Bristol Riots

[20togo]

I am sorry 20s but you are becoming aggressive and I will not discuss with you in this situation. I made myself clear about violent demonstrators in Bristol needing to be punished by the Law. That could reasonably be applied to any demonstration attached to the current Bristol situation. Either you are Autistic or you are being provocative.

i think you'll find it was your post that was aggressive. And now you are trying to deflect. I more than once politely asked you to point out where you said you condemned LAST NIGHTS violence stating I'd apologise if that was the case. Nothing aggressive in my posts only politeness.But you haven't condemned last nights violence have you, you only abused posters on here with your first post on this thread?
You accuse me of being provocative but it wasn't me claiming that posters shared a brain cell was it? It was you. I don't recall being aggressive with you at all and even though we are on the opposite sides of the debate, I thought we were enjoying a bit of banter with our polite " good morning etc" intros.

 

[20togo]

The report from a local journalist I posted earlier made it clear that the protest was peaceful until the police waded in.
The protesters being battered with riot shields were engaging in a sit down protest and offered no violence.
State violence towards peaceful protests is unacceptable whether it is Myanmar, Hong Kong, the UK or Belarus.

but you tried to claim the BLM protests were peaceful and even claimed the police woman horse rider came off because she wasn't looking where she was going.The horse was clearly spooked after being pelted with objects from that peaceful crowd

 

[Chunkylad]

There’s clearly at all protests in this country an element that want the police to kick off and more than likely incite it to happen. Immediately the SLRs and mobile cameras come out.
There’s clearly an element within the police that relish it also, and can’t wait to get out the baton

I wonder if the police just didn’t bother showing up at all, what would actually happen?

Just stay well away all together and let the protest just happen

 

[M_Block_Ultra]

You're simple.

You're simple.

 

[Thelaneends1]

The report from a local journalist I posted earlier made it clear that the protest was peaceful until the police waded in.
The protesters being battered with riot shields were engaging in a sit down protest and offered no violence.
State violence towards peaceful protests is unacceptable whether it is Myanmar, Hong Kong, the UK or Belarus.

Dont talk rubbish man these people set out to cause maximum disruption and damage they need a long prison sentence.

 

[dodgy_surname]

Sheffield, Bath, Manchester at the moment. Fuck it I’m off to Talbot square

 

[Dumfriestangerine]

So hitting people sat on the floor with a riot shield is acceptable behaviour?

Off course it's acceptable they refused to move,and they shouldn't have been there in the first place ,were in the middle of a pandemic.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Never knew we had so many coppers chums on AVFTT....

 

[Thelaneends1]

Hitting people sat on the floor....these wa.....need a good hiding.

 

[Recidivist3]

Never knew we had so many coppers chums on AVFTT....

They seem to be the same ones that believe in free speech

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

They seem to be the same ones that believe in free speech

Ah yes... Free speech, unless they disagree with what you are saying

 

[Loco]

So throwing bricks, bottles, fireworks, setting fire to vehicles, assaulting police officers, pissing on the floor, damaging property is all acceptable behaviour?

Sounds like a Saturday afternoon at the football in the 1970s and 80s.

 

[20togo]

He told you which thread.

but that post was from last sunday but I make it very clear in numerous posts I'm talking about last nights violence. So the answer is no he hasn't.. Isn't it?

Ah yes... Free speech, unless they disagree with what you are saying

free speech is fine but don't break the law when doing it. Simple.

 

[glasshalffull]

Well whoever is behind the violent element in Bristol have done their cause no good whatsoever (deliberately or otherwise).
IMO it is a valid cause. Why should we as citizens have our rights about what we are able to protest about weakened?
We never know when we are going to need them after all.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Unfortunately, when you are fighting the State, violence is an inevitable consequence.

 

[Scratcher67]

Are these protesters rioting when the police chose to violently attack them?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1375777254404468738

Is it even possible to be violent when sitting on the floor?

You really need to find yourself a better source than Owen Jones mate. I'm a moderately leftie Guardian reading pseudo intellectual .... and he's too obvious and schoolyard even for me!!!

