Should protesters contribute towards the cost of policing a march?

Sociopath2

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/13/metropolitan-police-london-rally-human-rights-breach-million-women-rise

The Met are refusing to police a protest in London by Million Women Rise citing:

" it does not need to police the events because they are expected to be crime-free. Ch Supt Colin Morgan said: “This is not a case of police charging for the their services but more a matter of refusing to use the public purse to provide a traffic management plan or stewarding for a private event.”

it's not limited to this event. A climate change protest is also being told the same.

It means a substantial bill for security and traffic management:

"The Met told them that if they want to go ahead with the march on 7 March, they would need to employ their own private security firm and formulate a road closure plan. Such measures would cost at least £10,000, MWR says."

It may lead to a situation where groups without a lot of cash are unable to protest. Is this infringing on the right to protest or should the state pay for all the costs associated with "private events" as they put it?

K4t

No. They should however pay the fines if they are arrested. This is a very dangerous step by a country already famed for its censorship and draconian libel laws. They are putting a price on the freedom of protest. What is going on in Europe? First Spain, then Ireland, and now the UK marching in with policy aimed at deterring and silencing protest.

The Met told them that if they want to go ahead with the march on 7 March, they would need to employ their own private security firm and formulate a road closure plan. Such measures would cost at least £10,000, MWR says.

The Guardian revealed the Royal Family's expenses recently:

The Royal Train service cost £200,000 in 2013, but luckily savings were made in helicopter maintenance which now only costs £2.7 m as opposed to £3 m in 2012. The royal utility bill has also risen over the past year. Electricity now costs £0.7m, gas £1m, water £0.2m and the royal telephone bill is £0.2m. The average energy bill in the UK is £1,267 meaning that the royal bill is the equivalent of around 2,288 British households.

They won't allow £10,000 to police a protest? They certainly have their priorities right in Britain...

darkpagandeath

Sociopath2 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/13/metropolitan-police-london-rally-human-rights-breach-million-women-rise

The Met are refusing to police a protest in London by Million Women Rise citing:

" it does not need to police the events because they are expected to be crime-free. Ch Supt Colin Morgan said: “This is not a case of police charging for the their services but more a matter of refusing to use the public purse to provide a traffic management plan or stewarding for a private event.”

it's not limited to this event. A climate change protest is also being told the same.

It means a substantial bill for security and traffic management:

"The Met told them that if they want to go ahead with the march on 7 March, they would need to employ their own private security firm and formulate a road closure plan. Such measures would cost at least £10,000, MWR says."

It may lead to a situation where groups without a lot of cash are unable to protest. Is this infringing on the right to protest or should the state pay for all the costs associated with "private events" as they put it?

European court of human right, so on so forth.

C.K Dexter Haven

*yawn*







*stretches*

























*ah, that's better*







sorry, the question again?

SEPT 23 1989

Im sure some of the protesters pay tax

which pays piggys wages

oink oink

tritium

Million women rising....

£10,000....

Does some simple quick math...

1p each..........


More seriously though, why should society pick up the tab for everything, regardless of how reasonable it may be etc? The police have made a risk assessment and decided given it should be crime free they don't need to be there- seems fair, its not as if they don't have other things to keep them busy. They're not stopping them from protesting, just telling them they need to follow some rules to not disrupt everyone else unduly. If someone want to provide some of the services on a volunteer basis the costs would drop very quickly

Bubbaclaus

K4t wrote: »

No. They should however pay the fines if they are arrested. This is a very dangerous step by a country already famed for its censorship and draconian libel laws. They are putting a price on the freedom of protest. What is going on in Europe? First Spain, then Ireland, and now the UK marching in with policy aimed at deterring and silencing protest.

The Guardian revealed the Royal Family's expenses recently:
They won't allow £10,000 to police a protest? They certainly have their priorities right in Britain...

I'd imagine the royal family brings more money into Britain (through tourism) than it costs to maintain them.

A protest just causes nuisance for everyone. (I'm sour because the Irish water protests have several times caused me to miss an important meeting or have caused me to take over 2 hours longer to get home because of absolute knuckleheads blocking roads and luas lines)

kneemos

Simple,just cause some trouble,police come,money saved.

