Sickening attack on free speech, Veitch's arrest caught on camera Watch

IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#61
Report 7 years ago
#61
(Original post by Steevee)
Well then, if you get rid of the laws that already infringe freedom of speech, the I will happily remove my idea. Sadly I doubt such a thing will happen. In which case, seeing as my righs are already infringed to save someone else offence, would claim the same right. My issue is with the double standards when it comes to freedom of speech.
I suppose I would agree then. The difference is that I want it to change based on what I believe to be "right". Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem content in going along with whatever the system does. Which I don't think is always morally justifiable.

(Original post by Manitude)
I would imagine that the police officer in question has little choice but to trust that his superiors are making the 'right' decisions. The police officers do not have the full facts at their disposal (and neither do I, hence why I'm trying to remain as neutral as possible) so they shouldn't be forced to make a decision about whether what they're doing is right or wrong. They just have to trust that it is right and get on with it.
Which sounds awfully like slavery. Being forced (due to ignorance or fear of job loss) to do something they aren’t sure is “right”.

(Original post by Manitude)
For all they know he could have been telling people to rise up in arms against an oppressive regime over his megaphone.
I don't know what he was saying or the exact context that the comments were made (which can make all the difference) so I really can't make a judgement.
Further, I don't remember what the allegations against him were, and I certainly don't know how those allegations are defined by law.
Without a full, unbiased, knowledge of the circumstances leading up to the arrest warrant I can't decide if it was right or wrong according to my morals. And if I were to decide that it was right or wrong I really don't think my opinion on it matters at all, so there's really not too much point in bothering to read through all the evidence.
Spoiler:
Show
And that's probably the most eloquent way of saying "I'm too lazy, cba" you'll ever read!
You can never be fully objective in such matters and it seemed pretty clear the motives where political. So I guess I’m questioning the whole idea of blindly following orders. Even if their arrest was legitimate there is a strong chance they will have to do something they disagree with.

I will just carry on ranting about the police.
0
reply
HomeoApathy92
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#62
Report 7 years ago
#62
(Original post by JCC-MGS)
At least Kropotkin had some integrity, I think Veitch's girlfriend sums up the Love Police. "Ummmm well I studied politics at Cambridge actually". I think it's doubtful Veitch has ever even had an extended conversation with a working class person outside of them being somebody he criticises like police. Like you said, he is just a radical fashionista.
lol aww bless Silkie's little heart.. she just run about and he just orders her to do stuff 'Silkie make sure you get this on film!' When has he criticised the working class? lool i doubt any of these trendy lefties have contacted a real working class person they just expect them to fight for them whilst they direct. i'm looking at his blog now, its a bit.. hippy-ish
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#63
Report 7 years ago
#63
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
I suppose I would agree then. The difference is that I want it to change based on what I believe to be "right". Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem content in going along with whatever the system does. Which I don't think is always morally justifiable.

Aha. Well, I don't think protesting at a funeral or rememberance service is morally justefiable to be honest. And what I'd rather do is work inside a system tha generally conforms to what I want out of it. If some people have the right to not be offended, then I want that right. If however, we have true freedom of speech (which I'd prefer) then I would defend everyone's right to say whatever they want whenever.
0
reply
flugelr
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#64
Report 7 years ago
#64
It quite clearly wasn't a political purge. If it was don't you think all of the top brass of 'Republic' would have been arrested?

The guy obviously has a history (the police talked about the Trade Union Marches) and they must have been worried he would actually cause damage or something.
0
reply
Manitude
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#65
Report 7 years ago
#65
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)

Which sounds awfully like slavery. Being forced (due to ignorance or fear of job loss) to do something they aren’t sure is “right”.


You can never be fully objective in such matters and it seemed pretty clear the motives where political. So I guess I’m questioning the whole idea of blindly following orders. Even if their arrest was legitimate there is a strong chance they will have to do something they disagree with.

I will just carry on ranting about the police.
I would say that trusting the information given to you is correct so you can do your job and slavery are pretty different.

Put it into perspective - I'm a scientist (in training) and so I have to trust that the peer reviewed work which is explained to me in lectures or read in books is correct. When I try to explain these things to the lay person I need to be sure that what I'm doing is morally right (i.e. deceiving them by telling them something which is untrue but passing it as the truth) and to do that I have to trust other people with knowledge because I have no personally collected and interpreted data and reached conclusions.
It's a similar principle, although as analogies go it's not brilliant I accept. I'm not being ordered to explain science, although I feel compelled to do so sometimes. My point is that I'm NOT a slave to science for trusting it.