 

[Shandypants]

but that post was from last sunday but I make it very clear in numerous posts I'm talking about last nights violence. So the answer is no he hasn't.. Isn't it?

free speech is fine but don't break the law when doing it. Simple.

What if the said law is plain wrong?

 

[Mexboroseasider]

but that post was from last sunday but I make it very clear in numerous posts I'm talking about last nights violence. So the answer is no he hasn't.. Isn't it?

Not really. 66’s post made it very clear where his condemnation was. In fact his reply couldn’t have been clearer.

It’s just that you’re now running a slightly bizarre argument that a condemnation of violence doesn’t count, and you’re somehow condoning the violence, unless you repeat the condemnation every time the violence occurs.

 

[poolseasider]

What if the said law is plain wrong?

Only 76 Mp's thought so.

 

[Shandypants]

Only 76 Mp's thought so.

I'm not necessarily meaning that particular one, I mean the concept.

 

[Giro]

A British hating anti establishment peice of filth that wants everything on a plate and hates successful people, they are generally racist against good honest British citizens , oh and they normally dress like a dosser and don’t wash very often, hence they stink of Ming

And what’s your definition of the EDL?

 

[20togo]

Not really. 66’s post made it very clear where his condemnation was. In fact his reply couldn’t have been clearer.

It’s just that you’re now running a slightly bizarre argument that a condemnation of violence doesn’t count, and you’re somehow condoning the violence, unless you repeat the condemnation every time the violence occurs.

nope, I don't buy that guff. I specifically and repeatedly kept saying "LAST NIGHT". It was on a brand new thread not one going back nearly a week and before the events of the previous night occurred. You can't condemn something before it's actually happened.It was a separate incident. So i treated the new thread [ this one] on it's merits and the first post from 66 chose not to condemn the violence but to instead abuse posters.

No doubt 66 would condemn what happened as he had done previously but on this occasion he chose not to do that but instead aim abuse at other posters. All factually accurate.

 

[southshorepool]

I'm pretty fucked off with the small minority that turned violent because it detracts from one of the most draconian bills regarding the right to protest to pass for quite a while.
As an aside. Neither side have covered themselves in glory imho.

 

[20togo]

What if the said law is plain wrong?

Not really the issue here is it? But the fact remains that firstly they shouldn't have been gathering there in the numbers they did in view of Covid protocol and secondly a peaceful protest turned violent as these types of protest often do.

 

[gjr69]

This country would be better for that approach.

Shariah law is needed and wanted by many, give the people what they want!

 

[Mexboroseasider]

nope, I don't buy that guff. I specifically and repeatedly kept saying "LAST NIGHT". It was on a brand new thread not one going back nearly a week and before the events of the previous night occurred. You can't condemn something before it's actually happened.It was a separate incident. So i treated the new thread [ this one] on it's merits and the first post from 66 chose not to condemn the violence but to instead abuse posters.

No doubt 66 would condemn what happened as he had done previously but on this occasion he chose not to do that but instead aim abuse at other posters. All factually accurate.

Well it’s not my argument to have but it’s pretty clear what you’re inferring - which is that 66 was condoning the violence, which he clearly wasn’t as he’d previously condemned it. It doesn’t matter what day he condemned it or that he didn’t repeat the condemnation. The fact is he had previously condemned it.

In my opinion you owe him an apology for suggesting he condoned the violence.

 

[Scaramanga]

 

[20togo]

Well it’s not my argument to have but it’s pretty clear what you’re inferring - which is that 66 was condoning the violence, which he clearly wasn’t as he’d previously condemned it. It doesn’t matter what day he condemned it or that he didn’t repeat the condemnation. The fact is he had previously condemned it.

In my opinion you owe him an apology for suggesting he condoned the violence.

again that's nonsense. Read my last reply to you. I say "no doubt 66 would condemn it" Absolutely nowhere do I suggest he condoned it,so stop making things up. I simply make the point that on this thread he first chose to aim abuse at other posters. My posts to 66 were all polite and seeking clarification. One of his replies to me was abusive which to be fair to 66 is most unlike him.

 

[Poultongirl]

And what’s your definition of the EDL?

