It’s a pity the police don’t act equitably with those representing the religion of peace and those of other faiths then. One police officer went on record after being challenged taking down posters relating to Israeli hostages by saying: “there’s more of them than there are of us”. So mate, you can’t say that different factions are policed equally.
I’m all for the right to protest but when a protest which is essentially religious in nature is deliberately planned to coincide with a long-standing and sensitive national event, then it should be banned because the police MUST know that if it goes ahead, violence is likely to occur.
It’s very little to do with the ‘right-wing press’ inciting people. It’s the straw that broke the camels back. Unfettered and undocumented illegal immigration, those same immigrants who are accommodated within communities and bring fear and intimidation to local residents, two-tier policing, cancel-culture and so on. Is it any wonder that people have had enough of modern-day society?
No, it’s not for the sake of wanting a fight. It’s to show these people that there are some in society who simply will not take any more of their nonsense.
It’s not planned to coincide with a. Long standing national event, it’s planned for Saturday afternoon almost 2 miles away from Whitehall.
No one got their knickers in a twist last year that their were climate protests about COP26 on the 11th November. No one made a fuss in 2021 when the National Front marched past the Cenotaph on the afternoon of Remembrance Sunday (which I’m led to belief is an annual thing, but I was only there in 2021 so can’t say for certain).
Saturday is the 11th November. The day the guns fell silent and it has just as much meaning as Remembrance Sunday.
Climate. Yeah, another fantasy. Those guys should go and protest in China and the USA considering they’re the biggest polluters on the planet. For the record, I’m no fan of the NF and I have my own opinions about them.
On that logic shut all the pubs, cancel Lord Mayors show etc etc
Protesting against war on Armistice Day long after the organised events have finished at a different location should not be an issue. If it was a pro-Ukrainian demo no one would be batting an eye about it.
This planet has undergone several changes to it’s climate over millions of years, many of them before man even set foot on the Earth. If the experts are to be believed, it’s a naturally occuring event. I don’t doubt it’s being brought that little bit closer by major polluters but the UK contributes something like 0.01% emissions, so why protest about that and demand we change what we do. America, India and China won’t.
This point of view is exactly what Hamas rely on people like you you voicing, though. It’s why they (if you Believe the IDF) use civilian infrastructure to fight from, and why they are refusing to let civilians evacuate.
They are able to effectively weapons civilian deaths in a way that large states rarely do. Bluntly, 10 dead Palestinian children is a PR and diplomatic win for Hamas, and does more for their cause than an equivalent number of fighters ever could. It’s horrific, yes, but it’s seemingly working.
Israel has taken more steps to prevent casualties during this last month, than we did during Herrick and Telic. Did we ever warn ordinary Afghans that we would be attacking a suspected bomb makers compound before carrying out the raid?
What’s absolutely mad, when you think about it, is that the press and home secretary are trying to convince people that people marching to remember the horrors of war, and people marching to advocate for a ceasefire are on opposite sides?
The experts, when it comes to climate science, are the overwhelming majority of the scientific community who agree that the changes we’re seeing to the world’s climate are caused by human activities. It is not a ‘naturally occuring event’.
A fun factoid I heard a few years ago, although I’ve not been able to confirm its accuracy, is that the scientific consensus on climate change being anthropomorphic is greater than the scientific consensus on smoking causing cancer.
Yet one of those facts is readily accepted by almost everyone, and the other is challenged by a highly vocal minority.