I share your concerns, but this govt is populist, and unfortunately the recent activities of an element within the protests have made this legislation largely popular, or at least better received than it otherwise would be.Yes and their actions should already be covered by existing legislation. If people want to make that tougher, then fair enough. This isn’t about that though, it’s about increasing what is deemed as illegal activity and increasing the power in making that determination.
Spot on.To some people they are though. They are so radicalised by their anti-establishment bollocks that they dehumanise the police and forget they are just normal people doing a job on our behalf. I can understand everyone tends to go through a bit of a phase as they are growing up and becoming politically aware, but it's tragic to see formed adults imagining themselves as some sort of Robin Hood character on the fringes of society framing the police as some sort of oppressive force.
I'd be happier if we were upheld the law more vigorously.So from a legal aspect, I’m assuming you’d have preferred them to go further?
My issue is more around the law not being clear and handing too much power to the Home Secretary.
But you said you would be happy with the police being given "whatever powers they like".They are not the enemy, Len. They are not the ones who burgled my house 3 times, nor those who vandalised my car.
I'd be happier if we were upheld the law more vigorously.
Have you seen the powers the home secretary would have? Sentencing without trial and death by firing squad was not in there BTW.
How will the bill change those powers?
Police chiefs will be able to put more conditions on static protests.
They will be able to:
Taken to an extreme, let's say there's an individual holding a protest placard, while blasting out their views on a speaker.
- Impose a start and finish time
- Set noise limits
- Apply these rules to a demonstration by just one person
If they refuse to follow police directions over how they should conduct their protest, they could be fined up to £2,500.
It will also become a crime to fail to follow restrictions the protesters "ought" to have known about, even if they have not received a direct order from an officer.
At present, police need to prove protesters knew they had been told to move on, before they can be said to have broken the law.
The proposed law includes an offence of "intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance".
This is designed to stop people occupying public spaces, hanging off bridges, gluing themselves to windows, or employing other protest tactics to make themselves both seen and heard.
One final measure clarifies that damage to memorials could lead to up to 10 years in prison. This follows the toppling of a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol.
I share your concerns, but this govt is populist, and unfortunately the recent activities of an element within the protests have made this legislation largely popular, or at least better received than it otherwise would be.
No.Correct. 100% supportive.
Are you not?
That's a flawed argument Len, because the police wouldn't be happy with it either. We don't live in 1930's Germany.But you said you would be happy with the police being given "whatever powers they like".
That could include amongst other things arresting and imprisoning people on the basis of their race,religion,political beliefs etc etc.
It has happened in the past - Germany 1930s.
It could be you or your family.
You would presumably be "happy" with that?
section 63-67 criminal justice bill 1994In your head possibly. The new laws didn't exist during any of the recent protests. A big problem here is that it seems to be forgotten that the police only enforce the law, not make it. What Patel is up to is something we can deal with at the ballot box, if indeed it gets through. I'm not sure whether it's a cause for comfort or alarm, but there are actually a lot of senior conservatives that seem to have reservations, so in combination with the opposition that 80 seat majority may not be enough to bulldoze it through with out serious amendment at least.
You are missing the point, you will only be allowed to protest if the Home Sec/law/police allows you to protest.I didn't see the "You will not be able to protest about anything" line in the legislation.
Once again you exaggerate to the point of destroying your argument. Of course people will still be able to protest.
And your proof of this is?This is the problem with the 'protestors' we've seen over the last year or so that tend to turn up later in a protest and attach themselves to whatever the cause is just so they can kick off - it creates a (possibly false) pretext for draconian legislation.
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".You are missing the point, you will only be allowed to protest if the Home Sec/law/police allows you to protest.
If they do not want anybody to protest over an issue it can be stopped using this draconian law.
I'd be happier if we were upheld the law more vigorously.
Have you seen the powers the home secretary would have? Sentencing without trial and death by firing squad was not in there BTW.
How will the bill change those powers?
Police chiefs will be able to put more conditions on static protests.
They will be able to:
Taken to an extreme, let's say there's an individual holding a protest placard, while blasting out their views on a speaker.
- Impose a start and finish time
- Set noise limits
- Apply these rules to a demonstration by just one person
If they refuse to follow police directions over how they should conduct their protest, they could be fined up to £2,500.
It will also become a crime to fail to follow restrictions the protesters "ought" to have known about, even if they have not received a direct order from an officer.
At present, police need to prove protesters knew they had been told to move on, before they can be said to have broken the law.
The proposed law includes an offence of "intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance".
This is designed to stop people occupying public spaces, hanging off bridges, gluing themselves to windows, or employing other protest tactics to make themselves both seen and heard.
One final measure clarifies that damage to memorials could lead to up to 10 years in prison. This follows the toppling of a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol.
You are obviously happy to see your freedoms limited, I am not.That's just nonsense, pure and simple.
Rubbish. No-one is going to stop CND protests. They might stop you from parking a pink boat on Oxford Street as part of your protest, or stop you going around shouting bollocks over a megaphone at 02:00 am, but quite right too.You are obviously happy to see your freedoms limited, I am not.
The proposed rise in nuclear warheads could well lead to a resurrection of CND, and it is an issue I feel strongly about and would protest over.
The powers that be could deem such a protest to be unlawful, it could be restricted, it could be banned. That is anti-democratic. We are sleepwalking into authoritarianism which you may well be happy about, but I am not because i believe in democracy and this law is anti-democratic.
Yawn. I have. Jesus you are so predictable.That's from the BBC, currently being Toryised.
Read wider.
There's existing laws (traffic, noise pollution) that stop you doing those things already.. No-one is going to stop CND protests. They might stop you from parking a pink boat on Oxford Street as part of your protest, or stop you going around shouting bollocks over a megaphone at 02:00 am, but quite right too.
The existing laws do not cover things like static protests (as opposed to marches), for example, so no they don't stop these things.There's existing laws (traffic, noise pollution) that stop you doing those things already.
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.And your proof of this is?