Monday, 20 April 2009

Do Different Laws Apply?

Spot the difference!

A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said the demonstration had been granted permission retrospectively after five days of illegal protest. She said: "The reason we allowed the demonstration was because it has been so peaceful. Dispersing the crowd would have been an inappropriate use of force."

Video footage and photographs showed Mr Tomlinson, who was not a protester, being harassed by police dogs, struck by a masked officer and shoved to the ground minutes before he collapsed and died on April 1.

Is it because they are black?

The Penguin


Sue said...


Umbongo said...

Not necessarily: it's because the Met and Jacqui (in their profound ignorance) believe that Tamils are Muslim. They are not - the overwhelming majority are Hindu. However, I can understand why the Met might have been mistaken. The Tamil Tigers are the inventors of suicide bombing.

Had the religious background been appreciated by the Met, rest assured this lot would have been cleared out sharpish. The Met have (mistakenly) followed Rule 1 of "Modern policing for a modern London" (Ed I Blair - 10th edition - 2006) which is "Don't upset the Moslems".

AngryDave said...

Undoubtably YES!
If those protesters were smashing everything up they would still be allowed to do what ever they like. But if they were white and of working age and without a criminal record it would be shields and batons.

Odin's Raven said...

YES,of course it is! Only white people can be beaten and harassed in their own country.Blacks can break laws with impunity.Imagine how much 'compensation' would be paid if a black was inconvenienced.

Tom Winter said...

Well said. Just simply replay in your head the girl getting slapped, then whacked with the baton or Tomlinson being pushed over and imagine that they are ethnic Black or Asian. Image the press reaction not to mention how quickly Gordon the rest of them would queueing up to condemn what had happened.

microdave said...

They allowed the demonstration because it was so peaceful? How did they know in advance what it was going to be like? And why couldn't they have just monitored the G20 protests in the same way?

I liked this quote “I’ve just spoken to a police officer, he said there’s no police officer out there who will take action because he’s fearful the television cameras will be on him and if he shows anything other than a ’softly softly’ approach, he will find himself in court."