Glaucus said:
@Fluffy,
I think it's interesting that you spent so much time analyzing this under cover cop conspiracy theory you missed the real conspiracy. I was expecting you to post this yesterday, but I'll do it for you:
"real conspiracy"? Or just another one?
I had heard that the "law" was passed in a hurry and was not to be published until after the summit (sort of secret law) but, no, I hadn't heard that the law didn't say what the police said it did (except on Alex Jones' site and that's not generally a good place to point people at). For the police to exploit the confusion? I'm not really surprised. Part of the job of policing is to make the subject voluntarily waive their rights. Confusion and deception are part of the job. Ever have a cop pull you over then ask you why he did it? He isn't just making chit chat or being condescending (well, he is, but that's not why he asks). He is trying to illicit a confession.
As to how many people were arrested due to this practice, it will be interesting to see the court cases. It is also moot to a certain extent because I'm sure most people don't wish to go through the hassle of a court case to test a law and tend to comply with unlawful orders which means, effectively, that the police can tell you to do just whatever the hell they like just as they currently do already.
Yes, I agree that it is an important story, but I felt that the black bloc would have more traction though.
Now that I've mentioned Alex Jones, though
I might as well link to one page that includes the "not a law" story and also a story about Charlie Veitch of "The Love Police" (a satirical act) who was arrested for failing to produce identification, was processed and released the
arrested while boarding a plane and charged with impersonating a police officer.
Clearly they couldn't charge him under the bogus law that didn't exist but they used that bogus law to leverage another reason to hold him, a reason which it seems they took quite a while to think about before settling on something they thought they could charge him with. This is clearly harassment of a guy with an opinion who won't just shut up about it. It is clearly bogus but he nonetheless needs to defend himself against this charge. This is how freedom of speech works. You can have it in theory but you have to be willing to have all of your speaking time chewed up by pointless and expensive procedures - unless you are a large multinational company.
Now, back to the policing and black bloc. How come the police security couldn't put a stop to a black bloc rampage of a hundred or so people (couldn't even respond to one) that was occurring away away from the peaceful protests but then used that (after the rampaging had stopped and the news cameras had time to film and broadcast the burning police car) as an excuse to force non-violent peaceful protesters out of the locations that they had permission to be in, corral them into side streets, block the exits and mass arrest them in cases? That was not just and has nothing to do with security. It is about discouraging future protests - and the black bloc rampaging in a separate place is the casus bellli.
And now another wave of police BS comes on the heels of the event as they try to justify the clamp down. In a bald faced PR spectacle they
show a fearsome array of confiscated weaponry. Turns out that a bunch of it has no relation to the protests. Photo-op? Mis-information (also called lies, but that is impolite).
This whole affair has been a cesspit of hubris and calumny from start to end.
