Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you
Comments
-
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.0 -
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.1 -
Way back at the start of this, I postedkingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
Bringing nuisance under statute from common law was at the behest of the Law Council.
The act stops the disparity between how static demonstrations and marches can be managed and policed.
It also makes people responsible if they cause public harm.
All these measures seem pretty sensible to me.
I accept others see it differently.
Guess that refers to that bit0 -
No, that's a different bit:ballysmate said:
Way back at the start of this, I postedkingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
Bringing nuisance under statute from common law was at the behest of the Law Council.
The act stops the disparity between how static demonstrations and marches can be managed and policed.
It also makes people responsible if they cause public harm.
All these measures seem pretty sensible to me.
I accept others see it differently.
Guess that refers to that bit
"Widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on static protests, to match existing police powers to impose conditions on marches
This measure will enable the police to impose conditions such as start and finish times and maximum noise levels on static protests. The police already have the power to impose such conditions on marches."
The extension of powers to limit protests and extending it to single person protests is new.0 -
Surprise no one I'm sure that I still have no problem with that.kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
As I said earlier, I accept that others do.0 -
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?0 -
I was outraged at the suggestion that I was outraged 😁ballysmate said:@rsjterry
Apologies re the outrage bit.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest0 -
This is the proverbial sledge hammer to crack a nut and will have unintended (or is it intended) consequences.0
-
Cheltenham races was cancelled in 2001 because of foot and mouth.0
-
They got a lot of grief for being "heavy handed" when they did that with Extinction Rebellion. I suspect part of the purpose in protesting in that manner is to trigger a response that can be claimed as the authorities denying a right to peaceful protest. The police will always get criticised on these things either for being to heavy handed or too lenient depending on what the protest is about.elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
0 -
But it doesn't require a new law though.Pross said:
They got a lot of grief for being "heavy handed" when they did that with Extinction Rebellion. I suspect part of the purpose in protesting in that manner is to trigger a response that can be claimed as the authorities denying a right to peaceful protest. The police will always get criticised on these things either for being to heavy handed or too lenient depending on what the protest is about.elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
The whole point of a protest is to get people to sit up and take notice. This law will completely remove the ability to do that, rendering protest as effective as Chris Grayling's ability to run the railway or negotiate a ferry contract0 -
elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.0 -
Will this law stop that? As the justice minister admitted, harsher sentencing is not a deterrent, the way you police is.ballysmate said:elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.0 -
I think you conflate getting people to sit up and take notice with disrupt people's right to go about their business freely.elbowloh said:
But it doesn't require a new law though.Pross said:
They got a lot of grief for being "heavy handed" when they did that with Extinction Rebellion. I suspect part of the purpose in protesting in that manner is to trigger a response that can be claimed as the authorities denying a right to peaceful protest. The police will always get criticised on these things either for being to heavy handed or too lenient depending on what the protest is about.elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
The whole point of a protest is to get people to sit up and take notice. This law will completely remove the ability to do that, rendering protest as effective as Chris Grayling's ability to run the railway or negotiate a ferry contract
I wouldn't accept having my life disrupted by a random gang of youths, so why should I accept it from the same people as long as they claim they have an agenda?
