|
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
Yesterday I was trying to get home from Euston to Tooting Broadway.
Not normally the most epic of journeys. But there were major problems on the Northern Line, so I got off at London Bridge. I took an overground train to Charing Cross and got on a 24 to go to Victoria. Whitehall was completely blocked off because of those protesters again, something to do with Tamils. I think they are either for or against them. Buses were being diverted god-knows-where. So I got off, walked to Westminster, took a tube to Victoria, took the overground to Balham then realised that both Balham and Tooting Broadway were shut owing to engineering works, so I had to get a 355 bus home. Anyway, when the French trawlermen blockaded the port recently P&O said it was thinking of suing them. Is there some organization behind these Parliament Square demos that might be sued by disgruntled punters? They weren't entirely to blame, but they didn't help. |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On 21 Apr, 09:04, Offramp wrote:
Yesterday I was trying to get home from Euston to Tooting Broadway. Not normally the most epic of journeys. But there were major problems on the Northern Line, so I got off at London Bridge. I took an overground train to Charing Cross and got on a 24 to go to Victoria. Whitehall was completely blocked off because of those protesters again, something to do with Tamils. I think they are either for or against them. Why don't you find out what it's about? It might turn out to be something more important than your journey. |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Apr 21, 10:11*am, MIG wrote:
On 21 Apr, 09:04, Offramp wrote: Yesterday I was trying to get home from Euston to Tooting Broadway. Not normally the most epic of journeys. But there were major problems on the Northern Line, so I got off at London Bridge. I took an overground train to Charing Cross and got on a 24 to go to Victoria. Whitehall was completely blocked off because of those protesters again, something to do with Tamils. I think they are either for or against them. Why don't you find out what it's about? It might turn out to be something more important than your journey. Presumably the British Government is either killing or failing to kill Tamils in Sri Lanka. |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
"Offramp" wrote in message
... then realised that both Balham and Tooting Broadway were shut owing to engineering works, What time was this on Monday? I live in Balham and didn't know the station was closed. Ian |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Apr 21, 9:04*am, Offramp wrote: Yesterday I was trying to get home from Euston to Tooting Broadway. Not normally the most epic of journeys. But there were major problems on the Northern Line, so I got off at London Bridge. I took an overground train to Charing Cross and got on a 24 to go to Victoria. Whitehall was completely blocked off because of those protesters again, something to do with Tamils. I think they are either for or against them. Buses were being diverted god-knows-where. So I got off, walked to Westminster, took a tube to Victoria, took the overground to Balham then realised that both Balham and Tooting Broadway were shut owing to engineering works, so I had to get a 355 bus home. Anyway, when the French trawlermen blockaded the port recently P&O said it was thinking of suing them. Is there some organization behind these Parliament Square demos that might be sued by disgruntled punters? They weren't entirely to blame, but they didn't help. Interesting that you don't talk of wanting to sue LU, just the demonstrators. I'm yet to respond to the other thread on the topic of demonstrations which I thought was thoroughly reactionary. By the by I think your alternate route was a bit around the houses. I'd have gone by train from London Bridge to Streatham, then either FCC Thameslink to Tooting or caught the 57 or 333 from Mitcham Lane (just round the corner from Streatham station) to Tooting Broadway. |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote: On 21 Apr, 09:04, Offramp wrote: Yesterday I was trying to get home from Euston to Tooting Broadway. Not normally the most epic of journeys. But there were major problems on the Northern Line, so I got off at London Bridge. I took an overground train to Charing Cross and got on a 24 to go to Victoria. Whitehall was completely blocked off because of those protesters again, something to do with Tamils. I think they are either for or against them. Why don't you find out what it's about? It might turn out to be something more important than your journey. Who gives a stuff what happens on an island 5000 miles away? If the protesters are all so concerned about the place why don't they fly over there and help sort it out instead of causing a nuisance here and demand our govenrment "do something"? Do what exactly? Send the gunboats to Columbo? Fscking idiots. B2003 |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
wrote in message ...
