General British politics discussion thread

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yeah, sure. If violent protest was really such a burning issue for this government, why single blm or extinction rebellion out for blame? Why target them exclusively which is what they are doing? 10 years for defacing a statue - we all know what that preposterous measure is designed to signify. Look, we know this is all just political. Starmer was throwing some early shapes about making labour the party of law and order. The door is going to be shut firmly on that, nobody is going to steal tory ground. And let's have a little kick at the GRT communities while we're at it, that will play very nicely with the base.

They haven’t singled out BLM or extinction at all, they have addressed issues created by these particular protests and are attempting to out legislation in place to stop fads becoming the norm.

I’m not sure what the rest of your rant is about.

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

They haven’t singled out BLM or extinction at all, they have addressed issues created by these particular protests and are attempting to out legislation in place to stop fads becoming the norm.

I’m not sure what the rest of your rant is about.

The worrisome part of the legislation is how open to interpretation it is. They don't define noise, or aggression, or intimidation. Its mainly subjective.

And subjection is open to abuse. Or political interference to out it a nicer way.

How many constitutes a march? What noise level? Is there a time limit? Does everyone on the march get done or just the person making noise?

What about July 12th marches? What about football parades? They are quite intimidating to those outside of the group?

Aegir wrote: »

They haven’t singled out BLM or extinction at all, they have addressed issues created by these particular protests and are attempting to out legislation in place to stop fads becoming the norm.

I’m not sure what the rest of your rant is about.

They have addressed issues created by these particular protests - but they haven't singled them out. Right, that makes sense.

To you they may be "fads", to other people they are serious matters with potentially very serious consequences.

And as regards harassment outside abortion clinics, which cropped up earlier, important to mention this was nothing to do with the original bill as designed, it is part of a cross party amendment fronted by Ruta Huq among others.

Podge_irl

Aegir wrote: »

if it could, they wouldn't need to introduce new legislation.

They don’t need to. They are choosing to.

Leroy42 wrote: »

The worrisome part of the legislation is how open to interpretation it is. They don't define noise, or aggression, or intimidation. Its mainly subjective.

And subjection is open to abuse. Or political interference to out it a nicer way.

How many constitutes a march? What noise level? Is there a time limit? Does everyone on the march get done or just the person making noise?

What about July 12th marches? What about football parades? They are quite intimidating to those outside of the group?

In theory, one person pretty much constitutes a protest or demonstration or march or whatever. There's a specific clause dealing with one person protests that's been dubbed the "Steve Bray" clause after that guy who used to roar "stop brexit" in parliament square. They've been waiting years to get their revenge and now they're finally going to nail him and I imagine they feel really good about it.

Leroy42 wrote: »

The worrisome part of the legislation is how open to interpretation it is. They don't define noise, or aggression, or intimidation. Its mainly subjective.

And subjection is open to abuse. Or political interference to out it a nicer way.

How many constitutes a march? What noise level? Is there a time limit? Does everyone on the march get done or just the person making noise?

What about July 12th marches? What about football parades? They are quite intimidating to those outside of the group?

If the police believe an offense has been committed then they can make an arrest and after that it is up to the crown prosecution service and the courts. The same way it has always been.

Or did you think Priti Patel was going to start roaming the country and “disappearing” people?

kowloon

When does this anti-protest bill get enacted?

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

If the police believe an offense has been committed then they can make an arrest and after that it is up to the crown prosecution service and the courts. The same way it has always been.

Or did you think Priti Patel was going to start roaming the country and “disappearing” people?

Why not she seems to like to get involved and photos taken on raids.

She was most pissed about those two lads in Scotland they let go

If you don't think she takes this stuff personally you obviously have not done an ounce into her background.

listermint wrote: »

Why not she seems to like to get involved and photos taken on raids.

She was most pissed about those two lads in Scotland they let go

If you don't think she takes this stuff personally you obviously have not done an ounce into her background.

By the provisions of the bill, the home office can be the arbiter over defining what constitutes "serious annoyance" or "serious disturbance." Priti Patel, in other words. The met police has been fairly explicit about this, it did not seek or wish for these extra powers. What it called for after the much publicised protests was merely a "modest reset."

listermint wrote: »

Why not she seems to like to get involved and photos taken on raids.