You can rant all you like. I can't promise that I'll agree/comment/read it though.
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#66
Report 7 years ago
#66
(Original post by texico11)
I believe that maybe it was fair that she wanted to discuss with the police about the system; she has a right to do that, they have a right to answer or not. What annoyed me was the way this whole thing is played out. Her sweeping statements of "this is a political arrest"; can she be certain of that? Does she have proof (such as a voice recording or written evidence) that within the system somebody has claimed to deliberately be targeting him for political reasons? She says many times in the video that "I know he didn't"; again, plenty of people claim to "know" others. Has she been with him at every single moment over the last few months or so? Only he knows if he broke, or was intending to break, the law, so enough with those stupid statements as if she's really 100% aware about what's going on.

This whole thing has a delicate veil of "politeness" and harmony hovering over it to try and make it appear as if these activists are peaceful and innocent (and maybe they are) in an attempt to buy sympathy from people who will watch the video, but in actual fact is quite confrontational without overstepping that mark; most people might not even notice it. Even from the very beginning they make it more difficult than it needs to be and put the officers in what they can tell is an uncomfortable position for them on a video camera, and yet go on to try and claim that their feud is not with these officers but with the wider system; if they respected the officers they would have put the camera away, but no. They instead chose to safely probe the boundaries of what is legal and what they know the officers can't do anything about, and what nobody will take issue with because "it's legal." Yes it's legal, but I can see throughout this whole video that these activists are being subtly hostile.


I found this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qwR2...eature=related I'm really not surprised then he's getting himself in difficult situations with the police, because anarchism is problematic when it comes to breaches of peace. If he's heavily involving himself in it and encouraging people to dress themselves in unidentifiable clothes and rally in public locations, of course the police are going to take issue with the fact that he's insinuating public disorder, which is an offence. That's that, I don't see how he can claim that he's not doing anything wrong.
I'm sure he would take issue with defining wrong as: 'whatever the law says'. And I'm also sure he would say that being the constant survalence is an attack on his civil liberties and that helping people meet in order to peacefully protest isn't wrong or even against the law.

I would hostile at the thought of being arrested for wanting to protest. Regardless of how nice the people putting me in the police van where.
0
reply
Aout
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#67
Report 7 years ago
#67
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
Which sounds awfully like slavery. Being forced (due to ignorance or fear of job loss) to do something they aren’t sure is “right”.
Nothing would ever get done if each and every arrest was preceded by an in-depth discussion on the exact reasons as to why it is happening.

To think of one analogy, it would be like trusting that cosmetic products have not been tested on animals- if the company says it hasn't, you trust them, as opposed to checking each and every new product you use by calling the company to see.

not the best analogy, but at this time of night, what more can be expected?
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#68
Report 7 years ago
#68
(Original post by Steevee)
Aha. Well, I don't think protesting at a funeral or rememberance service is morally justefiable to be honest. And what I'd rather do is work inside a system tha generally conforms to what I want out of it. If some people have the right to not be offended, then I want that right. If however, we have true freedom of speech (which I'd prefer) then I would defend everyone's right to say whatever they want whenever.
It all comes down to how we define 'morally justifiable'.

(Original post by Manitude)
I would say that trusting the information given to you is correct so you can do your job and slavery are pretty different.

Put it into perspective - I'm a scientist (in training) and so I have to trust that the peer reviewed work which is explained to me in lectures or read in books is correct. When I try to explain these things to the lay person I need to be sure that what I'm doing is morally right (i.e. deceiving them by telling them something which is untrue but passing it as the truth) and to do that I have to trust other people with knowledge because I have no personally collected and interpreted data and reached conclusions.
It's a similar principle, although as analogies go it's not brilliant I accept. I'm not being ordered to explain science, although I feel compelled to do so sometimes. My point is that I'm NOT a slave to science for trusting it.