Who gives a stuff what happens on an island 5000 miles away? If the protesters are all so concerned about the place why don't they fly over there and help sort it out instead of causing a nuisance here and demand our govenrment "do something"? Do what exactly? Send the gunboats to Columbo? Fscking idiots. *applause* Ian |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Apr 21, 11:30*am, "Ian F." wrote:
"Offramp" wrote in message ... then realised that both Balham and Tooting Broadway were shut owing to engineering works, What time was this on Monday? I live in Balham and didn't know the station was closed. Ian After 10pm weekdays; Tooting Broadway is the same. |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On 21 Apr, 11:49, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:11:09 -0700 (PDT) MIG wrote: On 21 Apr, 09:04, Offramp wrote: Yesterday I was trying to get home from Euston to Tooting Broadway. Not normally the most epic of journeys. But there were major problems on the Northern Line, so I got off at London Bridge. I took an overground train to Charing Cross and got on a 24 to go to Victoria. Whitehall was completely blocked off because of those protesters again, something to do with Tamils. I think they are either for or against them. Why don't you find out what it's about? It might turn out to be something more important than your journey. Who gives a stuff what happens on an island 5000 miles away? If the protesters are all so concerned about the place why don't they fly over there and help sort it out instead of causing a nuisance here and demand our govenrment "do something"? Do what exactly? Send the gunboats to Columbo? Fscking idiots. B2003- The decision not to give a stuff entails finding out, which was what I suggested. One might also find out what it is that they are asking someone to do. It's one thing to say "my journey was disrupted by something which I disagree with and/or consider to be pointless". This post was "something that I can't be bothered to find out about has disrupted my journey, but by definition it must be less important than my journey". |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Apr 21, 12:25*pm, MIG wrote:
One might also find out what it is that they are asking someone to do. I am sure that you could tell me. I am not going to exert myself because that would mean that blocking off central London to traffic is a tactic which succeeds, and then every nutcase group will close off main roads. |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Apr 21, 11:53*am, "Ian F." wrote: wrote: Who gives a stuff what happens on an island 5000 miles away? If the protesters are all so concerned about the place why don't they fly over there and help sort it out instead of causing a nuisance here and demand our govenrment "do something"? Do what exactly? Send the gunboats to Columbo? Fscking idiots. *applause* Ian *frown* |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Apr 21, 11:49*am, wrote: On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:11:09 -0700 (PDT) MIG wrote: On 21 Apr, 09:04, Offramp wrote: Whitehall was completely blocked off because of those protesters again, something to do with Tamils. I think they are either for or against them. Why don't you find out what it's about? It might turn out to be something more important than your journey. Who gives a stuff what happens on an island 5000 miles away? If the protesters are all so concerned about the place why don't they fly over there and help sort it out instead of causing a nuisance here and demand our govenrment "do something"? Do what exactly? Send the gunboats to Columbo? Fscking idiots. I give a stuff. |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote: Who gives a stuff what happens on an island 5000 miles away? If the protesters are all so concerned about the place why don't they fly over there and help sort it out instead of causing a nuisance here and demand our govenrment "do something"? Do what exactly? Send the gunboats to Columbo? Fscking idiots. I give a stuff. So paint yourself a trendy banner, book a flight over there and campaign in front of the sri lankan government building. Be prepared to be badly beaten up by the majority sinhalese however who've had to put up with over 30 years of terrorist atrocities from the tamil tigers that all these fsck witted bleeding heart tamils on the front lawn of westminster are sobbing over. B2003 |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On 21 Apr, 11:49, wrote:
gunboats to Columbo? I fail to see how putting gunboats in the hands of someone with no sense of depth perception would help the situation. U |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
"Offramp" wrote in message
... After 10pm weekdays; Tooting Broadway is the same. Ah OK, thanks. I'm too old to be out that late. ;-) Ian |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
"Mizter T" wrote: .On Apr 21, 9:04 am, Offramp wrote: Yesterday I was trying to get home from Euston to Tooting Broadway. Not normally the most epic of journeys. But there were major problems on the Northern Line, so I got off at London Bridge. I took an overground train to Charing Cross and got on a 24 to go to Victoria. Whitehall was completely blocked off because of those protesters again, something to do with Tamils. I think they are either for or against them. Buses were being diverted god-knows-where. So I got off, walked to Westminster, took a tube to Victoria, took the overground to Balham then realised that both Balham and Tooting Broadway were shut owing to engineering works, so I had to get a 355 bus home. Anyway, when the French trawlermen blockaded the port recently P&O said it was thinking of suing them. Is there some organization behind these Parliament Square demos that might be sued by disgruntled punters? They weren't entirely to blame, but they didn't help. Interesting that you don't talk of wanting to sue LU, just the demonstrators. I'm yet to respond to the other thread on the topic of demonstrations which I thought was thoroughly reactionary. If you're referring to the thread I started, a couple of weeks back, I'm interested to know why you think this was 'thoroughly reactionary'. I made it quite clear I was in favour of the right to free speech and lawful demonstration, but that if this involved bringing central London to a standstill most weekends, there were legitimate questions to be asked about how the cost to London is borne. I gave my view as to who should bear that cost, because someone has to pay. Chris |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On 21 Apr, 09:04, Offramp wrote:
Yesterday I was trying to get home from Euston to Tooting Broadway. Not normally the most epic of journeys. But there were major problems on the Northern Line, so I got off at London Bridge. I took an overground train to Charing Cross and got on a 24 to go to Victoria. Poor choice of your route. Whitehall was completely blocked off because of those protesters again, something to do with Tamils. I think they are either for or against them. Buses were being diverted god-knows-where. So I got off, walked to Westminster, took a tube to Victoria, took the overground to Balham then realised that both Balham and Tooting Broadway were shut owing to engineering works, so I had to get a 355 bus home. Anyway, when the French trawlermen blockaded the port recently P&O said it was thinking of suing them. Is there some organization behind these Parliament Square demos that might be sued by disgruntled punters? They weren't entirely to blame, but they didn't help. Two points. Firstly, public roads are not for the exclusive use of through traffic but serve a variety of purposes. Secondly, road closures are mostly performed by the police in response to demonstrations, so sue them. Oh wait though! If you sue them and win it will be the taxpayer who pays up, not the police. It seems that your problem was mainly due to the Underground so why try to blame the protesters? -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net One man's democracy is another man's regime. |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Apr 22, 7:05*am, Doug wrote:
Firstly, public roads are not for the exclusive use of through traffic but serve a variety of purposes. What like? Secondly, road closures are mostly performed by the police in response to demonstrations, so sue them. Why are they protesting in Whitehall? Why not protest outside the Sri Lankan Embassy or, better still, go to Sri Lanka and protest outside their own government house? In any case, I can't see any police at all in this picture http://www.sibernews.com/images/2009...don2004092.jpg |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:30:26AM +0100, Ian F. wrote:
What time was this on Monday? I live in Balham and didn't know the station was closed. Closed from 10pm onwards for the next few weeks. It's very irritating. And was extremely poorly communicated by London Underground. The first I heard about it was when I went through the station on the first day of the closure. Given that I use Balham station regularly, I keep an eye out for such things, but neither saw nor heard anything whatsoever before then. -- David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age EIN KIRCHE! EIN KREDO! EIN PAPST! |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:02:18PM +0100, Chris Read wrote:
If you're referring to the thread I started, a couple of weeks back, I'm interested to know why you think this was 'thoroughly reactionary'. I made it quite clear I was in favour of the right to free speech and lawful demonstration, but that if this involved bringing central London to a standstill most weekends, there were legitimate questions to be asked about how the cost to London is borne. I gave my view as to who should bear that cost, because someone has to pay. If I'm not getting two threads confused, didn't someone say that the demonstrators should pay? That, of course, makes certain parts of political life the exclusive preserve of the well-off, which is a Really Bad Idea. And I say that as someone who is in the top 10% of earners in the country. I'm quite happy to pay the costs of other people demonstrating, through funding the police*, through my journeys occasionally taking longer, and through infinitesimal extra costs passed on to me by businesses that are affected. Even when I strongly disagree with the demonstrators I'm willing to pay that cost. That's because democracy and holding the state to account is important. I'm even happy to pay the extra costs involved because of the tiny minority who don't just protest peacefully - those costs being extra policing, vandalism, court time, prisons, hospital treatment, etc. Not that whether I'm happy matters or not - those who are willing to break laws about things like vandalism and assault are presumably also willing to break laws about paying cash in advance for their silliness! * in the abstract - I certainly don't approve of their criminality, incompetence and thuggery in recent years. -- David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H. L. Mencken |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
In message , David
