Two-tier? JSO vs Dover protest

[AuroraSaab]

They knew the scale, because the militia assembled took over the village car park, and even the local MP calling 999 was ignored. It is all in the article linked above. Funny how they're never incompetent when it comes to keeping tabs on environmental protesters.

It's not that easy to cordinate hundreds of officers at short notice. I would think groups like Just Stop Oil were already on the Met's radar.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Maybe you are making an assumption about why the Police ignored the warnings. Maybe "incompetence" or maybe a choice to overlook? At this point I've seen nothing to indicate why the Police overlooked the warnings but certainly no evidence to assume any cause.

Are you saying the police decided to 'overlook' the demonstration due to political bias rather than failing to allocate enough resources because of operational incompetence over the expected scale? That seems unlikely.

 

[monkers]

Well there you go then. They might have handled it differently if they'd had an idea of the scale of the protest or looked into the alert further. The supposed 2 tier policing was due to operational incompetence not a deliberate decision.

Not just a reply to you AS as quoted, but a wider reply to the thread.

May I just intervene here a little? Nuance here is critical. Different groups have indeed received differential treatment. There is a gap between what the data presents to reality on the ground for serving police officers.

For example, there was a high number of arrests at JSO protests compared with other groups and certainly that is the case in comparison with cosplaying knights of the realm.

JSO wear hi viz, no costume. They have anticipated, accepted, even welcomed arrest as part of their strategy. Their 'resistance' if you can call it such has been to go 'limp'. This removed any allegation of accessory charges such as 'resisting arrest'. The police are therefore in a position of making arrests at the scene with little amplification of the disruption.

Anti-genocide protesters include in their number, some people who have carried no placards, have worn clothing without messaging, sat alone on the pavement listening, though perhaps occasionally applauding. The police have used lawful powers to remove them, they say. The real argument here is whether the 'terrorism' supplement to sentences represents justice.

The 'knights' wear masks to conceal identity and operate to evade arrest. They commit accessory crimes. which hitherto has not resulted in a similar number of arrests. Police tactics are not to inflame at the scene but to rely on tech for later identity and raids.

Some might like to accuse the police of two tier policing. I advocate a more considerate approach to real world policing conditions.

 

[Psamathe]

Are you saying the police decided to 'overlook' the demonstration due to political bias rather than failing to allocate enough resources because of operational incompetence over the expected scale? That seems unlikely.

I'm not saying anything except best not to make assumptions about the cause. I can't make assumptions as only thing I'm aware of public domain is that they admit to having received the report and not acted on it. Putting it down to "incompetence" is making an assumption about the cause.

 

[farfromtheland]

Eugenics in some form was not an unusual opinion in Victorian times. It was more popular still in the Scandi countries, being actually enacted on the population until the 1970s. There's really no point trying to undermine the achievements of someone born 170 years ago for what were not unusual views in that period. Marie Stopes and Ellen Wilkinson shared similar views, as did many prominent men at the time.

And it was then, and remains now, utterly disgusting.

 

[AuroraSaab]

This thread is full of assumptions about the cause of the inadequate policing.

And it was then, and remains now, utterly disgusting.

Of course, but it wasn't an uncommon view - that the misery of the poor would be improved by limiting the number of children they had, or that the human race would be improved by limiting who could reproduce - just as many other things we now regard as abhorrent were once common views. The inventor of lobotomies won the Nobel Prize. There are going to be things some people promote today that will be regarded with horror in years to come. Using Pankhurst's beliefs on eugenics to undermine her achievements on women's rights is going to be a hard sell, even on here.

 

[monkers]

This thread is full of assumptions about the cause of the inadequate policing.



Of course, but it wasn't an uncommon view - that the misery of the poor would be improved by limiting the number of children they had, or that the human race would be improved by limiting who could reproduce - just as many other things we now regard as abhorrent were once common views. The inventor of lobotomies won the Nobel Prize. There are going to be things some people promote today that will be regarded with horror in years to come. Using Pankhurst's beliefs on eugenics to undermine her achievements on women's rights is going to be a hard sell, even on here.

I took the trouble to say that her promotion of women's rights were ''a just cause''. I even went on to say that she promoted men's universal rights to suffrage. I gave a rounded view of her, and left the interpretation as available to the individual - ''opinions will vary''.

I did have to ask you not to deliberately misinterpret my words. Now you are defending the indefensible (eugenics). You could let the interpretation rest on ''opinions will vary''.

There is nothing impermissible about a rounded view.

 

[monkers]

Eugenics in some form was not an unusual opinion in Victorian times. It was more popular still in the Scandi countries, being actually enacted on the population until the 1970s. There's really no point trying to undermine the achievements of someone born 170 years ago for what were not unusual views in that period. Marie Stopes and Ellen Wilkinson shared similar views, as did many prominent men at the time.

