Which part of "Going off an a foreign holiday when there is a lockdown on" or "Refusing to have a vaccination whilst caring for people in mortal danger if they catch the disease", is acceptable to you? For Fucks Sake.
Oh stop it. You're not supposed to be balanced on this thread.I did say possibly false pretext. There seems to be evidence both from UK protests in the last 12 months and historical examples that a hard core or extreme element latch on or at least exist at the fringes of perfectly proper protest. I know you know your left wing history, so I'd point to the rise of the Red Brigades in Italy or the Baader Meinhof faction in Germany. Both were attached to legit union or student protest movements but evolved into something altogether more sinister. I'll immediately admit that in both these examples that draconian policing / enforcement had an incendiary effect. Also, I'm not having a pop at the left - the manifestation of rw 'statue protection' mobsaround the later BLM protests last summer were just as dodgy.
Overall I'd say actions have unintended consequences - both for protestors and police, and both protestors and police (or legislators) have a responsibility to take extreme care exercising their powers. At present we are seeing some examples clumsy policing, some protestors abusing their rights to protest, and opportunistic legislation.
I've got a huge chip on both shoulders ;-)Oh stop it. You're not supposed to be balanced on this thread.
I suppose looking at your user-id, I should have said I can see a hole in your argument ;-)I've got a huge chip on both shoulders ;-)
So amend those laws to cover them.The existing laws do not cover things like static protests (as opposed to marches), for example, so no they don't stop these things.
That's what the bill is for.So amend those laws to cover them.
No it's not, it's targeting all protests.That's what the bill is for.
When you add your little caveats it sounds much better.Which part of "Going off an a foreign holiday when there is a lockdown on" or "Refusing to have a vaccination whilst caring for people in mortal danger if they catch the disease", is acceptable to you? For Fucks Sake.
Beggars belief anyone could have issues with these new proposals, but I guess nothing should surprise me with you lot.
Little caveats? Like spelling out what it actually means?When you add your little caveats it sounds much better.
However, ''You cannot leave the country' or 'You will have a vaccination or you will be sacked'' doesn't sound quite so enticing.
Funny how raging tory's who believes in little or no state intervention will happily give up their personal freedoms.
Some of the 'raging tories' are on your side mate. Iain Duncan Smith for example.When you add your little caveats it sounds much better.
However, ''You cannot leave the country' or 'You will have a vaccination or you will be sacked'' doesn't sound quite so enticing.
Funny how raging tory's who believes in little or no state intervention will happily give up their personal freedoms.
It's not "targeting" anything. It's amendments to existing legislation to provide powers which are needed and which are currently lacking in the existing legislation.No it's not, it's targeting all protests.
Inane Duncan Smith mate.Some of the 'raging tories' are on your side mate. Iain Duncan Smith for example.
Yeah I've read it, it's giving far too much power to one individual to decide what is and isn't an offence, it undermines the role of the courts and the rule of law. If your traffic laws don't cover obstructing a street with a static protest, amend them, if your noise pollution laws don't cover nutcases with megaphones at 2am, amend them.It's not "targeting" anything. It's amendments to existing legislation to provide powers which are needed and which are currently lacking in the existing legislation.
Have you actually looked at the bill? Serious question.
It's here if you have not:
Well first off, it gives the senior police officer powers to give directions. I am not sure it gives them powers to determine what is an offense or isn't. And regards Home Secretary powers, then he/she would have to have their proposed legal definitions of what constitutes and offense, scrutinised and approved by Parliament. So that is not "one individual".Yeah I've read it, it's giving far too much power to one individual to decide what is and isn't an offence, it undermines the role of the courts and the rule of law.
According to the Good Law ProjectAnd regards Home Secretary powers, then he/she would have to have their proposed legal definitions of what constitutes and offense, scrutinised and approved by Parliament. So that is not "one individual".
That's just nonsense, pure and simple. Secondary legislation will be needed to allow the Home Secretary to define what is meant by "serious disruption to the life of the community".
"I don't like these protesters" is never going to cut it.
Well first off, it gives the senior police officer powers to give directions. I am not sure it gives them powers to determine what is an offense or isn't. And regards Home Secretary powers, then he/she would have to have their proposed legal definitions of what constitutes and offense, scrutinised and approved by Parliament. So that is not "one individual".
But putting the above to one side, do you think the police should NOT be able to stop protests when necessary to prevent disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation? Seems to me they absolutely do need such powers.
They didn't read it properly then. Or more likely, more political mischief-making. I wonder why they omitted to mention this bit?According to the Good Law Project
"Clauses 54(4) and 55(6) [of the Bill] give the Home Secretary untrammeled powers to make regulations to define what the phrases “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity” or “serious disruption to the life of the community” mean for the purposes of the Public Order Act. This broad power – the latter phrase is particularly vague – could be exercised with little or no parliamentary scrutiny, and in ways that would expand the scope of the powers under the Bill once passed."
the guy being arrested seems a bit of a plonker, but this seems a slightly concerning demonstration of police powers...