A group of hard working tax payers who loved their country and were pro controlled immigration, all irrelevant thought cos they disbanded years ago.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

again that's nonsense. Read my last reply to you. I say "no doubt 66 would condemn it" Absolutely nowhere do I suggest he condoned it,so stop making things up. I simply make the point that on this thread he first chose to aim abuse at other posters.

That’s just you backtracking from your previous suggestions that 66 condoned the violence: which he clearly didn’t.

Unfortunately backtracking is not the same as an apology.

Anyway, as I said, it’s not my argument to have. My view remains that you owe him an apology for your innuendo but clearly you’re never going to agree.

 

[hertfordseasider]

Another thread that has become a 20's argument, send a PM if you want to fight it out, all it does is clutter up the thread with shite.

 

[Shandypants]

Not really the issue here is it? But the fact remains that firstly they shouldn't have been gathering there in the numbers they did in view of Covid protocol and secondly a peaceful protest turned violent as these types of protest often do.

Genuine question. Would violent protests against the Nuremburg laws been unacceptable or not?

 

[20togo]

That’s just you backtracking from your previous suggestions that 66 condoned the violence: which he clearly didn’t.

Unfortunately backtracking is not the same as an apology.

Anyway, as I said, it’s not my argument to have. My view remains that you owe him an apology for your innuendo but clearly you’re never going to agree.

show me where I've suggested he's condoned it? Here's a previous post of mine.

afternoon, apologies if I missed your condemnation [which I haven't seen] but it wasn't on this thread where you chose to have a dig at others. So I think at the time my comment was perfectly valid unlike Cats.

 

[Poultongirl]

A group of hard working tax payers who loved their country and were pro controlled immigration, all irrelevant thought cos they disbanded years ago.

Forgot to add, like all normal human beings they didn’t like disgusting men that groomed vulnerable young girls Surely even you can agree with that?

 

[clappers]

Anyone rioting about the Coronavirus bill is an anarchist not a protestor

 

[20togo]

Genuine question. Would violent protests against the Nuremburg laws been unacceptable or not?

If there had been then I daresay many many people would have been killed.

 

[Shandypants]

If there had been then I daresay many many people would have been killed.

Probably so. I think we can agree that a protest that turned violent would have been justified in that instance.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

Probably so. I think we can agree that a protest that turned violent would have been justified in that instance.

Spot on. Lots of things used to be legal. Slavery. Sending kids up chimneys and into factories where they could lose limbs. I don’t think many people now would argue it was wrong to protest against those laws.

 

[20togo]

Probably so. I think we can agree that a protest that turned violent would have been justified in that instance.

whereas I agree, in that situation there clearly would have been too much fear to consider anything like protesting. Fortunately we've moved on from that and peaceful protests are a valid way to express opinions and concerns. But as I say above that didn't happen in Bristol and sadly in todays age and society there are too many on both the left and right who resort to violence. Anarchy is thriving.

 

[Scaramanga]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1375731355456319488

 

[Beachcomber]

My view on protest in the current period is that people of all political persuasions and none should refrain from taking to the streets in favour of helping us all to defeat COVID-19. (In the same vein it would have helped if, from this time last year, the government had put a temporary stop to people flying in and out of the country and bringing COVID-19 and other - possibly more infectious - strains of coronavirus with them in the process).

That said, the idea of banning protests (of all kinds) in the future, is a nonsense - and a potentially dangerous nonsense at that. The needless blocking of freedom of expression will only lead to increasing social unrest and more serious forms of opposition.

 

[Beachcomber]

@Poultongirl

The ‘grooming’ of vulnerable young girls isn’t the sole province of “ethnic minorities” or “foreigners” it’s actually a MALE social problem and one for men to deal with generally. Moreover it’s a problem that seems to regularly plague the ranks of the ‘far right’, white-supremacists and super-patriots of all kinds. And this is something that has been tragically witnessed so close to home in recent years, I really don’t think I have to post any painful reminders.

 

[catinstalbans]

A group of hard working tax payers who loved their country and were pro controlled immigration, all irrelevant thought cos they disbanded years ago.