Cantrell writes On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:02:18PM +0100, Chris Read wrote: If you're referring to the thread I started, a couple of weeks back, I'm interested to know why you think this was 'thoroughly reactionary'. I made it quite clear I was in favour of the right to free speech and lawful demonstration, but that if this involved bringing central London to a standstill most weekends, there were legitimate questions to be asked about how the cost to London is borne. I gave my view as to who should bear that cost, because someone has to pay. If I'm not getting two threads confused, didn't someone say that the demonstrators should pay? That, of course, makes certain parts of political life the exclusive preserve of the well-off, which is a Really Bad Idea. And I say that as someone who is in the top 10% of earners in the country. I'm quite happy to pay the costs of other people demonstrating, through funding the police*, Just for the record - and as someone whose working life can be *spectacularly* messed up by such things, I'm not happy to pay the costs. through my journeys occasionally taking longer, and through infinitesimal extra costs passed on to me by businesses that are affected. They may only pass "infinitesimal" costs to you. Some of those businesses lost considerable amounts. Even when I strongly disagree with the demonstrators I'm willing to pay that cost. Again, I'm not (although I concede there's little I can do about it). That's because democracy and holding the state to account is important. You can do that by protesting somewhere that doesn't hold up traffic, delay journeys and - an important point here - put people off going into London in the first place. I'm even happy to pay the extra costs involved because of the tiny minority who don't just protest peacefully Yet again, I'm not. But I suspect you'll be fed up of me saying this by now! :-)) - those costs being extra policing, vandalism, court time, prisons, hospital treatment, etc. Not that whether I'm happy matters or not - those who are willing to break laws about things like vandalism and assault are presumably also willing to break laws about paying cash in advance for their silliness! Indeed; this Pay As You Protest idea really *is* unworkable. (Although I did briefly consider whether it could be paid for on Oyster!) * in the abstract - I certainly don't approve of their criminality, incompetence and thuggery in recent years. Just in case I seem thoroughly disinterested in democracy or current affairs, I *am* interested enough to wonder what the Tamil protesters actually want to achieve by their protests. I've not been able to work out an answer to that yet, though. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:15:35 -0700 (PDT), Offramp wrote:
Secondly, road closures are mostly performed by the police in response to demonstrations, so sue them. Why are they protesting in Whitehall? Why not protest outside the Sri Lankan Embassy or, better still, go to Sri Lanka and protest outside their own government house? Also, isn't it still illegal to protest outside Parliament? (Not that I agree with that law, but I'm surprised not to have seen it mentioned at all in media reports, or in these Usenet threads. The police certainly used to be very active in enforcing it.) |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On 22 Apr, 08:15, Offramp wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:05*am, Doug wrote: Firstly, public roads are not for the exclusive use of through traffic but serve a variety of purposes. What like? Isn't it obvious? Or maybe not now that speeding through traffic totally dominates our streets. Of course, motorists street garage their cars nose to tail 24/7 but apart from that... People need to cross roads for a variety of purposes, to socialise with neighbours or to get to shops, or for children to play with each other. Roads are also used to stop and deliver goods to homes, etc. Not least is the the use of roads for processions and demonstrations. Many processions are traditional and are part of the establishment and are responsible for closing streets. What about the Marathon in London? Secondly, road closures are mostly performed by the police in response to demonstrations, so sue them. Why are they protesting in Whitehall? Why not protest outside the Sri Lankan Embassy or, better still, go to Sri Lanka and protest outside their own government house? Probably because the British use to be their colonial power and as such is historically responsible for the situation in Sri Lanka. In any case, I can't see any police at all in this picturehttp://www.sibernews.com/images/2009/04/london2004092.jpg http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2...ri-lanka-tamil "Tamil protesters clash with police Thousands of protesters take to the streets of London to demonstrate against the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka" I repeat, it is the police who close the streets. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net One man's democracy is another man's regime. |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:12:08 +0100
asdf wrote: On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:15:35 -0700 (PDT), Offramp wrote: Secondly, road closures are mostly performed by the police in response to demonstrations, so sue them. Why are they protesting in Whitehall? Why not protest outside the Sri Lankan Embassy or, better still, go to Sri Lanka and protest outside their own government house? Also, isn't it still illegal to protest outside Parliament? (Not that I agree with that law, but I'm surprised not to have seen it mentioned at all in media reports, or in these Usenet threads. The police certainly used to be very active in enforcing it.) The police should have cleared the area , but they probably know that if they tried they'd have the full force of the islington right-on brigade plus "community leaders" wailing about racism at full volume into any media outlet that would listen. Personally I'd pay a few thousand sinhalese to turn up with a counter protest , set up a popcorn stand and watch the result. B2003 |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2...ri-lanka-tamil
