- This topic has 23 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
To be fair Paul:
If some people choose what laws to accept and what laws to ignore (in the original post on this thread)…
It gives licence for others to do the same.Value Is EverythingSadly, despite the vast majority of Scots and Glaswegians welcoming diversity and being prepared to challenge injustice and inhumanity, even when served up under the guise of ‘the law’, the cancer that is sectarianism that exists in the west of Scotland still claws tenaciously on.
Not enough is done by those who can influence it including, most notably, the powers that be at the football club whose ‘supporters’ were at the centre of the despicable scenes in the footage highlighted by Paul Ostermeyer and those in charge of policing who must have foreseen the way yesterday’s events were likely to play out (everyone else did) but allowed it to go ahead unchallenged, putting lives, including those of their own ranks, in danger as a result.
After the pride generated by the earlier event this was a shameful episode.Not whataboutery at all – both are examples of illegal gatherings and anarchic lawlessness – both are as bad in their own way and, ultimately the only difference between the two is how they were policed.
Is it not hypocritical for individuals to condemn one of the gatherings and not the other because one happens to coincide with their own beliefs and the other goes against their beliefs?
Should both not be condemned equally for being lawless?
Indeed I think Police Scotland have more questions to answer regarding their handling of the immigration event than the football event.
Why did the Superintendent in charge of the former bottle it and order the release of the detainees?
Did he actually have the authority to authorise their release?
Why was the man who obstructed the Home Office van not arrested …. he was surrounded by officers most of the day?
Was there any political pressure put on Police Scotland over their handling of the protest, after all Sturgeon was quick to politically point score against the UK Government over a matter which is not devolved.
As far as I am concerned both events were lawless, anarchic gatherings – the big difference is the inconsistency in how they were policed.
Of course a person will have sympathy with a situation when it aligns with their own beliefs. Nothing hypocritical about that, that is human and one of the reasons we move forward as a civilisation, people standing, often against ‘authority’ for what they believe.
The police superintendent at Kenmure Street was dealing with a peaceful protest and took the action he did after lengthy consultation. And yes, he was acting in what he viewed as the interests of public safety so has far-reaching powers in such a situation.
To simplify the two, unconnected, events in terms of ‘the only difference between the two is the way they were policed’ belies a wholly naive understanding of either situation and the complex backgrounds to both.
People can “have sympathy” great sympathy without taking the law in to their own hands and / or condoning lawlessness. You might call it a “peaceful protest”, the police must have thought there was a very clear danger of it escalating in to a violent protest. Otherwise there is no justification to the police letting the men go.
Value Is EverythingThe police superintendent at Kenmure Street was dealing with a peaceful protest
Peaceful protest? They were obstructing justice!! It was mob rule.
The “causes” behind the gatherings may be different but, at the end of the day both were illegal gatherings and both policed politically.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.