She was most pissed about those two lads in Scotland they let go

If you don't think she takes this stuff personally you obviously have not done an ounce into her background.

You mean the two illegal immigrants that were being legally deported before a mob intervened and were supported by the Scottish first minister?

Fancy the Home Secretary being pissed off by politicians flouting the law for the sake of a few popular votes.

kowloon wrote: »

When does this anti-protest bill get enacted?

It goes off to the lords now so assuming they don't try to mess with it, I'd guess it'd take up to a number of months, say 3-4, to pass there and another couple for royal assent. But that's a rough guess on my part, wouldn't be certain on it.

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

You mean the two illegal immigrants that were being legally deported before a mob intervened and were supported by the Scottish first minister?

Fancy the Home Secretary being pissed off by politicians flouting the law for the sake of a few popular votes.

I know it was great to see wasn't it . Felt like real people power. Something the English have been lacking for over five years

listermint wrote: »

I know it was great to see wasn't it . Felt like real people power. Something the English have been lacking for over five years

So the only law that matters is mob law?

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

So the only law that matters is mob law?

Unfortunately the mob have a majority of 80.

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

If the police believe an offense has been committed then they can make an arrest and after that it is up to the crown prosecution service and the courts. The same way it has always been.

Or did you think Priti Patel was going to start roaming the country and “disappearing” people?

Rather than an actual offense being committed? Let the police arrest and break up demos and then the courts can free the people later?

Are you really saying you support that?

If the government want to legislate for something then do so. But this is open, so vague, so open to interpretation.

If Labour win next election and you boo the result in a pub, technically within this law you can be arrested.

You seriously think that is right?

I would argue that Farage and his ilk would be arrested under this law. July 12th matches are gone.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Rather than an actual offense being committed? Let the police arrest and break up demos and then the courts can free the people later?

Are you really saying you support that?

If the government want to legislate for something then do so. But this is open, so vague, so open to interpretation.

If Labour win next election and you boo the result in a pub, technically within this law you can be arrested.

You seriously think that is right?

I would argue that Farage and his ilk would be arrested under this law. July 12th matches are gone.

How would booing at a tv cause harassment or intimidation?

How exactly do you think criminal law works? If the Police want to break up a demonstration they can already do it. What they can’t do is arrest one person standing outside an abortion clinic calling on a distressed young woman to change their mind.

Aegir wrote: »

Why would you?

What. go or get arrested?

breezy1985 wrote: »

What. go or get arrested?

If you are told to move along and don’t, the police can arrest you.

Aegir wrote: »

How would booing at a tv cause harassment or intimidation?

How exactly do you think criminal law works? If the Police want to break up a demonstration they can already do it. What they can’t do is arrest one person standing outside an abortion clinic calling on a distressed young woman to change their mind.

Again, you bring up the protesting outside abortion clinics. As mentioned earlier, this was not part of the bill, it was an amendment fronted by labour mp Rupa Huq among others and it did not get accepted by the speaker. So nothing has changed in relation to that, it's not relevant to the argument.

Aegir wrote: »

If you are told to move along and don’t, the police can arrest you.

You said "why would you" I am asking why would I what ? Go to the protest or get arrested for it.

If its the latter why should I move along just because the police say so. Should all protests be subject to the will of the police. What if it is a protest against government or police corruption

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Again, you bring up the protesting outside abortion clinics. As mentioned earlier, this was not part of the bill, it was an amendment fronted by labour mp Rupa Huq among others and it did not get accepted by the speaker. So nothing has changed in relation to that, it's not relevant to the argument.

It doesn’t matter where or what you are protesting, the same rules apply.

Rupa Huq wanted an exclusion zone put around abortion clinics, that is what was rejected.

breezy1985 wrote: »

You said "why would you" I am asking why would I what ? Go to the protest or get arrested for it.

If its the latter why should I move along just because the police say so. Should all protests be subject to the will of the police. What if it is a protest against government or police corruption

Why would you get arrested? There’s no law against protesting. There is a law against failing to obey a lawful instruction of a police officer.

