Police plan to use stop and search at Royal Wedding.

On Apr 20, 6:25*pm, Big Les Wade wrote:
NotMe posted

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...766/Anarchist-
groups-threaten-to-target-Royal-Wedding.html

The Whitechapel Anarchist Group, which admitted being involved in
trouble at the first demonstration at Millbank in November, promised
the riots were “only the beginning”.

It threatened: “In order to win we need more violence on the streets.
More smashed windows, more hospitalised coppers and many more assaults
on royals.”

So Doug, we have anarchists threatening pre-meditated violence, a few
thugs trying to spoil the day for a lot of other people, and you
complain that the police might be trying to stop them.

I'd be surprised if these groups aren't run by the police themselves.

Good point. It is highly likely that they have secret police
infiltrators who can influence meetings and this has been proven in
connection with other groups and is not just paranoia.

The easiest way for police to discredit and prevent political protest
is for them to provoke some form of so-called violence, such as
smashing a shop window. Who knows too who the hoodie is that does the
smashing? It could well be our secret police.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
One person's democracy is another person's Police State,
where rights are replaced by concessions.

Doug wrote:

Of course it did. That is why the police no longer try to regulate CM
or stop it, unless something untoward happens. They even ignore
drivers who deliberately ram CM cyclists.

Seems a reasonable compromise to me, Doug.

Doug wrote:

The easiest way for police to discredit and prevent political protest
is for them to provoke some form of so-called violence, such as
smashing a shop window. Who knows too who the hoodie is that does the
smashing? It could well be our secret police.

Do you condemn it whoever does it, or not?

Doug wrote:

On the contrary, they want to ride together as a group of cyclists
without interference or danger from drivers.

What right have they got to that, Doug?

Traffic's traffic, isn't it? Why should they have priority?

On 21/04/2011 07:37, Doug wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:45 am, Tony wrote:
On 20/04/2011 06:01, Doug wrote:



On Apr 19, 7:53 am, wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

From my viewpoint the Royal Wedding is an attempt to spoil the day
for ... drivers ... in Central London
That's a good thing, right?
I am attempting to look at things from your own viewpoint
So when you said "from my viewpoint", you actually meant "from what I
perceive your viewpoint to be"?
Have you not blamed CM in the past for interfering with motorists
alleged rights?

For deliberately and provocatively seeking to maximise the interference.

Proof that that is the purpose of the CM procession?

Your videos.

Aren't you one of those who believe videos are not evidence? Are you
now agreeing that when my videos depict drivers ramming cyclists it is
true?

The videos on your 'magic camera' show **** all you idiot.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 21/04/2011 07:37, Doug wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:45 am, Tony wrote:
On 20/04/2011 06:01, Doug wrote:



On Apr 19, 7:53 am, wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

From my viewpoint the Royal Wedding is an attempt to spoil the day
for ... drivers ... in Central London
That's a good thing, right?
I am attempting to look at things from your own viewpoint
So when you said "from my viewpoint", you actually meant "from what I
perceive your viewpoint to be"?
Have you not blamed CM in the past for interfering with motorists
alleged rights?

For deliberately and provocatively seeking to maximise the interference.

Proof that that is the purpose of the CM procession?

Your videos.

Aren't you one of those who believe videos are not evidence? Are you
now agreeing that when my videos depict drivers ramming cyclists it is
true?

No I believe videos can be evidence, but your magic camera never show
the actual incident.





which is that all processions, such as CM and the Royal Wedding,
seriously interfere with an alleged driver's right to pass and repass
while going about his daily business.
The question for you therefore is, should all processions be banned?
No, but they SHOULD liase with the police, local authority etc to
ensure that disruption is both minimised and well managed.
Let me get this straight then. You don't mind processions holding up
cars, regardless of how long for, as long as the police are in charge of
the processions?

Indeed. So that the route can be planned to minimise disruption, and so
that the route can be publicised in advance, to further help minimise
that disruption.

How is that possible for a group that has no organisers?

Like the person who organises the videos, the person who organises the
web site, the person who organised the Law Law appeal, etc

CM riders do what they want to do regardless of videos, web sites or
the Law Lords appeal. The only thing that has changed is that the
police no longer want to regulate the ride and stop riders doing what
they want to do.

Yes dear, that must be it.





What if CM holds up traffic for a much shorter time than the Royal
Wedding

Which bit of "route planned and publicised in advance" are you not quite
understanding?

See above.

bearing in mind that CM has been authorised by the Law Lords no less?

Has it? Has it really?

Ah! I see you haven't bothered to research the subject properly, as
usual. Try this for starters.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...200708/ldjudgm...

Did the in fact authorise it?

Of course it did. That is why the police no longer try to regulate CM
or stop it, unless something untoward happens. They even ignore
drivers who deliberately ram CM cyclists.

Would you quote the bit where the Law Lords authorised it.



