Best Of

Just catching up with the news that Essex Police bussed in counter protestors. Literally picked them up from the station and plopped them into the protests. First they lied about it, now they're claiming they were 'facilitating the right to assembly'.

I'm not sure there's even a word in the English lexicon for a police force deliberately attempting to inflame a protest that they are in charge of policing. It is surely completely unprecedented historically.

Is there any hard evidence for that ?
The police have "categorically" denied it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g8nzn3ne9o

Vox Nigelli, vox dei.

Yes, they did categorically deny it, and when footage of it was revealed, they stopped denying it:

https://youtu.be/bZ2fwy0tJBE?si=BJdOZxE17Tz5LIxw&t=2m55s

"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"

I mean what the actual f***?

That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.

He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.

He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.

Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.

Link to the evidence, if any exists.

Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.

Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?

“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.

“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”

You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.

Back it up.

You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.

And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.

What is it that you want me to back up?

I'm genuinely struggling here. Is it the fact that you think it was a van not a bus that you find objectionable? Have I exagerrated the wheel size? Are you still denying it happened? Help me out.

Obviously you're unable to post any evidence.

Fool.

Um, OK. What is it that you're denying? Exactly. Is it the 'bussed' thing? Do you think the police just 'gave them a lift'? If I knew what to prove, I could perhaps have a stab.

In words of one syllable: BACK UP YOUR CLAIM OR SHUT UP.

Sure, delightfully put as always, but I still need you to dispute my claim - or some area of it. If you tell me what it is about by claim that you are contesting, I can seek to prove it.

Truly surreal, even for the "post truth" world we're in now.

The police were giving very obvious preferential treatment to one group of protestors, who just happen to be on the side of the liberal establishment who regulate the police.

Just catching up with the news that Essex Police bussed in counter protestors. Literally picked them up from the station and plopped them into the protests. First they lied about it, now they're claiming they were 'facilitating the right to assembly'.

I'm not sure there's even a word in the English lexicon for a police force deliberately attempting to inflame a protest that they are in charge of policing. It is surely completely unprecedented historically.

Is there any hard evidence for that ?
The police have "categorically" denied it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g8nzn3ne9o

Vox Nigelli, vox dei.

Yes, they did categorically deny it, and when footage of it was revealed, they stopped denying it:

https://youtu.be/bZ2fwy0tJBE?si=BJdOZxE17Tz5LIxw&t=2m55s

"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"

I mean what the actual f***?

That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.

He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.

He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.

Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.

Link to the evidence, if any exists.

Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.

Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?

“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.

“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”

You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.

Back it up.

You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.

And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.

What is it that you want me to back up?

I'm genuinely struggling here. Is it the fact that you think it was a van not a bus that you find objectionable? Have I exagerrated the wheel size? Are you still denying it happened? Help me out.

Who the F keeps flagging you for making entirely reasonable remarks? I suspect it is @Chris, or maybe @bondegezou who will flag anything

People who flag should be visible, and shame-able. It is a pathetic gesture - OOh Miss, look at him! - done by wankers

Ethnic cleansing should certainly be off the table, but I don't think discussion of a level of remigration should be.

Sweden and Denmark are already doing it.

I just had to look up what is meant by this word and why it’s caused so many sparks.

It should be utterly uncontroversial to discuss non citizens being denied continued right of leave and being asked to leave. When I was overseas, my visa had to be renewed every two years. Thems the rules, I was a guest, fair dinkum.

“Deporting” people born as British citizens is another flavour entirely. But even this has been robustly discussed in parliament, on tv, in every pub and here - the Begum case. For my money, I thought that one a disgrace but I understand both sides.

The growing list of unmentionable topics here is rather odd. The migration issue has long been a prickly one in British society but in big sections of the country it’s the live issue. Since the Afghan super injunction and Epping, I haven’t received so many political messages in a week since the depths of May’s Brexit conundrums. People who have variously voted Tory, Lib Dem and Remain. Not WWC or “knuckle draggers”. Somethings going on out there. The echo chamber is at risk of being left behind.

So no one knows why @williamglenn is banned

Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?

The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.

Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?

Quite bizarre

I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.

I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.

Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.

We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).

It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be

Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...

The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules

So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.

He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.

He was a few posts away talking about remigration.

Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.

So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?

I have a new concept for you.

Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.

Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.

So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not

It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive

Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.

OGH = Our Gracious Host

This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.

If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.

His house, his rules.

Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight

You're the one being pompous. Making out that a poster getting 'banned' from PB for a couple of days is some sort of moral atrocity. The free-thinking outlaw renegades being censored by a stultifying middlebrow centrist blob. It's the most utter self-regarding preeny precious tosh.

I've been on PB for about fifteen years, and I'm quite amazed I've never received a ban.

I got sin binned for a few days once, and was informed why. I have not repeated the offence.

We are guests here, so don't get to set the rules.

That is of course true but, on the other hand, the only reason many (including me) bother to be guests is that this site tolerates a fairly wide spectrum of views, and the less it does so, the less attractive being a guest is.

It is an extremely difficult balance to strike, and one I'm glad I don't have to formulate or enforce. Much respect to those who do and have kept this about as far from being an echo chamber as is possible while preventing it becoming a Twitter-like sewer of slander, misinformation and Russian bots.

Just catching up with the news that Essex Police bussed in counter protestors. Literally picked them up from the station and plopped them into the protests. First they lied about it, now they're claiming they were 'facilitating the right to assembly'.

I'm not sure there's even a word in the English lexicon for a police force deliberately attempting to inflame a protest that they are in charge of policing. It is surely completely unprecedented historically.

Is there any hard evidence for that ?
The police have "categorically" denied it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g8nzn3ne9o

Vox Nigelli, vox dei.

Yes, they did categorically deny it, and when footage of it was revealed, they stopped denying it:

https://youtu.be/bZ2fwy0tJBE?si=BJdOZxE17Tz5LIxw&t=2m55s

"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"

I mean what the actual f***?

That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.

He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.

He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.

Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.

Link to the evidence, if any exists.

Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.

Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?

“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.

“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”

You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.

Back it up.

You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.

And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.

What is it that you want me to back up?

I'm genuinely struggling here. Is it the fact that you think it was a van not a bus that you find objectionable? Have I exagerrated the wheel size? Are you still denying it happened? Help me out.

Obviously you're unable to post any evidence.

Fool.

Um, OK. What is it that you're denying? Exactly. Is it the 'bussed' thing? Do you think the police just 'gave them a lift'? If I knew what to prove, I could perhaps have a stab.

In words of one syllable: BACK UP YOUR CLAIM OR SHUT UP.

Anyone can see the video showing the Police taking masked agitators, with megaphone, to counter demonstrate in a highly charge situation.

You are choosing to ignore the evidence in front of your own eyes