Jump to content
Coronavirus topics renamed and some locked. No new topics. ×
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Mr Newbie

Chief Constable tries selective hearing

Recommended Posts

On 6/13/2020 at 8:05 AM, Derek Flint said:

Thanks for the debate. It’s been an interesting litmus of how much latitude people will give cops. My view remains these actions were a serious breach of public trust at a time when serious restrictions were being placed on the public to deal with a health emergency.

I would still like to understand the thinking of the CC in not just supporting, but assisting, the BLM march last week.  Yes, it is a right to protest, but under a state of emergency and when it was clear that these demonstrations can be hijacked by less than savoury factions? 

Fortunately, it all passed peaceably, perhaps with the exception of the unknown graffiti, but it may not have done and no one knew that would definitely be the case.  I am sure the organisers would not have intended for any violence and would have been quite clear that that was not the object, but who could know the intent of everyone attending?  

I still don't understand how it was a permissible gathering even with all the social distancing and PPE.  Even now, with social distancing coming to an end tomorrow, we are limited to 10 people outside for a social gathering, 30 from tomorrow. 

The CM said it was an operational matter for the police, does that allow the police to decide which law they do or do not enforce? 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gladys said:

I would still like to understand the thinking of the CC in not just supporting, but assisting, the BLM march last week. 

 

Because it was the easiest, and therefore most sensible thing to do. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

The easiest thing to do was not allow it.

Right. And then everyone turns up anyway. What happens next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that is obviously not the EASIEST thing to have done then is it? 

Allowing it to go ahead and working with the organisers to help it be as well managed and as peaceful as it was has probably done the police the world of good in the eyes of those mostly young people who attended. Banning it and then attempting mass arrests of those who turned up anyway would have been a total disaster, and would have moved the peaceful protest from BLM to Fuck The Police.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The CM said it was an operational matter for the police, does that allow the police to decide which law they do or do not enforce? 

That's always been the case where public order offences are concerned, because those offences are themselves dependent on the situation and how it changes.  The only way you could have prevented people gathering anyway (quite legally in groups of 10) would have been to close down all of central Douglas for the day and ban anyone from coming in.  I suspect this would not have been popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

So that is obviously not the EASIEST thing to have done then is it? 

Allowing it to go ahead and working with the organisers to help it be as well managed and as peaceful as it was has probably done the police the world of good in the eyes of those mostly young people who attended. Banning it and then attempting mass arrests of those who turned up anyway would have been a total disaster, and would have moved the peaceful protest from BLM to Fuck The Police.

Or fuck the laws laid down about gatherings and SD as it happened to end up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that once again you are purposefully misreading my point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I think that once again you are purposefully misreading my point.

 

I'm not.   You're basically condoning law breaking if it ends up being the path of least resistance. 

What's even more comical about that is it was something that load of bandwagoners with fuck all better to do could have done another time.  When they wouldn't be breaking the law.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

I'm not.   You're basically condoning law breaking if it ends up being the path of least resistance. 

 

You very clearly are, its not anything to do with me condoning anything. I'm not arguing about the legalities of the protest, that is a different question. Read what it was that Gladys was asking. I was simply trying to give an an answer as to why the CC would have gone along with it, which is because it was the easiest thing to do, which is totally obvious. Its really simple. Banning it, causing the usual online OUTRAGE(sigh, people are twats), would have made things more difficult. Its obvious, yet here you are once again getting the wrong end of the stick and then attempting to argue based on a false premise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

You very clearly are, its not anything to do with me condoning anything. I'm not arguing about the legalities of the protest, that is a different question. Read what it was that Gladys was asking. I was simply trying to give an an answer as to why the CC would have gone along with it, which is because it was the easiest thing to do, which is totally obvious. Its really simple. Banning it, causing the usual online OUTRAGE(sigh, people are twats), would have made things more difficult. Its obvious, yet here you are once again getting the wrong end of the stick and then attempting to argue based on a false premise. 

So you disagree with the CC decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest, and IMHO correct, thing to do was to say the march was against the emergency regulations, ask that it did not proceed and to say that if it did it would be policed.  It was not correct to support it. 

Frankly, I am appalled by the decision.  I have posted before, but my 87 year old  Mum is in a nursing home and I have not seen her in a meaningful way for almost 3 months.  My last words to her were "We can't visit after today and I don't know how long it will be till we can, but we love you".

The home has been very good in coming up with ways to help the residents not feel abandoned by their family, but do they really understand?  I am not sure and my (most likely same as any of the other relatives) biggest fear is that one night she will go to sleep and just simply not wake up without having seen us for months, effectively alone. Yet, this march could proceed contrary to the regulations.  For many people who have abided by the rules and who have made real personal sacrifices, it is just a slap in the face .  But, hey, the zeitgeist of the moment justifies it. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turning it down and then policing it anyway would have been too difficult. Imagine if they'd said it cant go ahead and 1000 people turned up anyway. That's what I mean about taking the easy route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...