MP Caroline Lucas charged for protesting

[Herr Tubthumper]

You really are very cynical about people aren't you!

Weird is the term I would use but yes, cynical for sure.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Research it then. The pain causes an involuntary reaction. Fact

£50?

 

[Nibble]

Research it then. The pain causes an involuntary reaction. Fact

So it does deliberately cause pain then? You really are a bit of a plum.

 

[ozseagull]

£50?

I can't enter any sort of agreement with somebody that compares a police officer using a pressure point on a male blocking the road a lawful and recognised home office technique, to a clearly unacceptable piece of behaviour that led to an innocent mans death. If you can't understand the differences between the two cases then I am wasting my time bothering to try and explain. As I said blinkered one sided view points.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I can't enter any sort of agreement with somebody that compares a police officer using a pressure point on a male blocking the road a lawful and recognised home office technique, to a clearly unacceptable piece of behaviour that led to an innocent mans death. If you can't understand the differences between the two cases then I am wasting my time bothering to try and explain. As I said blinkered one sided view points.

Nice try but I am sure everyone can smell the bullshit. You really are a fool.

 

[Doc Lynam]

You know i think your right Ozseagull, Caroline bloody showing off with her friends!

Purple haired show off!

 

[ozseagull]

So it does deliberately cause pain then? You really are a bit of a plum.

And that makes me a plum how?

Of course it deliberately causes pain. Are you completely stupid. As I said research it. It is a Home Office approved pain compliance technique. Seriously give up the argument until you know what you are talking about.

It is used after verbal requests have failed. The pain causes compliance. The pain can be as short or long as the recipient decides.

 

[desprateseagull]

Is a CPS case ever NOTin public interest to proceed..?

And if on a closed off road, how can someone obstruct it?

 

[Nibble]

And that makes me a plum how?

Of course it deliberately causes pain. Are you completely stupid. As I said research it. It is a Home Office approved pain compliance technique. Seriously give up the argument until you know what you are talking about.

It is used after verbal requests have failed. The pain causes compliance. The pain can be as short or long as the recipient decides.

I know exactly what I'm talking about I'm afraid. Unfortunately for you I spent 9 years in the security industry where I trained and employed these techniques almost hourly, more recently I am two years into my stunt performers license training and have been taught and have used these exact techniques. Sorry, you'll have to do better.

Now, the main point is I know it's approved.and procedure If that gentleman was for example holding a child hostage or had an offensive weapon locked in his grip I would say it was appropriate to use. It is simply not appropriate. Yes, according to directives it is but anyone with half a brain can see that is not appropriate.

 

[ozseagull]

I know exactly what I'm talking about I'm afraid. Unfortunately for you I spent 9 years in the security industry where I trained and employed these techniques almost hourly, more recently I am two years into my stunt performers license training and have been taught and have used these exact techniques. Sorry, you'll have to do better.

Now, the main point is I know it's approved.and procedure If that gentleman was for example holding a child hostage or had an offensive weapon locked in his grip I would say it was appropriate to use. It is simply not appropriate. Yes, according to directives it is but anyone with half a brain can see that is not appropriate.

Oh dear oh dear. So what about your comment at 18.14? The one where you say how could anyone even do that? And now you admit that you used to do it hourly?!

Explain yourself. Or no need. You are a compulsive liar who forgets his previous lies who is a drama teacher/ actor/ security guard/ stunt man. Nice one.

 

[Nibble]

Oh dear oh dear. So what about your comment at 18.14? The one where you say how could anyone even do that? And now you admit that you used to do it hourly?!

Explain yourself. Or no need. You are a compulsive liar who forgets his previous lies who is a drama teacher/ actor/ security guard/ stunt man. Nice one.

You really need to read posts properly marra. I would be very happy to use that technique on someone who was intent on causing me or someone else harm, not for sitting on the floor. Do you see now? No, I doubt it.
As for the other insults, not that it's any of your business but I worked Security in Brighton for 9 years while acting part time. I then turned professional and teach drama as well. How do you come to the conclusion that these jobs aren't compatible? Most film actors I know have done stunt courses, it gets you more work. So, to mis-quote yourself back at you perhaps you want to get a bloody clue as to what you are talking about before you carry on with your ill informed, frankly moronic diatribe. It's childish as all hell. You may as well have said "sussed". Child.

 

[ozseagull]

You really need to read posts properly marra. I would be very happy to use that technique on someone who was intent on causing me or someone else harm, not for sitting on the floor. Do you see now? No, I doubt it.
As for the other insults, not that it's any of your business but I worked Security in Brighton for 9 years while acting part time. I then turned professional and teach drama as well. How do you come to the conclusion that these jobs aren't compatible? Most film actors I know have done stunt courses, it gets you more work. So, to mis-quote yourself back at you perhaps you want to get a bloody clue as to what you are talking about before you carry on with your ill informed, frankly moronic diatribe. It's childish as all hell. You may as well have said "sussed". Child.

