alt Hacker NewsRegarding the broader picture, it’s interesting that despite the ineffectiveness of even major protests over the past decades—Iraq being the prime example—governments are introducing more obstacles to disincentivise them. From the perspective of government, why not simply ignore such events, use existing (extensive) laws which cover them? It’s like states are unconsciously preparing for the large-scale disruption which may yet come to pass.
You think police should ignore situations in which violence and destruction of property are highly likely?
Why? How does that benefit society?
At what point do you allow intervention? After they've destroyed £x,000 of property? After people are assaulted? How are you proposing police get deployed safely in those circumstances with 10s of thousands of protesters/rioters in the streets?
Don't you think maintaining law& order is a necessary activity of the state in a democracy?
You can't seriously think we should stand back and give over or streets to whoever can be most violent?