| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... 18:51 - Mar 14 with 2171 views | bluelagos |
Reading lots of concerning issues on our rights re protest etc. Does anyone know if it has to go through the House of Lords for scrutiny? Surely they'll tear apart the dodgy parts? |  |
| |  |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 17:45 - Mar 15 with 435 views | bluelagos |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 17:08 - Mar 15 by Lord_Lucan |
Have you actually read the bill?
I have only seen snippets. |
Me? No - but I have seen clippets - and read the comments from lawyers that have.
The main issue they have is around a section that has upto 10 years imprisonment for "causing annoyance" I think it was.
Edit:
The bit they most object to is that protesters can get upto 10 years in jail if you cause (to 1 person) "serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity"
Edit 2:
And it doesn't require any intent to be proven. [Post edited 15 Mar 2021 17:51]
| |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 17:52 - Mar 15 with 424 views | StokieBlue |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 17:45 - Mar 15 by bluelagos |
Me? No - but I have seen clippets - and read the comments from lawyers that have.
The main issue they have is around a section that has upto 10 years imprisonment for "causing annoyance" I think it was.
Edit:
The bit they most object to is that protesters can get upto 10 years in jail if you cause (to 1 person) "serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity"
Edit 2:
And it doesn't require any intent to be proven. [Post edited 15 Mar 2021 17:51]
|
It looks like it was specifically written to try and put a stop to direct action protests such as those often staged by Extinction Rebellion:
A Downing Street spokesman on Monday said the bill would not target people's right to protest peacefully and would instead focus on targeting people who used "extremely disruptive" tactics during demonstrations.
"We've said previously that peaceful protest is a fundamental right in a free society," the spokesperson said.
"The measures in the bill are not in any way impinging on the right to protest, they're simply focused on the use of some extremely disruptive tactics we've seen used in recent years."
Now I guess that it was originally designed to stop the protests which closed down airports for hours (sitting on the runway for instance) or those that close main roads but as per your post the scope does seem to be there to interpret the terms used in many ways and probably in ways that are unacceptable (like the ones you've cited).
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 17:58 - Mar 15 with 413 views | bluelagos |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 17:52 - Mar 15 by StokieBlue |
It looks like it was specifically written to try and put a stop to direct action protests such as those often staged by Extinction Rebellion:
A Downing Street spokesman on Monday said the bill would not target people's right to protest peacefully and would instead focus on targeting people who used "extremely disruptive" tactics during demonstrations.
"We've said previously that peaceful protest is a fundamental right in a free society," the spokesperson said.
"The measures in the bill are not in any way impinging on the right to protest, they're simply focused on the use of some extremely disruptive tactics we've seen used in recent years."
Now I guess that it was originally designed to stop the protests which closed down airports for hours (sitting on the runway for instance) or those that close main roads but as per your post the scope does seem to be there to interpret the terms used in many ways and probably in ways that are unacceptable (like the ones you've cited).
SB |
As it stands, the cabbies who did a drive slow in London protesting against uber, or the Motorcyclists who did the same protesting about parking charges would be liable to 10 years in jail.
It is (as ever with this lot) a broad brush sledge hammer to crack a nut. | |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:02 - Mar 15 with 404 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 17:45 - Mar 15 by bluelagos |
Me? No - but I have seen clippets - and read the comments from lawyers that have.
The main issue they have is around a section that has upto 10 years imprisonment for "causing annoyance" I think it was.
Edit:
The bit they most object to is that protesters can get upto 10 years in jail if you cause (to 1 person) "serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity"
Edit 2:
And it doesn't require any intent to be proven. [Post edited 15 Mar 2021 17:51]
|
It's a very wide-ranging piece of legislation.
There are official summaries here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/justice-overhaul-to-better-protect-the-public
and here:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9158/
And the whole Bill is downloadable here:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2839
It's on the Second Reading and is yet to go to the Lords.
