Bad language

Matty Edwards wrote an article that suits your belief system and narrative Amber. I don’t dispute some protesters were handled aggressively.
I do question why people were drinking and had hadn’t Fireworks to throw at the horses,

Interesting twitter thread here that I found, quite by accident, on Friday evening as the protest was going on.

I have no idea what the Huck magazine is. I was just watching the way things were developing. It looks as though it was noisy, but non threatening, and really a bit aimless for most of the time. As the person reporting was tweeting and filming as and when things happened I don't think he (?) would have had time to be selective about what he was showing. Others may disagree with me.

I think the police came equipped for battle...

twitter.com/HUCKmagazine/status/1375596127043645444

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/28/police-bristol-protests-locals-violent-mobs-havoc

This has a slightly more accurate view of events, I suspect. It’s clear who the violent offenders were, and it wasn’t the protesters.

There are currently reports of around 1,000 protesters near the police station which was attacked on Sunday, some pictured with knuckle dusters and others carrying bags of alcohol. Certainly all the signs of a "peaceful" protest.

So, it turns out that reports of quite serious injuries to the police were exaggerated (didn't actually happen)

It depends what could be termed as serious.

It was reported that there was a punctured lung and broken bones but other injuries not involving actual breaks etc could be quite serious and involve further surgery.

Not insinuating anything you said "(didn't actually happen)". Yes it did happen, officers were injured, thankfully not as badly as was first thought.

Are you suggesting that it was OK they were attacked as the injuries were not as bad as originally thought!

You can just stop your nasty insinuations right there, Oldwoman70. You are wrong. That's all I intend to say.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MaizieD

So, it turns out that reports of quite serious injuries to the police were exaggerated (didn't actually happen)

But in an updated press release on Wednesday, the force clarified this was not true, saying: “Thankfully, following a full medical assessment of the two officers taken to hospital, neither were found to have suffered confirmed broken bones.” Around the same time, a BBC reporter said on Twitter that Andy Marsh, the head of the force, had admitted in a press conference that no officer had a punctured lung.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/25/police-retract-claims-that-officers-suffered-broken-bones-at-bristol-protest

Those officers were still so badly hurt that paramedics took them to hospital. The initial statement would have been based on information given on the scene, a scene which would have included bottles, stones and fireworks being thrown. Remember even fire crews were attacked when they attended to try to put out the blazing van

Are you suggesting that it was OK they were attacked as the injuries were not as bad as originally thought!

Amberspyglass that was an absolutely disgraceful comment ; you do not deserve the protection of a Police Force of whom I am proud to say my daughter is a member

So, it turns out that reports of quite serious injuries to the police were exaggerated (didn't actually happen)

But in an updated press release on Wednesday, the force clarified this was not true, saying: “Thankfully, following a full medical assessment of the two officers taken to hospital, neither were found to have suffered confirmed broken bones.” Around the same time, a BBC reporter said on Twitter that Andy Marsh, the head of the force, had admitted in a press conference that no officer had a punctured lung.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/25/police-retract-claims-that-officers-suffered-broken-bones-at-bristol-protest

Thank you Maizie for pointing out that I havesain that I had this information via more than one reliable sensible person, but I accept that is not proof, only anecdotal evidence.

We will have to wait for the evidence to emerge, as I hope it will do if this appalling event is properly investigated.

but you haven't answered my questions. You can't make statements like "reliable sources" and "strongly believed" without having something to back it up

I think that she can. I think it's perfectly OK to believe someone you know to be reliable when they tell you something. I just don't think that people you pass it on to can be expected to take it on trust.

varian

As I said it is anecdotal. I just hope that a proper investigation will get to the truth.

but you haven't answered my questions. You can't make statements like "reliable sources" and "strongly believed" without having something to back it up

As I said it is anecdotal. I just hope that a proper investigation will get to the truth.

varian you have previously said "it was strongly believed" and you had heard from "reliable sources" in Bristol that these thugs were paid to be there. What are your "reliable sources". As I have said previously, I live in Bristol and only 1 person, posting in the comments section of the local paper, has claimed this. No-one I have spoken to has heard this "strongly believed" accusation.

varian

That may be true of most of the thugs but not those who put them up to it and even , we are told, actually paid them to attack the police.

Who told who? Who paid the thugs? This seems just like another conspiracy theory or even distraction tactics to take the focus away from the violence

varian

That may be true of most of the thugs but not those who put them up to it and even , we are told, actually paid them to attack the police.

But you don't have any proof, varian.

I know that the use of agents provocateurs is a well known ploy which has been used for centuries, but we can't expect people to believe it happened on this occasion without any proof.

That may be true of most of the thugs but not those who put them up to it and even , we are told, actually paid them to attack the police.

varian

I think it was the intention of those who subverted this peaceful protest to induce this sort of reaction, losing public support for the protest and increasing the likelihood of draconian right wing laws being passed.

I have to disagree with you there varian I don't see this as a right wing plot to ensure the bill is passed. I see it as a protest taken over by thugs whose only agenda is to cause disruption and violence.

Not many people would support the sort of violence that occurred and it will only strengthen the hand of those who want to curtail protests and make them less visible. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were agents provocateurs within the protesters.

I agreed with the protest but certainly don't agree with attacking police or burning vehicles/buildings.

To these thugs the ill judged slogan "kill the bill" meant attack the police, which was not the intention of the organisers of the protest.

We even, disgracefully, had the PM, in parliament at PMQs deliberately use that interpretation to attack the Leader of the Opposition.

Thankfully, the Speaker pulled him up short on it, but the damage is put there now. You know, that lie that flies X times round the world before truth has even put its shoes on...

I think it was the intention of those who subverted this peaceful protest to induce this sort of reaction, losing public support for the protest and increasing the likelihood of draconian right wing laws being passed.

varian

I think it is probably true that those who joined to protest about the bill going through parliament might have mainly left of centre views, but that does not apply to the violent thugs who were sent in to disrupt a peaceful demonstration .

To these thugs the ill judged slogan "kill the bill" meant attack the police, which was not the intention of the organisers of the protest.

I agree with what you say varian - I am sure it was a minority intent on causing trouble who are responsible for the violence.

I can sympathise with the people who object to the Bill, but they are definitely losing what support they had from the people of Bristol by having another protest on Tuesday night - which resulted in 100s of police from other areas being drafted in and 14 arrests - now they are planning another protest on Friday. I believe they should cancel that protest as no doubt those intent on violence and disturbance will also show up

I think it is probably true that those who joined to protest about the bill going through parliament might have mainly left of centre views, but that does not apply to the violent thugs who were sent in to disrupt a peaceful demonstration .

To these thugs the ill judged slogan "kill the bill" meant attack the police, which was not the intention of the organisers of the protest.