Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1
Indeed I fully agree. It is not that the police were called that anyone disagrees with, it is that they acted by confiscating the sign. Surely the police can only act when a crime is committed, granted ambiguity was expressed and it was deferred, but I think that's the point. The police are either interpreted it too harsh, the law is too harsh, or it is too ambiguous.
|
I think you're being too harsh on the police. The police can only act when they
suspect that a crime has been committed and they more-or-less have to make a snap decision. If they were hypothetically in position to definitively say either way then it would negate the need for the CPS and courts. As another protester said, on another day, in another place, nothing happened. About the confiscation of the sign, doesn't that make sense? If the police do suspect there is some disorder or incitement happening, then aren't they obliged to stop it? How does it make sense to allow them to continue?