Lots of increases of minimum sentences for a range of crimes, but it's the clamping down on the right to protest which is drawing fire, not least because of the very vague language used. |  | | |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:02 - Mar 15 with 401 views | bluelagos |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 17:58 - Mar 15 by bluelagos |
As it stands, the cabbies who did a drive slow in London protesting against uber, or the Motorcyclists who did the same protesting about parking charges would be liable to 10 years in jail.
It is (as ever with this lot) a broad brush sledge hammer to crack a nut. |
Or Ipswich fans letting off flares outside a training ground? | |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:03 - Mar 15 with 398 views | Lord_Lucan |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 17:58 - Mar 15 by bluelagos |
As it stands, the cabbies who did a drive slow in London protesting against uber, or the Motorcyclists who did the same protesting about parking charges would be liable to 10 years in jail.
It is (as ever with this lot) a broad brush sledge hammer to crack a nut. |
The only actual bit I have read (and I only skimmed it) seemed to be aimed at single person protest and the bit I read seemed to be solely aimed at that crank who disrupted every interview outside HOP. |  |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:03 - Mar 15 with 399 views | bluelagos |
Spot on. I am pinning my hopes on the House of Lords doing their stuff - given the size of the Tory majority. | |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:04 - Mar 15 with 395 views | bluelagos |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:03 - Mar 15 by Lord_Lucan |
The only actual bit I have read (and I only skimmed it) seemed to be aimed at single person protest and the bit I read seemed to be solely aimed at that crank who disrupted every interview outside HOP. |
Brexit man or the anti Iraq war guy? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:14 - Mar 15 with 386 views | Lord_Lucan |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:04 - Mar 15 by bluelagos |
Brexit man or the anti Iraq war guy? |
Brexit man. | |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:17 - Mar 15 with 383 views | bluelagos |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:14 - Mar 15 by Lord_Lucan |
Brexit man. |
I thought he was quite funny. Can't see why anyone would want to silence him other than they don't like what he was saying. Hardly democracy in action.
I think the XR guys are in the governments sights, again, surely we should be listening to rather than criminalising environmentalists? | |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:20 - Mar 15 with 371 views | Lord_Lucan |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:17 - Mar 15 by bluelagos |
I thought he was quite funny. Can't see why anyone would want to silence him other than they don't like what he was saying. Hardly democracy in action.
I think the XR guys are in the governments sights, again, surely we should be listening to rather than criminalising environmentalists? |
As I say - I haven’t read it so can’t really comment on it.
I think maybe putting a boat on Oxford St might have started the rudders in motion. | |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:23 - Mar 15 with 369 views | chicoazul |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 19:42 - Mar 14 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Labour has at least now said they will vote against it haven't they? It would still need a lot of Conservatives to vote against/abstain for it not to go through the Commons. |
Keith has said he thinks the Bill doesn’t go far enough.
Who would have guessed that our two left wing parties of government are lusting after ever more power to curb thoughtcrime? [Post edited 15 Mar 2021 18:24]
|  |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:24 - Mar 15 with 362 views | Crawfordsboot |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 19:44 - Mar 14 by bluelagos |
Absolutely. But the House of Lords provides a very effective counter in rejecting / rewriting legislation. Seems to me this is exactly the sort of thing they do well. Identify the dubious bits and do their thing... |
I would think that in the current climate this draft legistion will be picked over at length.
The right to protest is an important part of our democracy. The police do not need greater powers to ban protests, what they need is greater clarity around what is and is not allowed under the current rules, with perhaps a few tweaks to permit greater clarity. Also let’s remember that the problem around current gatherings arise because of the specific exemptions that follow from the COVID regs.
There is also an interesting discussion to be had around the balance between my right to protest and your right to go about your business. If I think football should be banned I have the right to join with like minded individuals to protest outside the ground to that effect. Do we though have the right to gather and block the turnstiles so that you can not get in to watch a game. If we are able to do it once, perhaps ok, but what if we do it at every home game?
In other words no rights are absolute in the face of alternative conflicting rights. |  | | |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:38 - Mar 15 with 337 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:24 - Mar 15 by Crawfordsboot |
I would think that in the current climate this draft legistion will be picked over at length.
