We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

General British politics discussion thread

1808183858696

Comments

  • #2


    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


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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


  • #2


    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


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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."


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    Aegir wrote: »
    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.

    What could the police do under this bill that they couldn't do under section 4a of the existing public order act? When was anybody simply just permitted to bellow at strangers in the street in an intimidating manner with no worries about police intervention?


  • #2


    Aegir wrote: »
    Why would anti Iraq war protests suddenly become illegal?

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

    That is your reply to everything.

    So according to you this is a pointless gesture as the law doesn't change?

    You said earlier they were dealing with specific new issues. Which is it? Is the law changing or not?

    I'll help you out, it most certainly and definitely is.


  • #2


    Something a bit suspicious about Javid announcing via video he has Covid-19. Do people normally reveal to the public via a recorded video they have contracted the virus, a few hours after a positive test? It has all the hallmarks of some sort of 'dead cat' PR stunt.



  • #2


    You guyz here seem to be brainwashed into thinking in this kind of way. Like you've brainwashed yourselves.

    Since he's self isolating he can hardly do it via Sky News and it's not long ago since other politicians done it in exactly the way he has today. But you seem to have blanked that out of your memory for some reason.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/matt-hancock-self-isolating-after-being-pinged-by-nhs-covid-app/ar-BB1cSThh




  • #2


    Why not just a short press release saying 'The Health Secretary has tested positive for Covid-19 and will self isolate for ten days'. It's a bit weird to see him appear on video almost as soon as he tested positive making a big announcement about it.



  • #2


    Maybe I'm being influenced by a degree of confirmation bias with this but I've felt even more than usual that support amongst certain BBC staff for Tory individuals is barely concealed.

    This tweet from Laura Keunnsberg is a case in point.

    This is her pushing her piece from yesterday in which she suggested that Starmer was taking a beating from Labour members. She retweet about the Javid news today but didn't pass any comment on it herself.

    This type of 'impartiality' came to mind when listening to the BBC Political podcast Newscast a couple weeks ago, on the day of the Batley and spen by-election. On that show they had Emily Thornberry and they spent the 30 minutes of the podcast trying to undermine Starmer and trying to get her to say he should resign if Labour had a bad result in the election. Interestingly the show title identified that they had won it but it was recorded before the result was announced so it was focusing on 'how bad were things in labour' more than anything.

    With everything going on with Covid, with the 'Levelling up' nonsense, with the dog-whistling of senior Tories to racists and with Johnsons role and performance throughout all of this she in particular seems to go out of her way to not talk about this. This isn't the first time this has been said on this thread or the Brexit one but I'm not sure how she is getting away with it, or maybe as I said, I'm just seeing what I want to see.



  • #2


    When you mentioned KFC it reminded me of the protests when they ran out of chicken due to deliveries or something. There was a lady in tears saying she now had to go to burger king



  • #2


    Didn't Johnston do the same. Properly showing they are doing what they have to as per the guidelines unlike the Health minister. So yes a PR exercise



  • #2


    I'm a bit mystified that a lot of people seem to be interpreting that kuennsberg piece with Starmer as another hitjob. It's nothing of the sort, rather an obviously very carefully choreographed piece of film in which the groundwork is being laid for the long anticipated purge of the left which now finally appears to be gathering speed. Of the 12 "former labour voters" cited in that film, at least one appears to have never been a labour voter at all. In general, i don't detect much animosity towards Starmer from kuennsberg and many of her colleagues, it's the labour left they have a visceral enmity towards and that will always be only thinly veiled.



  • #2


    But Javid is strongly pro-'Freedom Day' and thinks the economy should take precedence over anything the scientists are saying. There's something a tad suspicious (in my opinion) about the timing and with case numbers rising at an alarming rate.



  • #2


    Possibly he wants to distance himself from the decision to open everything up on Monday, regardless of whether he agrees with it or not. Or he may have simply caught Covid-19 again. I agree it looks suspicious, but then again everything they do looks suspicious!



  • #2


    Another theory might be that he is saying "Look at me, I have the Delta variant and I'm absolutely fine, just a tiny bit under the weather" (in order to defuse alarm about the rising cases numbers).

    I don't think it's particularly important whether he has or hasn't got the virus, but you'd always immediately suspect a PR stunt with any Tory minister whenever they announce anything.



  • #2


    Looks like They have backtracked on that now: there must have been some backlash. From the Grauniad:

    U-turn: Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak will now isolate

    Boris Johnson is to isolate at Chequers and will not take part in the pilot daily testing programme, a Downing Street spokesman said.

    Rishi Sunak, who was also pinged by NHS test and trace, will self-isolate rather than taking part in the daily testing pilot, contrary to a statement released by Downing Street earlier on Sunday.

    The chancellor said on Twitter: "I recognise that even the sense that the rules aren’t the same for everyone is wrong."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/jul/18/coronavirus-live-boris-johnson-isolate-contact-sajid-javid-athletes-test-positive-tokyo-olympic-village



  • #2


    Ye gods. That must be smashing their own record for quickest u turn ever. After Jenricks lamentable efforts to defend it on marr earlier, looks like they saw the writing on the wall and immediately launched into damage limitation mode.



  • #2


    The fact they attempted to use that same pathetic excuse Gove used shows how corrupt these guys really are



  • #2


    Outrageous behaviour.

    When hospitalisations begin to climb, the NHS is overun, deaths increase and there is a new vaccine resistant Johnson variant... what then?

    They need to be held to account. Unbelievable stuff. Leadership!



  • #2


    Poor Jenricks.


    Himself and Schapps always get wheeled out to defend this nonsense and then get promptly shat on from above when the inevitable U-turn happens.



  • #2


    Total lack of leadership. Cummings suggested that Johnson is a total shambles and changes his mind 50 times a day, lurching from crisis to crisis and firefighting left, right and centre. The British public may as well have elected their local binman or traffic warden as PM.



Society & Culture