He should just go "no comment"
How can a March for Peace be Incompatible with a Memorial for those Killed in Wars.
- Thread starter Roy Bloom
- Start date
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 10,804
- Reaction score
- 857
- Country
Well, it is another day, remembrance Sunday is the day we actually stop for more than a couple of minutes.
And they've been petitioning and campaigning for peace every Saturday since the war began, i think.
And the march is supported by the organisers of Remembrance Day.
And it is a largely peaceful event. There will be trouble this weekend though, as people are planning to disrupt and antagonist peace marchers, just so they can then claim they are violent haters. Yes, some are, but it's a minority.
Hopefully the police can keep them apart to avoid conflict. But this is the only real concern, that edl and co will try to stir up trouble, which is really sad. They'll be massively outnumbered though.
Last edited:
It isn't an illegal march.
Then post up this supposed evidence.
There's several of you on the case now, and none of you have been able to post an iota of evidence.
Yet you continue to make your false dishonest accusations.
Proof of your dishonest abusive trolling.
Last edited:
Perhaps motorbiking would like to withdraw and apologise for his slurs now?
I won't bother waiting. It wouldn't be the style of a dishonest abusive troll to withdraw false accusations nor to apologise.
You know comprehend, it's illegal if it's not sanctioned.
Still not got your big boy pants through from Amazon yet.
Perhaps motorbiking would like to withdraw and apologise for his slurs now?
I won't bother waiting. It wouldn't be the style of a dishonest abusive troll to withdraw false accusations nor to apologise.
No, is he a friend of yours?
sanctioned;
give official permission or approval for (an action).
impose a sanction or penalty on.
As "to sanction" can mean either to approve, or to disapprove, the use of that word is nonsensical.
If it's "sanctioned" it means it can either be allowed, or a penalty can be applied.
A March does not need to be approved. It does need to be notified to the police, and the police have powers to change the details of such marches.
They also have the ability to advise the Home Secretary ro prevent the march taking place.
But Marches do need to be approved. Therefore until such time as the HS rules to make the march illegal, it remains perfectly legal.
Look it up:
Protests and marches: letting the police know
Organising a march, rally or demonstration - when you do and do not have to contact the police before the event
Still not got anything worth contributing to the topic yet?
You do yourself no favours by posting such infantile comments.
So you didn't comprehend what I said.No, is he a friend of yours?
sanctioned;
give official permission or approval for (an action).
impose a sanction or penalty on.
As "to sanction" can mean either to approve, or to disapprove, the use of that word is nonsensical.
If it's "sanctioned" it means it can either be allowed, or a penalty can be applied.
A March does not need to be approved. It does need to be notified to the police, and the police have powers to change the details of such marches.
They also have the ability to advise the Home Secretary ro prevent the march taking place.
But Marches do need to be approved. Therefore until such time as the HS rules to make the march illegal, it remains perfectly legal.
Look it up:
Protests and marches: letting the police know
Organising a march, rally or demonstration - when you do and do not have to contact the police before the eventwww.gov.uk
I can't speak gantish. You'll have to communicate in a language I can comprehend if you think I didn't understand your comment correctly.
"Sanctioned" is an ambiguous word.
I'm writing this slowly for you.
My post response was to motorbiking post.
I was infering if the met didn't give the go ahead they would have illegal march on their hands and they wouldn't have the numbers to police.
The government have handed over responsibility to the met and now sit back and the met are left with hoping they can pin some blame on the organizers if it gets out of hand (the march that has been given the green light at the time I posted)
My post response was to motorbiking post.
I was infering if the met didn't give the go ahead they would have illegal march on their hands and they wouldn't have the numbers to police.
The government have handed over responsibility to the met and now sit back and the met are left with hoping they can pin some blame on the organizers if it gets out of hand (the march that has been given the green light at the time I posted)
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
I'll leave @Roy Bloom to think about the logic of accusing someone of being a liar, just because there is insufficient evidence to pursue a criminal investigation with a realistic chance of a prosecution and focus on the legal aspect of the march. This is not my area of speciality so I am reading and understanding the legislation rather than speaking as an expert. I suspect I am a page ahead of someone who uses a dictionary as a source of legal text.
The reality is the march organisers are working with the met police. it's likely that 70% of those marching have peaceful intent. That doesn't mean Jewish citizens will feel safe or that the march wont cause a significant disruption. The met appear to not wish to impose any significant restrictions on numbers, location, duration etc. But we don't know what they have already pushed back on. As I said already the met has the power to impost restrictions under s12 of the Public order act and if they are still not happy the power to request a ban of the march under s13.
The request does have to come from the police though. The Home Secretary who has many powers cannot fast track this under the above.
The reality is the march organisers are working with the met police. it's likely that 70% of those marching have peaceful intent. That doesn't mean Jewish citizens will feel safe or that the march wont cause a significant disruption. The met appear to not wish to impose any significant restrictions on numbers, location, duration etc. But we don't know what they have already pushed back on. As I said already the met has the power to impost restrictions under s12 of the Public order act and if they are still not happy the power to request a ban of the march under s13.
The request does have to come from the police though. The Home Secretary who has many powers cannot fast track this under the above.
That's awfully slow of you, but I'll read it at my own speed.
It looked like a general comment to me. There was no quoted post which you referred to.
The ploice do not need to give their approval. The march is not illegal until the Home Sec. says so. The police cannot stop the march, they can only request alterations to details.
I repeat the march is not illegal until the HS says so. And she hasn't, so it isn't.
It isn't a case of the government handing over responsibility for this march.
The Police have the responsibility of policing all the marches that they consider it necessary.
If they think a march requires some alterations to details, they can request those alterations of the organisers.
If the police think a march shouldn't go ahead for whatever reasons, they can ask the HS to declare it illegal.
They haven't, so the HS can't make a unlateral decision.
As the police have not asked the HS to stop it, and as she hasn't (I believe she can't make such a unilateral decision), that means the march is not illegal. It does not need specific permission to hold the march, it only requires for notification to the police.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
His powers are greater than you think. He has the power to impose changes, not simply request them.
those are very broad.
those are very broad.