The right to protest is an important part of our democracy. The police do not need greater powers to ban protests, what they need is greater clarity around what is and is not allowed under the current rules, with perhaps a few tweaks to permit greater clarity. Also let’s remember that the problem around current gatherings arise because of the specific exemptions that follow from the COVID regs.
There is also an interesting discussion to be had around the balance between my right to protest and your right to go about your business. If I think football should be banned I have the right to join with like minded individuals to protest outside the ground to that effect. Do we though have the right to gather and block the turnstiles so that you can not get in to watch a game. If we are able to do it once, perhaps ok, but what if we do it at every home game?
In other words no rights are absolute in the face of alternative conflicting rights. |
This Act isn't for Covid. It's for what happens next.
Think about some of the comments in the threads about the Met's response to the attempt to hold a peaceful vigil the other night.
People said "If they were obeying the law then they wouldn't get in trouble."
Once this law is passed then the gypsy way of life is criminalised. Because there is a specific bit in it about it being a serious criminal offence to stop at the side of the road.
Now some may say "Well, gypsies don't pay taxes, who cares?" And I'm sure many will say harsher things than that.
But it will be the first time that the whole gypsy way of life has been utterly criminalised.
Somebody else encouraged populist hatred of gypsies, and put them into prison for being gypsies. And a man called Martin Niemoller wrote the following about that the time, and how it took him too long to realise what was going on:
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out– because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me."
Niemoller didn't mention gypsies (or homosexuals) in his verse, but they were persecuted in the early stages of WW2, and lived in the ghettoes with Jews, before dying alongside them in the concentration camps.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/genocide-of-european-roma-gyps
Yes, Godwin's Law and all that. But there are too many things aligning that people are just oblivious to. Do you know about the review of the right to Judicial Review of Ministerial decisions, which neatly segues into the increased use of existing powers of ministers to make law without reference to Parliament? Well I'm afraid you won't be able to protest about those decisions either, once this Law comes in!
It is all starting to look very totalitarian, and the new law demonstrates a willingness to politicise the Police. And the weekend demonstrates the zeal with which senior officers are embracing the opportunity. | | | |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:44 - Mar 15 with 327 views | Lord_Lucan |
Bloody hell.
That’s 307 pages long and deals with a massive range of issues.
I thought it was just a protest bill.
It’s a monster. | |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:46 - Mar 15 with 321 views | bluelagos |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:24 - Mar 15 by Crawfordsboot |
I would think that in the current climate this draft legistion will be picked over at length.
The right to protest is an important part of our democracy. The police do not need greater powers to ban protests, what they need is greater clarity around what is and is not allowed under the current rules, with perhaps a few tweaks to permit greater clarity. Also let’s remember that the problem around current gatherings arise because of the specific exemptions that follow from the COVID regs.
There is also an interesting discussion to be had around the balance between my right to protest and your right to go about your business. If I think football should be banned I have the right to join with like minded individuals to protest outside the ground to that effect. Do we though have the right to gather and block the turnstiles so that you can not get in to watch a game. If we are able to do it once, perhaps ok, but what if we do it at every home game?
In other words no rights are absolute in the face of alternative conflicting rights. |
It's all about proportionate powers.
As a starting point, given what we saw at the weekend, I wouldn't give them any more than the absolute minimum in terms of policing you and me. The police consistently abuse the powers they are given.
Read up on the prosecutions of the Stansted 15. I attended quite a few days in court and heard a fair chunk of testimony, including that of the policeman who uncut them from each other. He was sound, quite clear to the court that they were endangering no one, simply singing songs etc. Yet higher up, the police changed the charges from aggravated tresspass to charges introduced to cover terrorism offenses. 3 years later and the conviction is overturned. Huge cost and no convictions at all...
That demonstrates in spades the dangers of passing any new legislation - later on if someone wants to apply it to other things, nothing to stop them.