Where is the condemnation of such support for a racist organisation? It was support for another racist in Tommy Robinson last week.
Yet the poster reveals his own ignorance in being unaware that his far right friends were full of paedophiles.

Depressing as it is, here’s the 2019 updated far right sex offender list which we will no doubt be adding to soon. Today’s conviction of Jack Renshaw – BNP, EDL, National Action – is striking but unsurprising and he joins a long list of rapists, sexual abusers and child porn aficionados who support Tommy Robinson, EDL, SDL, BNP, NF, Infidels and other far right groupsucules (see blog:

Jack Renshaw – EDL, BNP, National Action: four counts of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.​

Wayne Kirby – Tommy Robinson supporter: served six years after being convicted for rape in 2007.​

Bradley Daniel Alford, EDL Supporter: 6 yrs, indecent photos, inciting a child to engage in sexual intercourse.​

Kristopher Allan, SDL supporter: convicted for messages, images, and sexual contact involving a 13 year old.​

Luke Atkinson, UKIP & Yorkshire EDL Supporter: jailed 4 yrs, 8 mths, grooming young teenagers.​

Alan Boulter, EDL Supporter and all round racist: 20 mths, attempted grooming.​

John Broomfield, EDL and British Freedom supporter: ‘making indecent images of children’ and inept mosque attack.​

Dean Chambers, EDL & BNP supporter: 5 yrs, sexual assault.​

Michael Coates AKA Micky Blue Eyes (above), NW Infidels: charged with 2 attempted rapes and other sex offences.​

Bruce Cordwell, EDL: 3 yrs, 7 mths, grooming.​

Michael Cowen, neo-Nazi: 3 yrs, child pornography.​

Alan Thomas Ellis, Deeside EDL: convicted of sending texts of a sexual nature to a 14 year old girl.​

Robert Ewing, EDL, BNP, NF supporter: grooming & murder of 15 yr old.​

Ryan Fleming, National Action (above): 3 yrs, sexual activity with a child, his 2nd sexual offence.​

Darren Francis, BNP, sexual relationship with 13 year old.​

Christopher Gamlin, Britain First supporter (above): 21 mths, grooming & trying to incite a child into sexual activity.​

Pete Gillett, EDL speaker (above): 18 years, multiple offences of rape and indecent assault on children.​

Nigel Hesmondalgh, BNP: jailed for possessing a series of degrading photos and videos of children.​

Dale Hewitt, EDL supporter: 10 years for multiple sex offences against teenage girls.​

Ian Hindle, BNP, jailed for sexual activity with 14-year-old girls.​

Mark Hogg, EDL: 9 months for sexual assault on a 14 year old.​

Elliot Jones, EDL supporter and part of the self-styled ‘pedophile squad’ jailed for, err, pedophilia.​

Mervyn Jones, North Wales Alliance/Combined Ex-Forces: guilty of rape, attempted rape, indecent assault.​

Shaun Jones, Liverpool Scouse Nationalists: jailed for grooming and raping a 12 year old girl.​

Michael Kinnear, BNP and EDL supporter: jailed for sexually abusing a 7 year old.​

Gavin Leist, BNP, child porn.​

Leigh MacMillan with racist chum David Coppin​

Leigh MacMillan, EDL: convicted of three counts of indecent assault, two of indecency with a child and one of attempted rape. Jailed for a total of 17 years.​

Michael McQueenie, EDL Blackburn: pleaded guilty of two counts of rape of a 14-year-old girl and sexual assault.​

Brett Moses EDL Hull: 12-month prison sentence for sexual grooming.​

Paul O’Brien, Blood & Honour fascist: 9 yrs, rape, sexual assault.​

Stephen Payne SDL supporter: convicted of grooming a 13 year old.​

Richard Price, former EDL leader: four counts of making indecent images of children.​

Michael Roles, BF supporter: 18 yrs child rape.​

Roderick Rowley, BNP: child porn and sexually abusing 10-year-old girl.​

Mark Ryley, Britain First, Infidels of Britain & Nick Griffin supporter: 30 years for multiple sexual offences against young girls.​

Mark ‘Archie’ Sleman (above), EDL: kidnap & attempted rape of 10 yr old.​

James Swindlehurst, White Man March supporter, photographed with the North West Infidels: jailed for 20 years for 13 counts of child rape.​

Trevor Vinson, EDL, Britain First & Jayda Fransen supporter: 21 years for repeated sexual abuse and making obscene images of 3 year old girl.​

Andrew Wells, BNP: jailed for sexual activity with 14-year-old girls.​

Matthew Woodward, Deeside EDL: charged with child pornography and soliciting a 13 year old for photographs.​

All sexual abuse is wrong and has nothing to do with ethnicity, race, or religion. Please pass this information around.

