Presumably the 2011 riots: a college student with no criminal record was jailed for six months for stealing a £3.50 case of bottled water [0]

Or perhaps our current Home Sec in 2014 declaring "Rioters face years in prison as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper promises ‘swift justice’" [1]

[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8695988/London...

[1] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/riots-prison-justice-l...

It's all part of making effective protesting illegal. You can justify each little step as you clutch your pearls (even me, to an extent if I don't think of the bigger picture), but then when you realise that the sum of all that is permitted is standing alone creating no disturbance for anyone, effecting no change, and you realise effective protesting is banned.

▲

Nursie 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Those riots in 2011 were not protest in any meaningful way. I was in London at the time, it was a bunch of people stealing shit and setting fires because they thought they could. What was shocking was how hands-off the police were when they routinely kettle and arrest peaceful protestors. When confronted with people who were actually looting and burning stuff down, they were nowhere to be seen.

And the second article is about people setting fire to cars and buildings.

This is not “effective protest”, it’s criminal damage and arson and would be prosecuted as such in any western nation.

Are you seriously arguing you should be able to get away with setting fire to a community library because you reckon you’ve got a legit grievance?

Yeah nah, no thanks.

▲

gib444 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

I neither argued that the 2011 riots were protest nor that setting fire to a community library is justified.

Are there any strawmen left or did you buy them all? Jesus

"Are you seriously arguing...?" style of discussion belongs to Reddit, not here.

Though it's clear that you are part of the pearl-clutching group that wants any protest banned and would support any law and any new law dreamt up by a Home Sec, so thanks for doing your bit. No doubt you believe "the law is the law" and any law is just.

edit: You're not British are you (based on your English – it's pretty good, but not quite good enough). Where were you born, out of interest? I always enjoy a foreigner lecturing me about my place of birth

▲

Nursie 24 minutes ago | parent [-]

LOL. Home-counties born and bred, attended a minor public school and a Russel group university. Grandad was a Desert Rat, one grandmother was brought up in colonial India. I’m so English I’m a fucking stereotype, though it’s true I no longer live there.

Perhaps my English is so superior to yours that you’re having trouble understanding?

> Though it's clear that you are part of the pearl-clutching group that wants any protest banned

What were you saying about straw men?

Perhaps you could enlighten me here. If you believe that promising swift justice for arsonists and other rioters is a way to suppress effective protest, are you not categorising arson as a form of protest? If not, what is your objection to said swift justice for people who commit acts of criminal damage, arson etc?

I support the right to protest. I believe the UK state is on a bad path and has been for a long time with restrictions on this right. But it gives me no pause when rioting and looting is treated harshly.

	▲	gib444 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, with those over-corrected "’" apostrophes. "I’m so English I’m a fucking stereotype" is such a contorted sentence. "The UK has problems, but it's not very useful to throw all of these cases together to make a big number", "None of which is to say I think the UK has things right" – literally nobody native to the UK writes like that. Again, nice try, but try harder. I'm /actually/ from a home county ;) edit: Home counties isn't hyphenated btw.