Cos that's exactly what they did - used anti terrorist laws to prosecute a bunch of hippies who tied themselves to the wheels of a jumbo at the back of the Stansted. | |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:56 - Mar 15 with 304 views | Crawfordsboot |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:38 - Mar 15 by ArnoldMoorhen |
This Act isn't for Covid. It's for what happens next.
Think about some of the comments in the threads about the Met's response to the attempt to hold a peaceful vigil the other night.
People said "If they were obeying the law then they wouldn't get in trouble."
Once this law is passed then the gypsy way of life is criminalised. Because there is a specific bit in it about it being a serious criminal offence to stop at the side of the road.
Now some may say "Well, gypsies don't pay taxes, who cares?" And I'm sure many will say harsher things than that.
But it will be the first time that the whole gypsy way of life has been utterly criminalised.
Somebody else encouraged populist hatred of gypsies, and put them into prison for being gypsies. And a man called Martin Niemoller wrote the following about that the time, and how it took him too long to realise what was going on:
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out– because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me."
Niemoller didn't mention gypsies (or homosexuals) in his verse, but they were persecuted in the early stages of WW2, and lived in the ghettoes with Jews, before dying alongside them in the concentration camps.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/genocide-of-european-roma-gyps
Yes, Godwin's Law and all that. But there are too many things aligning that people are just oblivious to. Do you know about the review of the right to Judicial Review of Ministerial decisions, which neatly segues into the increased use of existing powers of ministers to make law without reference to Parliament? Well I'm afraid you won't be able to protest about those decisions either, once this Law comes in!
It is all starting to look very totalitarian, and the new law demonstrates a willingness to politicise the Police. And the weekend demonstrates the zeal with which senior officers are embracing the opportunity. |
The policing of the gathering the other night certainly was undertaken under the recent emergency legislation re. COVID. Without that it the gathering could have gone ahead.
In fact the police allowed a steady stream of people to visit the site throughout the day, to pay their respects and then move on.
It was when a group took over the bandstand to address a growing crowd. The police ordered them to disperse and moved in and arrested a number of them when they refused to do so.
I think those are the facts. Whether we think the police should, or should not, have taken a different approach to applying the emergency COVID rules is another matter.
I have no argument with most of the points you make in the body of your posting | | | |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:59 - Mar 15 with 303 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
It's all about ensuring that protest is never effectivel enough to influence change. PetitionsRus!! |  |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 19:02 - Mar 15 with 301 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:44 - Mar 15 by Lord_Lucan |
Bloody hell.
That’s 307 pages long and deals with a massive range of issues.
I thought it was just a protest bill.
It’s a monster. |
And there are just enough tummy ticklers for Sun editors (longer sentences for rapists) that people could be made to be very confused:
"What? Labour voted against the Law to make rapists stay in prison?" | | | |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 19:02 - Mar 15 with 301 views | Lord_Lucan |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:38 - Mar 15 by ArnoldMoorhen |
This Act isn't for Covid. It's for what happens next.
Think about some of the comments in the threads about the Met's response to the attempt to hold a peaceful vigil the other night.
People said "If they were obeying the law then they wouldn't get in trouble."
Once this law is passed then the gypsy way of life is criminalised. Because there is a specific bit in it about it being a serious criminal offence to stop at the side of the road.
Now some may say "Well, gypsies don't pay taxes, who cares?" And I'm sure many will say harsher things than that.
But it will be the first time that the whole gypsy way of life has been utterly criminalised.
Somebody else encouraged populist hatred of gypsies, and put them into prison for being gypsies. And a man called Martin Niemoller wrote the following about that the time, and how it took him too long to realise what was going on:
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out– because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me."
Niemoller didn't mention gypsies (or homosexuals) in his verse, but they were persecuted in the early stages of WW2, and lived in the ghettoes with Jews, before dying alongside them in the concentration camps.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/genocide-of-european-roma-gyps
Yes, Godwin's Law and all that. But there are too many things aligning that people are just oblivious to. Do you know about the review of the right to Judicial Review of Ministerial decisions, which neatly segues into the increased use of existing powers of ministers to make law without reference to Parliament? Well I'm afraid you won't be able to protest about those decisions either, once this Law comes in!
