Totally agree with the bit in Italic. I don't understand the need to be sarcastic with reference to your choice of locations. There really was no need. One example could be The Embankment. That famous CND march in Oct 1983 started there. I was on that believe it or not. Others could include hundreds of locations throughout Central London that aren't those 2 squares.



The bit in bold. Fact? Massive guesswork, based on nothing and very wrong. I have no prejudices against them either, nor have I mentioned terrorism.



It is interesting how people make up their minds as to how someone thinks or feels about a subject if they suspect someone has an opposing argument or view. You have actually come to a conclusion onto how I actually think. I have to inform you that you are so very, very wrong.



What this may boil down to is that you suspect that this bye law gives them "the perfect opportunity to enact draconian laws preventing embarrassing protesters". I on the other hand am not 100% convinced of that as yet as there is no real proof. Who's the prejudiced one? The one who makes the unfounded draconian law statement, or the one who has suspended any judgement until there is more evidence that that is the motive. Just so you know, if you are proven correct, I will actually be on your side as I am actually an advocate of free speech and human rights. We must have the right to protest back in the UK. But you may not think or believe that of me.



As I said earlier on this thread to you Mugwump:

[iAnyway like I said some people are wasting far too much energy and brain power worrying about nothing that's happened. By all means mugwump, if it does continue after the Olympics and they don't revoke these bye laws as this one does to the ones previous, then go and demonstrate. I'm behind you on that.[/i

All very interesting I'm sure, except utterly off the point.



The comment I was specifically replying to was



I pointed out, no, it doesn't.





You've lost me. Nobody was arguing people can't protest anywhere else in London. Your quoted response seems to wrongly imply that one cannot protest in these two squares. Your grip on the wrong end of the stick is too firm.

Of your comment "I don't believe the word "protest" is in the byelaws, but stand to be corrected?"



I pointed out how many times people were referrring to an inability to protest, not something I brought up my self, but that is off the point now. Also I clearly posted not once but twice of your above comment:



Nope, you are correct FA. The word protest isn't.



and



You are absolutely correct though, it is not mentioned in the bye law.



Maybe you should read what I said rather than look for ways to twist or belittle.[i All very interesting I'm sure, [/i you say. You're not another that resorts to being condescending if someone says something that you suspect is different to your belief on a matter are you? Even though I said you were correct about something. It's amazing how we judge. I'm noticing this to be a common theme amongst some on here. Try and accept that we are all different. Some people find that easy some of the time, but not others. Some people appear to believe they have "the correct end of the stick" all the time also.







I just realised you made the type on my earlier reply tiny. Is that indiciative that you feel you hold a superior, larger, more prominent position over others? One that allows you to in this case physically belittle something someone else has posted?

Is that what you think? Paranoia meter overload.





I'm one that asks what you think, if I'm not sure what you think





You don't say





Surely everybody does? Or are there some who post stuff, whilst actually believing they've got the wrong end of the stick? What would be the point of that?





Hang on, I think I get it. You're on the wind. Pretty good too.

My appropriate and considered response was going to be

but I figured you just in time.



BTW just as a matter of interest the tiny type thing was indicative of only the fact that your earlier soliloquy was, and is, only a few centimetres above my response and so reproducing it would be pointless at best and irritating, whilst useful only to those with the memory retention span of a retarded goldfish. The thought that font size of quotes could be used both as a metaphor for perceived relative merit as well as a form of visual put down is certainly novel.

Wrong. No paranoia here.





Approaching condescending. Yet you have trouble appreciating people's differences on this site.





It's called learning. Seeking knowledge. Testing the water? There are many reasons why. eg. I've posted asking questions on here recently and seeing if what I heard was happening back home or my perception or opinion of something back home is still in fact true. People back home give me an answer. Confiming or denying what end of the stick I had, but that's all a matter of opinion anyway tbh.





Believe you've figured something out in time FA? It may elevate your ego a bit further perhaps. But you'd be so wrong. Good use of emoticons. You must clearly be some sort of qualified medical professional to suggest someone is

. Are you? If not, clearly realise that you're capable of name calling and chucking insults around.







You could of said <SNIP> or nothing, but you chose to make it tiny. Something I hadn't see before. Only you know if you're being honest. Subconsciously, you may have been sending a message of your perceived superiority. Again, you can't help yourself but make some sort of put down. This seems to be a trend on the Sin Bin.



[i"useful only to those with the memory retention span of a retarded goldfish"[/i

I think you're being OTT, silly and totally paranoid. Worryingly so, for a mod. Have you actually heard yourself? I mean,



WTF? Look, as a moderator in these parts, if you have any questions as to the use of emoticons, shouldn't you address these to the Admins? AFAIK, the use of the

emoticon is not restricted to health professionals; and if you don't "get" the usage that's not my problem.



THINK about it, man. There are a load of emoticons for our use. Is it actually even possible that a moderator could believe that the

emoticon means the poster is professing to have made a professional psychiatric diagnosis? I'm no shrink, but that sounds barking to me. Here's another one for you:

I'm sure the people making up the Occupy Wall Street movement could pitch their tents instead on Broadway. Might be a touch confusing, tho.







If you aren't prejudiced against them why the desire to shut them down? Protestors aren't - by definition - barbarian anarchists. I'll concede that there have been violent protests (many of which only turned so after murky intrusions by the state, police, army, agent provocateurs etc.) but they are not the norm in any way - especially not in Britain.







[iDouble very[/i (comma included for dramatic effect) wrong?





Your argument begins from the self-evident premise that the Olympics should take precedence over protesters in a democratic country (whose virtues we consistently preach to the world). Given that protesters aren't violent or terrorist nutters by default (or anywhere close) accepting that premise seems prejudicial.







You clearly have no idea about the legislation of power within a democracy. It's far easier (not to mention better) to [ianticipate[/i, organise and block an incoming injust law than overturn an existing one.

That famous CND march in Oct 1983 started there. I was on that believe it or not.



So was I, but on the "official" side. Didn't realise we might have met so long ago!

I was young and impressionable. I do recall loads of people at the front, by the stage in Hyde Park, with Black Flags. They started trouble and the old bill "intervened".

You start with sarcasm.



I don't want to shut them down. And you are right, protestors aren't always violent. Totally agree. I have been one.



My argument initially, which isn't self-evident, was that everyone should relax as we don't know that these bye laws will be maintained after the Olympics. Others were being alarmist and concerned that they would be and I haven't been prejudicial.



To finish you summise I CLEARLY have no idea about something. When I do. I'm simply not as bothered about it as others. If it is kept, then protest.



I'm the one that's meant to be paranoid.

I usually finish with it, too.







I've given you a good reason for being concerned. Two, actually. If you are still unconcerned you must have opinions on why they aren't valid.







So, you are not "bothered" about the difficulties of overturning legislation once it has been authorised? You seem to have a remarkably blasé attitude. Although my guess is that if you really aren't bothered you wouldn't have posted in the first place. This kind of reminds me of the thousands of people who used to ring up "Yes", "No", "Don't Care" CEEFAX polls and choose the latter ...







It's your inability to make sense that's bothering me - not your paranoia.

See how you've twisted, me not being as bothered as others, to you are "not" bothered. As you admit, you GUESS.



The reasons you have given are based purely on your view and opinion. Mine is more laid back.



Again, I'm accused of paranoia. Yet what has happened? Nothing so far. Let's wait until after the Olympics. Then as I've said, I support you.



Anyway, I've PMd you, could you read it please. It's still in my outbox. It'll all make perfect sense.