Aegir wrote: »

It doesn’t matter where or what you are protesting, the same rules apply.

Rupa Huq wanted an exclusion zone put around abortion clinics, that is what was rejected.

I have never protested near an abortion clinic .Go back to my problem should I be arrested and convicted for protesting proroguing of parliament as this new law would suggest

Aegir wrote: »

Why would you get arrested? There’s no law against protesting. There is a law against failing to obey a lawful instruction of a police officer.

But if the officer banned the protest then I am a criminal. What if the protest is against police or government corruption or both ?

Would you agree it is ok for a police officer to legally ban a protest against government in China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, Colonial Ireland or Fascist Italy

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

Why would you get arrested? There’s no law against protesting. There is a law against failing to obey a lawful instruction of a police officer.

There is now. The police are completely free to interpret what constitutes a lawful instruction.

So, say, you boo at the TV. The police, under this law, can demand you stop. You tell them you are living in a free society, boo again, and they lock you up.

The law should not he vague and open to interpretation. You are happily waving in a complete mess of a law. I presume on the basis that you would never be wrong.

Until you are. Like Labour find a way to steal an election. You march in defence of democracy and you get locked up.

Are you happy that anti-Iraq war protests would now be unlawful.

I can't understand why you would defend such a law.

breezy1985 wrote: »

But if the officer banned the protest then I am a criminal. What if the protest is against police or government corruption or both ?

Would you agree it is ok for a police officer to legally ban a protest against government in China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, Colonial Ireland or Fascist Italy

Errr, none of this is going to happen.

How about you actually read what the bill contains rather than rely on why you think it contains.

Aegir wrote: »

It doesn’t matter where or what you are protesting, the same rules apply.

Rupa Huq wanted an exclusion zone put around abortion clinics, that is what was rejected.

Yeah i get that, but why specifically mention abortion clinics then? The bill doesn't address them in any way, shape or form. How does this bill change anything substantial as to what happens outside clinics? I'm not clear on that.

I did find it slightly amusing, though, that while supporting a bill that ostensibly curtails people's right to protest, the honourable Sally Ann Hart MP rejected the Huq amendment on the grounds it curtailed people's right to protest:

Sally Ann Hart

"New clause 42, introduced by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), would impose censorship zones outside abortion clinics. That goes against the long-standing tradition in the UK that people are free to gather together to express their views. It also goes against this Government’s commitment to human rights and freedom of speech in our party manifesto. The right to protest is the cornerstone of our democracy."

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is now. The police are completely free to interpret what constitutes a lawful instruction.

So, say, you boo at the TV. The police, under this law, can demand you stop. You tell them you are living in a free society, boo again, and they lock you up.

The law should not he vague and open to interpretation. You are happily waving in a complete mess of a law. I presume on the basis that you would never be wrong.

Until you are. Like Labour find a way to steal an election. You march in defence of democracy and you get locked up.

Are you happy that anti-Iraq war protests would now be unlawful.

I can't understand why you would defend such a law.

Why would anti Iraq war protests suddenly become illegal?

All public order laws are open to interpretation. That is not changing in the slightest.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yeah i get that, but why specifically mention abortion clinics then? The bill doesn't address them in any way, shape or form. How does this bill change anything substantial as to what happens outside clinics? I'm not clear on that.

I did find it slightly amusing, though, that while supporting a bill that ostensibly curtails people's right to protest, the honourable Sally Ann Hart MP rejected the Huq amendment on the grounds it curtailed people's right to protest:

Sally Ann Hart

"New clause 42, introduced by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), would impose censorship zones outside abortion clinics. That goes against the long-standing tradition in the UK that people are free to gather together to express their views. It also goes against this Government’s commitment to human rights and freedom of speech in our party manifesto. The right to protest is the cornerstone of our democracy."

I was using abortion clinics as an example, that’s all.

No one is stopping anyone from protesting. These laws put boundaries on what you can and can’t do when you are protesting.

Hence, you can stand outside an abortion clinic, UKIP office, KFC or whatever you like and stand there waving a big banner saying “ down with this kind of thing”. What you can’t do is start shouting at people going about their lawful business in a way that intimidates them.