The eugenics programme in Sweden began in 1934 (not Victorian times) until abolition in 2013. However this is incidental to the point being made.

 

[Dorset Boy]

They knew the scale, because the militia assembled took over the village car park, and even the local MP calling 999 was ignored. It is all in the article linked above. Funny how they're never incompetent when it comes to keeping tabs on environmental protesters.

What time was the 999 call made?
A tip off very late on a Friday night in reality means 3 or 4 hours to prepare. At that point did the police have any idea of the scale or the protest from a group that had been well under the radar at that point?
Do explain how the Kent police should have rustled up a few hundred officers in riot gear in a small handfull of hours?

Then they made the decision not to antagonise and risk full scale street fighting when they were under equiped to handle such a situation.

The likes of JSO cause far more widespread disruption, gluing themselves to tubes and trains, the road etc, causing ordinary peole huge problems.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Using Pankhurst's beliefs on eugenics to undermine her achievements on women's rights is going to be a hard sell, even on here.

I think Monker's post was a bit more nuanced than your statement above. She never attempted to "undermine" Pankhurst's achievements, just compared protests over the years.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I took the trouble to say that her promotion of women's rights were ''a just cause''. I even went on to say that she promoted men's universal rights to suffrage. I gave a rounded view of her, and left the interpretation as available to the individual - ''opinions will vary''.

I did have to ask you not to deliberately misinterpret my words. Now you are defending the indefensible (eugenics). You could let the interpretation rest on ''opinions will vary''.

Nowhere have I defended eugenics, quite the opposite. It was however a common view amongst the middle class and intellectuals from the Victorian period onwards, including in those liberal countries that are often much admired.

She didn't promote universal suffrage btw. She campaigned for equal voting rights for women, which wasn't the same. It still came with conditions. This was because many felt universal suffrage was going to be harder to achieve and incremental steps was more attainable approach. Neither that nor her views on eugenics undermine her position as a feminist icon, which is what you have tried to undermine in saying 'opinions may vary'.

 

[monkers]

Nowhere have I defended eugenics, quite the opposite. It was however a common view amongst the middle class and intellectuals from the Victorian period onwards, including in those liberal countries that are often much admired.

She didn't promote universal suffrage btw. She campaigned for equal voting rights for women, which wasn't the same. It still came with conditions. This was because many felt universal suffrage was going to be harder to achieve and incremental steps was more attainable approach. Neither that nor her views on eugenics undermine her position as a feminist icon, which is what you have tried to undermine in saying 'opinions may vary'.

Very well, replace with ''dismissed'' as a valid criticism. She campaigned for women, not so much for men; she was supported by women and some men in the endeavor. The outcome was universal suffrage nonetheless.

It is also true that you have chosen to overlook the bomb making and setting.

 

[AuroraSaab]

What about the men though? What was she doing for them?

Your attempts to undermine Emmeline Pankhurst as a feminist icon are better confined to the gender thread where you can shout into the void to your heart's content.

 

[monkers]

What about the men though? What was she doing for them?

Your attempts to undermine Emmeline Pankhurst as a feminist icon are better confined to the gender thread where you can shout into the void to your heart's content.

She was a Conservative party member, sought to become an MP; she was also a nationalist and supported eugenics. She did not pursue universal suffrage - you've stated that.

However universal suffrage is what the movement achieved - and it is not just 'worthy', it was considerable contribution to the UK having a functioning democracy.

This is not a battle of the sexes, and we are talking about a time before WW2, the UDHR, the ECHR, ECC membership, the EU, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Human Rights Act, the Gender Recognition Act, the Equality Act, and much else.

This was never a battle of the sexes, it was class war and remains so today. What is changing is that we are undermined not by a traditional British patriarchy, and not 'old money', but by international 'elites' with new big money.

All you seem to see are gender wars and non-existent two tier policing - both of them live within right wing conspiracy theories manifesting as ideologies counter to national interests.

 

[AndyRM]

What about the men though? What was she doing for them?

Your attempts to undermine Emmeline Pankhurst as a feminist icon are better confined to the gender thread where you can shout into the void to your heart's content.

Ooooh, that one's been dead for a while! Just had a look, and the most recent posts concerned a swimming pool doing what people wanted and Glinner getting some money.

Quality stuff.

Most activists have to be ar*eholes in one way or another to further their aims, and I don't think it's unreasonable to point out Pankhurst's approach (icon or not, which she certainly is, but isn't immune to scrutiny) was not without controversy.

Edited to change swearing.