Four arrested after images of Trump and Epstein projected on to Windsor Castle ahead of president’s visit
-
Subtle, they were not. But that's fucking brilliant!
I'm not posting an excerpt here because it's your typical "officials tout censorship" boilerplate.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Trump's previous visit to London/UK was improved by plenty harsh but legal protest, as will this one.
Whoever did this specific one probably didn't have a permit, and wouldn't have gotten one either because of the king (of the UK!).
Anyhow "arrested on suspicion" in the UK does not evoke the same horror scenarios as it does in the USA. Not saying British law & enforcement are beyond reproach though.
-
I think the arrest is more about offending the king.
edit: oh, you used plural. My bad.
why'd you rephrase rt without changing the meaning?
-
The counter-argument is that people would rather their view of the world heritage site not be affected by people with an axe to grind.
Pretty poor counter argument.
"Justice for the abused" Vs "Oooh! Pretty building"
-
Getting arrested for projecting a photo of two pedophiles. That's definitely freedom of speech right there
There is no right to freedom of speech in the UK.....
-
There is no right to freedom of speech in the UK.....
I thought you must be wrong but it seems there really is no explicit law about it and current freedom of expression laws have been introduced by the EU in 1998.
-
I thought you must be wrong but it seems there really is no explicit law about it and current freedom of expression laws have been introduced by the EU in 1998.
Yep but are still applicable to the UK. As those laws have not (yet) been recinded.
Unlike the US. Parliament is entirely sovereign and has no legal limit on laws it can create. But we do have a history of supporting freedom of speech way older then 1998.
-
Subtle, they were not. But that's fucking brilliant!
I'm not posting an excerpt here because it's your typical "officials tout censorship" boilerplate.
Is this legally terrorism in the UK as well?
-
Is this legally terrorism in the UK as well?
No. They claimed it was malicious communication. iE sent to offend or threaten.
Utter bollocks and a clear sign the police see censorship on behalf of the gov as a job role now.
-
Trump's previous visit to London/UK was improved by plenty harsh but legal protest, as will this one.
Whoever did this specific one probably didn't have a permit, and wouldn't have gotten one either because of the king (of the UK!).
Anyhow "arrested on suspicion" in the UK does not evoke the same horror scenarios as it does in the USA. Not saying British law & enforcement are beyond reproach though.
arrested on suspicion” in the UK does not evoke the same horror
It dose now it is clearly being used as a act to silence political protest.
Suspicious of malicious communication. When it is very clear the intent was to protest gov actions. And not to threaten or offend.
Is entirely about silencing gov opposition and in no way acceptable or democratic.
-
The counter-argument is that people would rather their view of the world heritage site not be affected by people with an axe to grind.
It's a projected image, not an engraving, not a painting.
-
Pretty poor counter argument.
"Justice for the abused" Vs "Oooh! Pretty building"
Now transpose this to a local land dispute, or personal rivalry, or other. The world is a lot more than Trump, and the law does have to reflect that.
-
Subtle, they were not. But that's fucking brilliant!
I'm not posting an excerpt here because it's your typical "officials tout censorship" boilerplate.
Arrested? I demand they get an O.B.E. !!!
-
Now transpose this to a local land dispute, or personal rivalry, or other. The world is a lot more than Trump, and the law does have to reflect that.
It's a projection. No damage has been done. It just dominates your view for a few minutes.
Even if you disagree with it, it's such a mild form of protest to take exception to. Just let people express themselves.
-
I thought you must be wrong but it seems there really is no explicit law about it and current freedom of expression laws have been introduced by the EU in 1998.
IIRC, There's also no right to protect yourself from self incrimination in the UK. They can literally keep you imprisoned indefinitely until you talk to the cops.
-
No. They claimed it was malicious communication. iE sent to offend or threaten.
Utter bollocks and a clear sign the police see censorship on behalf of the gov as a job role now.
Understanding that the right wing extremist government in the United States is attempting to squash free speech but it makes less sense that the Labour government of the UK would do its bidding. Have they tried putting a Human Rights lawyer in charge?
-
Subtle, they were not. But that's fucking brilliant!
I'm not posting an excerpt here because it's your typical "officials tout censorship" boilerplate.
"We’re constantly told, you know, we need to see peaceful protests. Well, here’s a peaceful protest … We projected a piece of journalism on to a wall and now people have been arrested for malicious communications."
If the people do peaceful protests to not get arrested, and they get arrested anyway, there's no longer an incentive to continue protesting peacefully.
-
"We’re constantly told, you know, we need to see peaceful protests. Well, here’s a peaceful protest … We projected a piece of journalism on to a wall and now people have been arrested for malicious communications."
If the people do peaceful protests to not get arrested, and they get arrested anyway, there's no longer an incentive to continue protesting peacefully.
With how things go these days, who's to say that's not exactly what they want as pretext for martial law?