Shine a light on me .

I'm brilliant.

johnnyskeleton

Sociopath2 wrote: »

It may lead to a situation where groups without a lot of cash are unable to protest. Is this infringing on the right to protest or should the state pay for all the costs associated with "private events" as they put it?

Is there a right to protest? Theres a right to free speech and a right to freedom of assembly, but i dont think there a right to protest per se. I meam if myself and 21 mates regularly like protesting our love of football, should the state facilitate us with free security, use of public spaces etc?

PizzamanIRL

They'd probably complain and protest about the cost of policing a protest then.

Some of them are stupid like that, you know?

SaveOurLyric

I don't think so. I think letting people march provides excellent value for money to society and they should not be restrained. Protest marches work as an effective safety valve for the more ignorant of the populace, giving them a distraction, and illusion, that they are playing a part and having an influence on affairs that they generally dont understand anyway. So they are a useful placebo, and better to let them at it without restraint. Its not as if they have any significant effect.

Son Of A Vidic

Perhaps The Met should focus their attention on what really stretches their resources and drains their budget. The mindless drunks who are responsible for hundreds of violent assaults, drink induced domestic violence incidents and the countless attacks on medical & nursing staff who try to treat them across the NHS every weekend.

K4t

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I'd imagine the royal family brings more money into Britain (through tourism) than it costs to maintain them.

I explicitly said priorities. Just because something generates revenue, does not mean it is right. The royal family is an embarrassment in 2015. To call yourself a modern, democratic country yet pay millions towards the upkeep and extravagant lifestyle of a single family simply because of their ancestory? It's absurd. Every year that passes, the royal's and the house of lords' continued existence becomes more sinister and more bizarre.

A protest just causes nuisance for everyone. (I'm sour because the Irish water protests have several times caused me to miss an important meeting or have caused me to take over 2 hours longer to get home because of absolute knuckleheads blocking roads and luas lines)

Nuisance? Tough. Of course you have the right to be sour, and you can criticise and hate those damn protesters all you like, but one should never deny them their right to protest the government in a democracy.

Sociopath2

It's interesting to note in the article that someone pointed out this policy would mean peaceful protests would have to pay for their own policing but potentially violent ones would be policed by the Met.

So climate change would have to fork out but the national front or Islamic fundamentalists would have their costs covered.

Bubbaclaus

K4t wrote: »

I explicitly said priorities. Just because something generates revenue, does not mean it is right. The royal family is an embarrassment in 2015. To call yourself a modern, democratic country yet pay millions towards the upkeep and extravagant lifestyle of a single family simply because of their ancestory? It's absurd. Every year that passes, the royal's and the house of lords' continued existence becomes more sinister and more bizarre.

Nuisance? Tough. Of course you have the right to be sour, and you can criticise and hate those damn protesters all you like, but one should never deny them their right to protest the government in a democracy.

I've no problem with them protesting. I have a major problem however with them protesting in the middle of the road. And don't get me started on those gob****es that sit on the road blocking people that have just finished a long day of work.

K4t

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I've no problem with them protesting. I have a major problem however with them protesting in the middle of the road. And don't get me started on those gob****es that sit on the road blocking people that have just finished a long day of work.

It's the price we pay for living in a democracy. I do think the Gardaí need to be more heavy handed however with how they deal with violent and potentially violent protesters, instead of allowing situations like what happened at Jobstown to arise; to call that false imprisonment is far more dangerous than cracking a few heads of those who would physically and violently obstruct them in their duties.

Capt'n Midnight

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Perhaps The Met should focus their attention on what really stretches their resources and drains their budget.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31159594

Scotland Yard has spent about £10m providing a 24-hour guard at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claimed asylum there, figures show.

...
The figures - which equate to more than £10,000 a day - were obtained by LBC radio under the Freedom of Information Act.

ancapailldorcha

Sounds like a way to make it more difficult for poorer people to protest more than anything else. The right to protest is a basic right and should be protected.