 

[southshorepool]

Nine police officers injured at an anti lockdown/ anti vax demonstration in Bradford. Organised by a hairdresser who has continued to defy the law by trying to keep her shop open.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

again that's nonsense. Read my last reply to you. I say "no doubt 66 would condemn it" Absolutely nowhere do I suggest he condoned it,so stop making things up. I simply make the point that on this thread he first chose to aim abuse at other posters. My posts to 66 were all polite and seeking clarification. One of his replies to me was abusive which to be fair to 66 is most unlike him.

OK 20s, another day on AVFTT. Can we put the enmities to bed and start again.
I’ve said my piece about rioters in Bristol. Regardless of what happened on which night I do believe that people who initiate violent crimes or take part in hooliganism that results in violent criminal activity, should be tried and if found guilty, they should be punished according to the Law.

Those posters at the start of the Bristol Riots thread, calling the hooligans “anti establishment dregets” (whatever that means), and “snowflake left wing wasters” and saying that there are Bristol “lads” who could “scuttle these.” It’s just simplistic, bombastic nonsense. That’s why I talked about them sharing a brain cell – injecting a little light humour into the thread at the same time. It was not a vitriolic blast of badmouthing or insults.

So, let’s man the barricades once more; you on your side and me on mine but with the intent of lobbing persuasion instead of invective.

 

[Wizaard]

If they weren't there it wouldn't happen. Simple.

I don't have an axe to grind on this one. Don't agree with the protest personally, but its still not acceptable for the police to wade into people sat down, using riot shields to hit them, nor is it acceptable to report that two policemen suffered broken limbs, only for the truth to be somewhat different.

All that does is reduce confidence in the force.

Someone being in a location doesn't excuse poor police behaviour either. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time doesn't invite assault by anyone, and certainly not the upholders of law and order.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

That’s just you backtracking from your previous suggestions that 66 condoned the violence: which he clearly didn’t.

Unfortunately backtracking is not the same as an apology.

Anyway, as I said, it’s not my argument to have. My view remains that you owe him an apology for your innuendo but clearly you’re never going to agree.

Thanks Mex. I agree with where you're coming from but I'm inclined to say to 20s, let's move on.

 

[20togo]

Cat

All pretty disgusting of course but is it seriously acceptable to put a post like that on this msb. And by the way when you say "we will be adding to the list...." who do you mean by we?

 

[Wizaard]

Forgot to add, like all normal human beings they didn’t like disgusting men that groomed vulnerable young girls Surely even you can agree with that?

Even though some of the leaders were paedos themselves.

 

[20togo]

OK 20s, another day on AVFTT. Can we put the enmities to bed and start again.
I’ve said my piece about rioters in Bristol. Regardless of what happened on which night I do believe that people who initiate violent crimes or take part in hooliganism that results in violent criminal activity, should be tried and if found guilty, they should be punished according to the Law.

Those posters at the start of the Bristol Riots thread, calling the hooligans “anti establishment dregets” (whatever that means), and “snowflake left wing wasters” and saying that there are Bristol “lads” who could “scuttle these.” It’s just simplistic, bombastic nonsense. That’s why I talked about them sharing a brain cell – injecting a little light humour into the thread at the same time. It was not a vitriolic blast of badmouthing or insults.

So, let’s man the barricades once more; you on your side and me on mine but with the intent of lobbing persuasion instead of invective.

no problem 66, like I said earlier, I always thought we were polite to each other with a bit of banter so I was shocked to read the content of that one particular post.
That post of Scaras showing the interview with that young man didn't do your side any favours though did it?