You can rant all you like. I can't promise that I'll agree/comment/read it though.
There is a huge difference between reading peer reviewed papers and blindly following orders which could potentially lead to murder. Being a scientist is the exact opposite of following orders, you question everything in order to improve on what you know. As a scientist you don't assume a paper is correct, you look at the evidence presented in the paper and if it appears legitimate you use it and inform others. And if you do find something that isn't right you can research and change it.

Science assumes it is wrong, in order to improve. Following orders assumes the 'orderer' is right.
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#69
Report 7 years ago
#69
(Original post by Aout)
Nothing would ever get done if each and every arrest was preceded by an in-depth discussion on the exact reasons as to why it is happening.

To think of one analogy, it would be like trusting that cosmetic products have not been tested on animals- if the company says it hasn't, you trust them, as opposed to checking each and every new product you use by calling the company to see.

not the best analogy, but at this time of night, what more can be expected?
Which is why I don't like the idea of large establishments and governments. People are forced to trust them.

I'd go into more detail but the lines on the screen are moving, so I best be going to bed.
0
reply
mandingo666
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#70
Report 7 years ago
#70
What a bunch of pretentious ****wits, listening to him and his self-righteous girlfriend almost makes me wish they were beaten to a pulp needlessly.
1
reply
tufc
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#71
Report 7 years ago
#71
:yawn

He was planning on trying to put a damper on a day of national pride, it's obvious that it was made with the Royal Wedding in mind, as they arrested him 2 days before the wedding for an offence over a month earlier. End of the day though, what's the massive problem with that?

Yes, we have a right to protest, but did he really need to try and ruin the day with it. Why not do it the day after?

It was a fantastic day, and IMO the right thing was done, one man was prevented from upsetting millions.
0
reply
Jacktri
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#72
Report 7 years ago
#72
Just one of a number of videos on the internet of activists being arrested before the wedding and they have the nerve to criticize dictatorships.
0
reply
IcedTea&PotNoodle
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#73
Report 7 years ago
#73
I've met charlie veitch before, I don't think he means any harm by what he does.
0
reply
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#74
Report 7 years ago
#74
The Freemasons don't like Charlie Veitch. That's a fact. I've seen letters from Freemasons on the internet discussing his conduct. That's probably why he's been arrested by the police on the orders of the top level inspectors (Freemasons).
0
reply
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#75
Report 7 years ago
#75
That bloke always joked about us being like China...

These people really are stupid... If this were like China, they would have burst through the door, smacked and beaten him to the ground whilst dragging him away without any form of judicial process that would be recognisable in the west. The fact is, the guy is under arrest which means there is evidence he broke the law - if he is innocent, nothing will happen.

The couple are absolute idiots to be honest and the policemen were just doing their job.
1
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#76
Report 7 years ago
#76
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
It all comes down to how we define 'morally justifiable'.

Which would then be an inherently flawed system, as morality is subjective and different for everyone. If the Police had a discussion on the ethics of every arrest nothing would ever get done.
0
reply
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#77
Report 7 years ago
#77
This woman is an idiot. "You better be careful you aren't breaking the law here"... oh do shut up.

If your boyfriend is innocent nothing will happen.
0
reply
Thunder and Jazz
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#78
Report 7 years ago
#78
Anarchists are so adorable.
1
reply
scottpilgrim
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#79
Report 7 years ago
#79
That wasn't a sickening attack on free speech, it was a tame arrest of a suspected trouble-maker by a rather courteous policeman.
That woman certainly hasn't made herself any friends, acting like an arrogant **** and attempting to blow the whole thing out of proportion and make out that we're living in some authoritarian police state. They're both the kind of pseudo-intellectuals that really get on my nerves - just looking for something to protest about becuase they want to be like the political heros in the books daddy read to them when they were young.
4
reply
Student2806
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#80
Report 7 years ago
#80
(Original post by scottpilgrim)
That wasn't a sickening attack on free speech, it was a tame arrest of a suspected trouble-maker by a rather courteous policeman.
That woman certainly hasn't made herself any friends, acting like an arrogant **** and attempting to blow the whole thing out of proportion and make out that we're living in some authoritarian police state. They're both the kind of pseudo-intellectuals that really get on my nerves - just looking for something to protest about becuase they want to be like the political heros in the books daddy read to them when they were young.
Love the username :yy:
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (322)
37.44%
No - but I will (67)
7.79%
No - I don't want to (62)
7.21%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (409)
47.56%

Watched Threads

View All