Not bad for a quick what can I say now I've been caught response. You are full of shite. So as a security guard in brighton you used a Home Office police technique lawfully? No you didn't. Just out of curiosity where in brighton do they have security guards and its so dangerous they use this technique hourly? It's a technique used to gain control of someone's arms so be interesting to hear what you used it for?

 

[Nibble]

Not bad for a quick what can I say now I've been caught response. You are full of shite. So as a security guard in brighton you used a Home Office police technique lawfully? No you didn't. Just out of curiosity where in brighton do they have security guards and its so dangerous they use this technique hourly?

I won't be telling you where I worked I'm afraid and I certainly don't intend to spend any more time convincing you but enough people on here know me to know if I was bullshitting.


Not much of a reasoned argument from you is it? Not a copper by any chance?

You: You don't know what you're talking about mate

Me: Uh, yeah I do.

You: No you don't

Okay.

Not really anywhere we can go with that is there!

 

[ozseagull]

I won't be telling you where I worked I'm afraid and I certainly don't intend to spend any more time convincing you but enough people on here know me to know if I was bullshitting.


Not much of a reasoned argument from you is it? Not a copper by any chance?

You: You don't know what you're talking about mate

Me: Uh, yeah I do.

You: No you don't

Okay.

Not really anywhere we can go with that is there!

Not much of a reasoned argument. You are the one saying how horrified you are at the police using a technique that you then an hour later admit to using numerous times. It will also appear that you used it unlawfully. So instead of justifying its use you spout some more shite in a little role play.

So to summarise a police officer can't use the technique. But a bouncer who wants to be a movie star can.

Oh right I understand now. An no I'm not a police officer. I was just enjoying a debate with people who are clearly out of their depth in the conversation.

 

[Triggaaar]

If she was protesting legally, she wouldn't have been arrested. But the scumbags there are breaking the law (many of them were protesting at St Paul's Cathedral a little while ago, and couldn't give a stuff what it is they're protesting about) and costing the local residents millions in council tax to pay for the 24/7 police presence. As an MP, she should not be breaking the law. What she is doing, is saying to people 'if you think the law is wrong, you should break it' - so everyone ignore the rules, and do what the **** you like. While that's an understandable attitude for a lot of people, I don't think it's appropriate for someone who is responsible for making the laws.

 

[ozseagull]

If she was protesting legally, she wouldn't have been arrested. But the scumbags there are breaking the law (many of them were protesting at St Paul's Cathedral a little while ago, and couldn't give a stuff what it is they're protesting about) and costing the local residents millions in council tax to pay for the 24/7 police presence. As an MP, she should not be breaking the law. What she is doing, is saying to people 'if you think the law is wrong, you should break it' - so everyone ignore the rules, and do what the **** you like. While that's an understandable attitude for a lot of people, I don't think it's appropriate for someone who is responsible for making the laws.

Welcome to this thread. Thank goodness you are here. I'm surrounded by blinkered men and compulsive liars.

 

[Dandyman]

Part of the long standing process of criminalising dissent.

 

[Dandyman]

If she was protesting legally, she wouldn't have been arrested. But the scumbags there are breaking the law (many of them were protesting at St Paul's Cathedral a little while ago, and couldn't give a stuff what it is they're protesting about) and costing the local residents millions in council tax to pay for the 24/7 police presence. As an MP, she should not be breaking the law. What she is doing, is saying to people 'if you think the law is wrong, you should break it' - so everyone ignore the rules, and do what the **** you like. While that's an understandable attitude for a lot of people, I don't think it's appropriate for someone who is responsible for making the laws.

I'm fairly neutral about fox hunting but Hunts break the law on a regular basis, cause criminal damage and assault protestors all with minimal interference from Plod.

 

[Nibble]

Not much of a reasoned argument. You are the one saying how horrified you are at the police using a technique that you then an hour later admit to using numerous times. It will also appear that you used it unlawfully. So instead of justifying its use you spout some more shite in a little role play.

So to summarise a police officer can't use the technique. But a bouncer who wants to be a movie star can.

Oh right I understand now. An no I'm not a police officer. I was just enjoying a debate with people who are clearly out of their depth in the conversation.

Someone on the internet doesn't believe me. I'll live with it.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Just a point....but if they're protesting about the 'fracking'...how come when they pack up to go away do they then chain themselves to the lorries...is it a look at me moment....I will cause trouble justified or not....they got what they protested for...they wanted Quadrilla out of there....then use action to stop them leaving...the mind boggles...