It is all starting to look very totalitarian, and the new law demonstrates a willingness to politicise the Police. And the weekend demonstrates the zeal with which senior officers are embracing the opportunity. |
As I mentioned earlier it’s over 300 pages long.
What does it specifically say about the parking / gypsy front? Can you copy and paste it? | |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 19:06 - Mar 15 with 298 views | charlie_blue |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 17:58 - Mar 15 by bluelagos |
As it stands, the cabbies who did a drive slow in London protesting against uber, or the Motorcyclists who did the same protesting about parking charges would be liable to 10 years in jail.
It is (as ever with this lot) a broad brush sledge hammer to crack a nut. |
and any protests by football fans, for example against a club owner for example | | | |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 19:39 - Mar 15 with 279 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 19:02 - Mar 15 by Lord_Lucan |
As I mentioned earlier it’s over 300 pages long.
What does it specifically say about the parking / gypsy front? Can you copy and paste it? |
Still a bit long to cut n paste I think.
the relevant section appears to be Part 4 - Unauthorised Encampments running to about 6 or 7 pages
Have DM'd you Lucan.
Hope I've copied the right part of the bill - a lot to read for nothing if not [Post edited 15 Mar 2021 19:49]
|  |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 19:44 - Mar 15 with 273 views | bluelagos |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 19:06 - Mar 15 by charlie_blue |
and any protests by football fans, for example against a club owner for example |
Or a sh1t manager, which lets be honest, is likely to happen more than once based on our track record. | |
| |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 19:47 - Mar 15 with 273 views | Crawfordsboot |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 18:46 - Mar 15 by bluelagos |
It's all about proportionate powers.
As a starting point, given what we saw at the weekend, I wouldn't give them any more than the absolute minimum in terms of policing you and me. The police consistently abuse the powers they are given.
Read up on the prosecutions of the Stansted 15. I attended quite a few days in court and heard a fair chunk of testimony, including that of the policeman who uncut them from each other. He was sound, quite clear to the court that they were endangering no one, simply singing songs etc. Yet higher up, the police changed the charges from aggravated tresspass to charges introduced to cover terrorism offenses. 3 years later and the conviction is overturned. Huge cost and no convictions at all...
That demonstrates in spades the dangers of passing any new legislation - later on if someone wants to apply it to other things, nothing to stop them.
Cos that's exactly what they did - used anti terrorist laws to prosecute a bunch of hippies who tied themselves to the wheels of a jumbo at the back of the Stansted. |
The need for proportionate powers I agree.
The need to ensure that laws designed to control extremes such as terrorism and the like should never be used to limit protests etc. I agree. I suggested the police do not need greater powers, they need greater clarity on what is or isn’t allowed and on how they should be policed.
As for your final point regarding those who took direct action by attaching themselves to a jumbo jet I’m not so sure. I didn’t follow the detail and therefore I’m not commenting on those specifics however I think there is a discussion to be had in principle about the difference between protest and direct action. The conflict between my rights and yours. I don’t have the answer but certainly I view protest and direct action through a different lens. | | | |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 20:04 - Mar 15 with 247 views | bluelagos |
| This new legislation coming forward tomorrow... on 19:47 - Mar 15 by Crawfordsboot |
The need for proportionate powers I agree.
The need to ensure that laws designed to control extremes such as terrorism and the like should never be used to limit protests etc. I agree. I suggested the police do not need greater powers, they need greater clarity on what is or isn’t allowed and on how they should be policed.
As for your final point regarding those who took direct action by attaching themselves to a jumbo jet I’m not so sure. I didn’t follow the detail and therefore I’m not commenting on those specifics however I think there is a discussion to be had in principle about the difference between protest and direct action. The conflict between my rights and yours. I don’t have the answer but certainly I view protest and direct action through a different lens. |
Simple question.
Is 10 years proportiinate for people involved in direct action? And if you say yes, I'd simply remind you that Mandela, Rosa Parks and Emiline Pankhurst, to name but 3, all were active participants in direct action. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