"Tamil protesters clash with police Thousands of protesters take to the streets of London to demonstrate against the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka" I repeat, it is the police who close the streets. That video shows the police trying to get people off the road; but they keep jumping back in. Why don't they protest at the Sri Lankan embassy? |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Offramp wrote:
Yesterday I was trying to get home from Euston to Tooting Broadway. Not normally the most epic of journeys. But there were major problems on the Northern Line, so I got off at London Bridge. I took an overground train to Charing Cross and got on a 24 to go to Victoria. Whitehall was completely blocked off because of those protesters again, something to do with Tamils. I think they are either for or against them. Buses were being diverted god-knows-where. So I got off, walked to Westminster, took a tube to Victoria, took the overground to Balham then realised that both Balham and Tooting Broadway were shut owing to engineering works, so I had to get a 355 bus home. Anyway, when the French trawlermen blockaded the port recently P&O said it was thinking of suing them. Is there some organization behind these Parliament Square demos that might be sued by disgruntled punters? They weren't entirely to blame, but they didn't help. When you get this worked out, let me know. I often my journey home seriously obstructed by numpties who for some reason think it's okay to drive cars in central London. I'd say it was as often as five or six days a week, and would be very interested indeed in suing them to pieces. tom -- unconstrained by any considerations of humanity or decency |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:37:36 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:
Also, isn't it still illegal to protest outside Parliament? (Not that I agree with that law, but I'm surprised not to have seen it mentioned at all in media reports, or in these Usenet threads. The police certainly used to be very active in enforcing it.) Didn't the chap who has been there for years appeal against an order that was issued for his removal and didn't the judges find that the law contravened the Human Rights Act (or something similar)? In other words the legislation cannot be applied. [I may be 100% wrong here!] I thought that he won the case on the grounds that his protest had started before the law was enacted, so he couldn't be prosecuted because it would be a retrospective application of the law. |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
|
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On 24 Apr, 02:23, wrote:
In article , (asdf) wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:37:36 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote: Also, isn't it still illegal to protest outside Parliament? (Not that I agree with that law, but I'm surprised not to have seen it mentioned at all in media reports, or in these Usenet threads. The police certainly used to be very active in enforcing it.) Didn't the chap who has been there for years appeal against an order that was issued for his removal and didn't the judges find that the law contravened the Human Rights Act (or something similar)? In other words the legislation cannot be applied. * [I may be 100% wrong here!] I thought that he won the case on the grounds that his protest had started before the law was enacted, so he couldn't be prosecuted because it would be a retrospective application of the law. If you are referring to Brian Haw then that is correct. The Serious Organised Crime Act included the ban on demos in Parliament Square (obviously, given its title!). Its main effect seems to have been to encourage more of them. That part of the Act has been under review and this repressive, criminalising legislation ought to be repealed by government ASAP. http://www.publications.parliament.u...s/47/4702..htm "ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF PROTESTS 128. One of the innovations of SOCPA was the requirement for protests to be notified in advance to the police, so that they could then be authorised. A consequence of this approach has been the criminalisation of peaceful protestors, such as Ms Evans and Mr Rai, and the outlawing of spontaneous protest.[233] Elsewhere in this Report we set out the advantages of protestors and police engaging in dialogue, to ensure that protests run smoothly and safely. These benefits apply equally to protest around Parliament but we are not persuaded that a legal requirement to notify protests in advance is necessary or proportionate to maintain access to Parliament or to achieve any other legitimate aim. Advance notification of protest around Parliament should be encouraged by the Metropolitan Police, in order to facilitate safe protest, but should not be a legal requirement and no sanction should apply to those who choose not to notify the police of their intention to protest solely by reason of that choice." -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net One man's democracy is another man's regime. |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On 24 Apr, 02:23, wrote:
In article , (asdf) wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:37:36 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote: Also, isn't it still illegal to protest outside Parliament? (Not that I agree with that law, but I'm surprised not to have seen it mentioned at all in media reports, or in these Usenet threads. The police certainly used to be very active in enforcing it.) Didn't the chap who has been there for years appeal against an order that was issued for his removal and didn't the judges find that the law contravened the Human Rights Act (or something similar)? In other words the legislation cannot be applied. * [I may be 100% wrong here!] I thought that he won the case on the grounds that his protest had started before the law was enacted, so he couldn't be prosecuted because it would be a retrospective application of the law. If you are referring to Brian Haw then that is correct. The Serious Organised Crime Act included the ban on demos in Parliament Square (obviously, given its title!). Its main effect seems to have been to encourage more of them. But bear in mind that, like pretty much all legislation introduced by New Labour, its purpose isn't to prevent demonstrations, but to give the authorities the freedom to do anything they like to anyone for nothing. There is a legal basis for arresting someone for being in Parliament Square, if they want to arrest a particular person for any reason. Like the anti-terror laws which are being used for precisely their intended purpose, but not for their stated purpose. |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On 23 Apr, 23:27, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Offramp wrote: Yesterday I was trying to get home from Euston to Tooting Broadway. Not normally the most epic of journeys. But there were major problems on the Northern Line, so I got off at London Bridge. I took an overground train to Charing Cross and got on a 24 to go to Victoria. Whitehall was completely blocked off because of those protesters again, something to do with Tamils. I think they are either for or against them. Buses were being diverted god-knows-where. So I got off, walked to Westminster, took a tube to Victoria, took the overground to Balham then realised that both Balham and Tooting Broadway were shut owing to engineering works, so I had to get a 355 bus home. Anyway, when the French trawlermen blockaded the port recently P&O said it was thinking of suing them. Is there some organization behind these Parliament Square demos that might be sued by disgruntled punters? They weren't entirely to blame, but they didn't help. When you get this worked out, let me know. I often my journey home seriously obstructed by numpties who for some reason think it's okay to drive cars in central London. I'd say it was as often as five or six days a week, and would be very interested indeed in suing them to pieces. In the case of people who deliberately block the streets of the capital city with a personal steel box, doesn't treason cover it? |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
Offramp wrote on 23 April 2009 11:32:10 ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2...ri-lanka-tamil "Tamil protesters clash with police Thousands of protesters take to the streets of London to demonstrate against the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka" I repeat, it is the police who close the streets. That video shows the police trying to get people off the road; but they keep jumping back in. Why don't they protest at the Sri Lankan embassy? It's been interesting reading this thread in Paris, where Tamil protesters have also been active. They tried a sit-in here last Monday at a major road junction in the evening peak, then took to smashing windows of buildings and buses after the police moved them off the road. In London you usually get a few arrests from this sort of thing, and most of them get released without charge. The press here in Paris called it merely a "mini-riot", so I wasn't expecting to hear any more about it. But 210 were arrested, 147 of whom were still in custody ater 48 hours. This morning (Friday), I read that 88 protesters had been charged; two accused of deliberate violence towards the police would stand trial immediately, a further 16 in June and 68 others in September; all of them are banned from attending any demonstrations meanwhile. I guess that arrests on that scale would be defeated by the paperwork in Britain. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Those protesters again - London stopped - who can we sue?
On Apr 24, 10:26*pm, "Richard J." wrote:
Offramp wrote on 23 April 2009 11:32:10 ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2...ri-lanka-tamil "Tamil protesters clash with police Thousands of protesters take to the streets of London to demonstrate against the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka" I repeat, it is the police who close the streets. That video shows the police trying to get people off the road; but they keep jumping back in. Why don't they protest at the Sri Lankan embassy? It's been interesting reading this thread in Paris, where Tamil protesters have also been active. *They tried a sit-in here last Monday at a major road junction in the evening peak, then took to smashing windows of buildings and buses after the police moved them off the road. * In London you usually get a few arrests from this sort of thing, and most of them get released without charge. *The press here in Paris called it merely a "mini-riot", so I wasn't expecting to hear any more about it. But 210 were arrested, 147 of whom were still in custody ater 48 hours. This morning (Friday), I read that 88 protesters had been charged; two accused of deliberate violence towards the police would stand trial immediately, a further 16 in June and 68 others in September; all of them are banned from attending any demonstrations meanwhile. *I guess that arrests on that scale would be defeated by the paperwork in Britain. I think you'll find the paperwork in France, and indeed most developed countries, is equivalent to the paperwork in .uk. Interesting, though: clearly dark-skinned non-Frogs are subject to harsher riot-related rules than the average homme-dans-la-rue. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk