News Police to blind protesters with lasers!

[soze]

Water Cannon has never been used on the mainland - same for rubber bullets. The laser gives them a new capability - to blind people at half a kilometre - not sure how appropriate that is for urban riots though?

I have no idea but what i was getting at is we need to know in what situations they would be unleashed and what they will be replacing to find out how much more dangerous they are. If they plan to use them as a deterrent to using certain side roads it would save a line of officers ect.

 

[fettoken]

According to auntie an "unnamed" UK police force is going to trial a laser gun that will temporarily blind protesters.

Nice that it's not on the normal beeb but it's on newsbeat - so the y00f can become scared.


Expect protesters to start carrying fuckloads of laser pens to shine in police eyes and at the helicopter pilots in response

Why shouldn't they. The protesters i mean. Have equal rights in my perspective. But also, why can't protesters see the futility of protesting. Try doing something actually.

Bunch of idiots all of them.

 

[Scouse]

That's my point in a nut shell in a way, you're identified as a protester, but it would mean people in future demonstrations wouldn't get put down by just being a bunch of thugs out to cause trouble which they currently are.

How, idiotboy? As I already pointed out (and you've ignored) - it would require people to voluntarily identify themselves to the police - which they won't do.

So, again, HOW?

Do you not yet realise how ridiculous your suggestion is?

But also, why can't protesters see the futility of protesting. Try doing something actually.

Now we're getting somewhere. Peaceful protest doesn't actually achieve anything. Only violent protest does.

 

[Chilly]

How, idiotboy? As I already pointed out (and you've ignored) - it would require people to voluntarily identify themselves to the police - which they won't do.

So, again, HOW?

Do you not yet realise how ridiculous your suggestion is?





Now we're getting somewhere. Peaceful protest doesn't actually achieve anything. Only violent protest does.

And violent protest (if it's not violent enough) normally achieves exactly the opposite of what it's aim is. You have to start killing politicians and burning down buildings to really get shit done but no one ever does that because we're all too nice. (btw, hi MI5, I'm not actually advocating killing anyone)

 

[rynnor]

The only protests that work are mass general strikes and huge crowds wanting regime change - the only real reason to demonstrate is to change government.

 

[soze]

How, idiotboy? As I already pointed out (and you've ignored) - it would require people to voluntarily identify themselves to the police - which they won't do.

So, again, HOW?

Do you not yet realise how ridiculous your suggestion is?

If the police asked all peaceful protesters to register and wear and armband then there is a possibility that anyone not wishing to register could be up to no good. This would work for all the peaceful protesters bar the big brother types.

 

[DaGaffer]

If the police asked all peaceful protesters to register and wear and armband then there is a possibility that anyone not wishing to register could be up to no good. This would work for all the peaceful protesters bar the big brother types.

So everyone wears an armband and the first time they go on a protest the police round them up and kettle them for 8 hours. What do you think will happen the next time they go on a protest?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

They might downgrade tactics and employ a teapot instead? If you behave well they might even give you a tea cosy for extra warmth.

 

[Himse]

How, idiotboy? As I already pointed out (and you've ignored) - it would require people to voluntarily identify themselves to the police - which they won't do.

So, again, HOW?

Do you not yet realise how ridiculous your suggestion is?





Now we're getting somewhere. Peaceful protest doesn't actually achieve anything. Only violent protest does.

Why should they not identify themselves? Because they're all out to cause trouble when they could go to work/university and do something with their lives? Rather than stand on the street smashing shit up?

There's nothing wrong with protesting, just don't see why they have to be violent. If you don't get some sort of armband, you aren't allowed to protest, it'd be easier to cull the people who cause damage to property, start fires and other dumb shit.

 

[old.Osy]

Why should they not identify themselves? Because they're all out to cause trouble when they could go to work/university and do something with their lives? Rather than stand on the street smashing shit up?

There's nothing wrong with protesting, just don't see why they have to be violent. If you don't get some sort of armband, you aren't allowed to protest, it'd be easier to cull the people who cause damage to property, start fires and other dumb shit.

You seem to be living in an alternate universe mate. Sorry to say, but your understanding of the surrounding world is sub-par.

 

[Himse]

You seem to be living in an alternate universe mate. Sorry to say, but your understanding of the surrounding world is sub-par.

How? It's a suggestion, rather than shooting lazers into peoples eyes.

Also, why is my understanding sub-par?

 

[Tom]

Because protesting is a common law right. You don't ask permission to exercise common law rights.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So everyone wears an armband and the first time they go on a protest the police round them up and kettle them for 8 hours.

Call them black for protesting? Or for having pot?

This kettling is a new term

 

[Scouse]

If the police asked all peaceful protesters to register and wear and armband then there is a possibility that anyone not wishing to register could be up to no good. This would work for all the peaceful protesters bar the big brother types.

/sigh

Two obvious things: 1) would the violent ones not sign up then? 2) "bar the big-brother types"? i.e. 99% of protesters?

Why should they not identify themselves? Because they're all out to cause trouble when they could go to work/university and do something with their lives? Rather than stand on the street smashing shit up?

There's nothing wrong with protesting, just don't see why they have to be violent. If you don't get some sort of armband, you aren't allowed to protest, it'd be easier to cull the people who cause damage to property, start fires and other dumb shit.

This is so retarded.

Lets look at it. So, the "violent" protesters won't be allowed to protest without their armbands? (We'll ignore the obvious - how and who would stop them?). Well, perhaps they'd just say they were going to be peaceful, get their armbands and then *gasp!* act in a different way, and be violent anyway. You know - a lie!

Really Himse. I wonder how your brain manages to coordinate your intercostal muscles to enable you to breathe sometimes.


To be honest, this is the crux of your problem:

Why should they not identify themselves?

or, to fix it:

Mwaaaaaah! I think everyone should act in a certain manner and refuse to accept that they won't! Mwaaaaaah!

I.E:

You seem to be living in an alternate universe mate. Sorry to say, but your understanding of the surrounding world is sub-par.

This.

Also, why is my understanding sub-par?

I'd go further than sub-par. I'm sorry, but I'd say sub-normal.

The flaws in your argument are so obvious, and your intransigence so infuriating, that I'm finding it hard to believe you're all there.

It's exactly the sort of shit that Karl Pilkington would come up with

 

[soze]

/sigh

Two obvious things: 1) would the violent ones not sign up then? 2) "bar the big-brother types"? i.e. 99% of protesters?

If the violent ones had to sign up as long as it was not a case of "sign any name and take an arm band" it would make tracking people down easier. I never said it was perfect but registering has positives as well as negatives. On point two I suppose you are right though the people who think handing over any information to the government is like giving away part of your soul will never register so will have a protest about not being able to protest!

 

[old.Tohtori]

And they used to say i derail threads

 

[rynnor]

And they used to say i derail threads

With good reason but now you are fully rehabilitated

 

[Himse]

/sigh

Two obvious things: 1) would the violent ones not sign up then? 2) "bar the big-brother types"? i.e. 99% of protesters?



This is so retarded.

Lets look at it. So, the "violent" protesters won't be allowed to protest without their armbands? (We'll ignore the obvious - how and who would stop them?). Well, perhaps they'd just say they were going to be peaceful, get their armbands and then *gasp!* act in a different way, and be violent anyway. You know - a lie!

Really Himse. I wonder how your brain manages to coordinate your intercostal muscles to enable you to breathe sometimes.


To be honest, this is the crux of your problem:



or, to fix it:



I.E:


This.




I'd go further than sub-par. I'm sorry, but I'd say sub-normal.

The flaws in your argument are so obvious, and your intransigence so infuriating, that I'm finding it hard to believe you're all there.

It's exactly the sort of shit that Karl Pilkington would come up with

Wow dude, nice one.

Honestly, it's hard to get into your skull about trying to make a change to benefit the spastics like you that go out and waste time and money protesting when nothing will change. You're pissing me off now because you're picking at everything I even type. The idea of the 'armband' or whatever would be to separate the violent offenders and thugs from the people actually there who want to voice and opinion. Why is that so difficult to understand? If they wanted to make a change rather than cause trouble they wouldn't care about letting their names be known by the Government.

Why is that so hard to understand? If they are known who they are they are less likely to be violent. Also, it's much easier to tell who the thugs are and who aren't, it'd use up alot less police resources, saving money for a start. You couldn't 'stop them' but it'd be easier to perhaps move them on, or even if they start up arrest them, rather than wading through thousands of people trying to pick them out.

Do you not read or even try and think of a reasonable solution? You can sit here and slate my idea all you want, but I don't see you coming up with the goods.

Also, fuck you for getting insulting.

 

[Himse]

If the violent ones had to sign up as long as it was not a case of "sign any name and take an arm band" it would make tracking people down easier. I never said it was perfect but registering has positives as well as negatives. On point two I suppose you are right though the people who think handing over any information to the government is like giving away part of your soul will never register so will have a protest about not being able to protest!

They already have most of your information anyway! Signing your names over isn't a big deal, they already have your address, how many people are in your house, what you like to eat at lunch times at work. /sarcasm off.

But i'm glad somebody is thinking outside of a box rather than just insulting me instead.

 

[megadave]

 

[megadave]

Also, signing up to protest. What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[Himse]

Also, signing up to protest. What the fuck are you talking about?

Why is it a big deal? You have to inform the council/police your cause is protesting anyway?

Why should you not have to just give your name?

 

[megadave]

It just wouldn't work

 

[Himse]

The only reason is people wouldn't want to be 'big brothered' or whatever.

The fact is they know everything about you anyway, if you believe in what you're protesting about why wouldn't you sign up, rather than just going there to cause a problem..?

 

[rynnor]

The fact is they know everything about you anyway, if you believe in what you're protesting about why wouldn't you sign up, rather than just going there to cause a problem..?

Clearly they dont or all the rioters would have been nicked by now. Whenever you make this kind of suggestion you need to consider an egypt type situation where people are seeking regime change - do you think giving your name and address is a good idea in such a situation?

 

[Scouse]

And they used to say i derail threads

Well, it is my thread

The idea of the 'armband' or whatever would be to separate the violent offenders and thugs from the people actually there who want to voice and opinion. Why is that so difficult to understand?

I understand you Himse. The problem I'm having (and my last few posts have been trying to get you to see this) - is, as megadave said, "it just won't work".

I've started to insult you because no matter what I've tried you've not actually sat down and thought about it. Not really - otherwise you'd have come to the conclusion that your idea was, being kind, a bit daft.

/python ON

"Excuse me Sir, can I register to protest"
"Yes. Are you peaceful or do you intend to be violent"
"Oh, I'm violent me. I'm a right bad-un. You'd lock me up if you knew what I'm about to get up to"
"Right then" /bosh /clinkers
"Damnit. If only I'd registered as peaceful. What a silly twat!"

/python OFF

As for offering a "solution" - it depends what you want a solution for. I don't think there's much of a problem with protesters in general. I see stark and deeply disturbing problems with the police and policing...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well, it is my thread

Fair point sir, fair point

 

[old.Osy]

Himse is the guy that forwards spam mail.

 

[Himse]

Himse is the guy that forwards spam mail.

Like this and you will be laid at midnight NO JOKES.

 

[Scouse]

Like this and you will be laid at midnight NO JOKES.

You bet your ass I'm liking it. My g/f's 200 miles away at the moment so if it means I'm getting laid in 31 minutes I'm hitting the button...


...my only worry is that the only other person in the house is my mum