CM used to be accompanied by about 20 cycle police who did most of the
corking

They, of course, are legally authorised to, with the primary intent of
minimising disruption and delay, and drivers legally obliged to obey
their traffic directions. That doesn't apply to some random renta-mob who
decide randomly which particular part of the city to disrupt, with the
sole intent of causing aggravation and delay.

Again, proof of your assertion? How do you also explain the fact that
the police now leave CM to its own devices and do not try to prevent
it corking? They must have a completely different viewpoint to you
concerning the law.

until they mysteriously disappeared after finally loosing out to the
Law Lords.

If you don't want to involve them in advance, why _should_ they play
follow-the-leader with you?

The question you must ask yourself is, if CM is as you say it is why
don't the police try to stop it?

During the March ride a lone motorcycle cop did do some corking for CM
which surely must legitimise it in your eyes?

Which bit of "route planned and publicised in advance" are you not quite
understanding?

See above. Question. Who in a group with no organisers will organise a
route and who will feel compelled to follow it? The police had exactly
the same problem when they took CM to court and that is why they lost
in the end.

Somehow, I suspect the Royal Wedding organisers - despite it being a
far more "customary procession" than CM - are doing precisely that,
don't you?
How can it be more customary when it is held less often?

Because it's been going on for a _damn_ sight longer.

Longer but less often? Since both London CM and Royal Weddings are
deemed to be customary what point are you struggling to make?

During its 17 years

Oooh! SEVENTEEN whole years! That's _SO_ "customary"...

It is indeed and a lot longer than some.

-- .
Critical Mass London.
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
Drivers ram cyclists because they can and its easy to do.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
Have you not blamed CM in the past for interfering with motorists
alleged rights?

For deliberately and provocatively seeking to maximise the
interference.

Proof that that is the purpose of the CM procession?

The intent is clear in the videos you post.

Aren't you one of those who doesn't believe in video evidence, such as
cars ramming cyclists?

Quite the contrary, my dear Duhgling.

I believe the video over the claims made of it.

bearing in mind that CM has been authorised by the Law Lords no
less?

Has it? Has it really?

Ah! I see you haven't bothered to research the subject properly, as
usual. Try this for starters.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...k/pa/ld200708/
ldjudgmt/jd081126/metro-1.htm

Which does NOT say that CM has been "authorised by the law lords".

Of course it does. They decided that CM is a customarily held procession
which does not require a pre-planned route or police monitoring.

Which isn't the same thing.

B'sides, given how intransigent the organisers of CM are when it comes
to official liaison, exactly how much police resources should be
devoted to your little jolly?

Again, there are no organisers.

Exactly.

The question you must ask yourself is, if CM is as you say it is why
don't the police try to stop it?

Because the organisers of CM have managed to find themselves a very
convenient little legal loophole, all whilst not actually having the
balls to admit to their identities and involvement.

You still don't get it do you.

I'm not the one frantically trying to deny everything, Duhggle.
That being a "customary procession" does not mean the organisers of an
event somehow cannot behave in a civilised fashion, and work to
minimise the disruption of their event.

With London CM, volunteers elect themselves en route to cork and thus
prevent motorists and other drivers from disrupting the event. Similarly
those at the front of the ride elect themselves to decide which turning
to take.

That's nice, dear.

How many more times must this be described to you for it to sink in?
THERE ARE NO ORGANISERS.

And the sun rises in the West and sets in the East.

"Norman Wells" gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Doug wrote:

On the contrary, they want to ride together as a group of cyclists
without interference or danger from drivers.

What right have they got to that, Doug?

Traffic's traffic, isn't it? Why should they have priority?

No, no, no. It's not _traffic_. That'd mean that the RTA applied, and
that'd result in having to admit to a metric ****load of offences being
committed every single CM.

It's a _procession_. With an immensely long history, stretching back to
time immemorial. Or slightly less time than Duhg's been posting on
Usenet. Whichever's shorter.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:53:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:


The videos on your 'magic camera' show **** all you idiot.

It really is a great honour to be idiotted by the Meds.



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

On Apr 21, 7:37*am, Doug wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:45*am, Tony Dragon wrote:



On 20/04/2011 06:01, Doug wrote:

On Apr 19, 7:53 am, *wrote:
*gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

*From my viewpoint the Royal Wedding is an attempt to spoil the day
for ... drivers ... in Central London
That's a good thing, right?
I am attempting to look at things from your own viewpoint
So when you said "from my viewpoint", you actually meant "from what I
perceive your viewpoint to be"?
Have you not blamed CM in the past for interfering with motorists
alleged rights?

For deliberately and provocatively seeking to maximise the interference.

Proof that that is the purpose of the CM procession?

Your videos.

Aren't you one of those who believe videos are not evidence? Are you
now agreeing that when my videos depict drivers ramming cyclists it is
true?

I believe videos *are* evidence. And none of the videos you have ever
posted show what you say they show. I prefer the evidence of a video
over the claims of a lying monomaniacal retard any day of the week,
Gollum.