are supposed to protect.
If we ever do succumb do a genuine tyranny, the way will have been paved by the fatally naive.
If the British people are happy to attack other British people and their livelihoods when protesting then they are the enemy? If all protests were peaceful then it wouldnāt be an issue.
After the protests a few years ago there is always a chance of another āuprisingā, and as such we need to have protection in place. In all honesty it has probably been at all conferences since the Brighton bombingā¦
I have to say Pap that you are far more articulate and eloquent with the written word than I could ever hope to be, however I do think that sometimes you talk a load of bollocks. All IMO of course.
Originally posted by @Nobby-Plumbs
I have to say Pap that you are far more articulate and eloquent with the written word than I could ever hope to be, however I do think that sometimes you talk a load of bollocks. All IMO of course.
Itās less about lyricality and more about being able to qualify your viewpoint. If you can do that, youāre golden irrespective of whether people agree with you or not. Iām not offended by your unqualified statement that I sometimes talk a load of bollocks, but Iām certainly not going to take that viewpoint seriously.
Yeah, back off pap! Talking bollocks is my gig (and my Native American Indian name incidentally).
Originally posted by @Goatboy
Yeah, back off pap! Talking bollocks is my gig (and my Native American Indian name incidentally).
You canāt claim exclusivity on talking bollocks. Itās just not practical.
Not claiming exclusivity, just expertise gained through years of dedication.
I have always enjoyed the retort āif God had meant us to listen to bollocks, my nuts would be a lot closer to my earsā when hearing something not quite plausible.
I believe this is an original invention, but I approve it for wider use. No copyright claimed.
1 Like
Another form of thought police?
Iāve never been entirely comfortable with the fusion of the digital age and post 9-11 authoritarianism. I honestly donāt know what is more troubling; the potential implications of Snowdenās claims or, initial shock aside, the largely worldwide meh we got after the stories broke.
Originally posted by @Nobby-Plumbs
So it was foreigners who caused 7/7 was it? A bit racist there Pap
Pap, you do like to exagerate, āour authorities apparently see the British people as the enemyā. It is the job of the police to find the criminal element, yes amongst our own population. Me thinks youāre a little bit paranoid mate.
Actually, perhaps itās not too far to think that some in one society see others who happen to inhabit the same geographic space (and that not by the choice of either of them) as an enemy. As for the police ā¦ .
Iāve got huge respect for the coppers that see their mandate as being public protection. The lads up at Orgreave and South Yorkshire Police (Hillsborough) demonstrate that the police can, and will act against the public interest, and thatās before you consider any of the times that the Met has let the public down on major issues of trust.