As regards any new law, what is wrong with making protesters take responsibilities for any consequence of their actions?0 -
But this law criminalises an individual with a placard and a loud haler.ballysmate said:
I think you conflate getting people to sit up and take notice with disrupt people's right to go about their business freely.elbowloh said:
But it doesn't require a new law though.Pross said:
They got a lot of grief for being "heavy handed" when they did that with Extinction Rebellion. I suspect part of the purpose in protesting in that manner is to trigger a response that can be claimed as the authorities denying a right to peaceful protest. The police will always get criticised on these things either for being to heavy handed or too lenient depending on what the protest is about.elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
The whole point of a protest is to get people to sit up and take notice. This law will completely remove the ability to do that, rendering protest as effective as Chris Grayling's ability to run the railway or negotiate a ferry contract
I wouldn't accept having my life disrupted by a random gang of youths, so why should I accept it from the same people as long as they claim they have an agenda?0 -
No, I don't conflate that all at all. Not all protests disrupt to that degree.ballysmate said:
I think you conflate getting people to sit up and take notice with disrupt people's right to go about their business freely.elbowloh said:
But it doesn't require a new law though.Pross said:
They got a lot of grief for being "heavy handed" when they did that with Extinction Rebellion. I suspect part of the purpose in protesting in that manner is to trigger a response that can be claimed as the authorities denying a right to peaceful protest. The police will always get criticised on these things either for being to heavy handed or too lenient depending on what the protest is about.elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
The whole point of a protest is to get people to sit up and take notice. This law will completely remove the ability to do that, rendering protest as effective as Chris Grayling's ability to run the railway or negotiate a ferry contract
I wouldn't accept having my life disrupted by a random gang of youths, so why should I accept it from the same people as long as they claim they have an agenda?
As regards any new law, what is wrong with making protesters take responsibilities for any consequence of their actions?
Anyway, it's not about you Bally.0 -
Context.elbowloh said:
Will this law stop that? As the justice minister admitted, harsher sentencing is not a deterrent, the way you police is.ballysmate said:elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.
"Chris Philp, the minister responsible for sentencing, said that detailed research had found that the likelihood of being caught and punished was much more important in discouraging people from committing crime than the length of jail sentences."
Of course. The length of sentence is meaningless if you don't get caught.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
FTFY.ballysmate said:elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
SOME Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.
0 -
No it doesn't. They may be guilty of causing nuisance under this act, but they would also have been guilty of causing nuisance under common law.elbowloh said:
But this law criminalises an individual with a placard and a loud haler.ballysmate said:
I think you conflate getting people to sit up and take notice with disrupt people's right to go about their business freely.elbowloh said:
But it doesn't require a new law though.Pross said:
They got a lot of grief for being "heavy handed" when they did that with Extinction Rebellion. I suspect part of the purpose in protesting in that manner is to trigger a response that can be claimed as the authorities denying a right to peaceful protest. The police will always get criticised on these things either for being to heavy handed or too lenient depending on what the protest is about.elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
The whole point of a protest is to get people to sit up and take notice. This law will completely remove the ability to do that, rendering protest as effective as Chris Grayling's ability to run the railway or negotiate a ferry contract
I wouldn't accept having my life disrupted by a random gang of youths, so why should I accept it from the same people as long as they claim they have an agenda?
0 -
Fair enough. Guess which protesters this legislation is aimed at.elbowloh said:
FTFY.ballysmate said:elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
SOME Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.0 -
If you superglue yourself to the road, causing gridlock, I think even the Met stand a chance of catching you.pblakeney said:
Context.elbowloh said:
Will this law stop that? As the justice minister admitted, harsher sentencing is not a deterrent, the way you police is.ballysmate said:elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.
"Chris Philp, the minister responsible for sentencing, said that detailed research had found that the likelihood of being caught and punished was much more important in discouraging people from committing crime than the length of jail sentences."
Of course. The length of sentence is meaningless if you don't get caught.0 -
Has this happened to many of us?ballysmate said:
If you superglue yourself to the road, causing gridlock, I think even the Met stand a chance of catching you.pblakeney said:
Context.elbowloh said:
Will this law stop that? As the justice minister admitted, harsher sentencing is not a deterrent, the way you police is.ballysmate said:elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.
"Chris Philp, the minister responsible for sentencing, said that detailed research had found that the likelihood of being caught and punished was much more important in discouraging people from committing crime than the length of jail sentences."
Of course. The length of sentence is meaningless if you don't get caught.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
What? getting caught or gluing ourselves to the road?????pangolin said:
Has this happened to many of us?ballysmate said:
If you superglue yourself to the road, causing gridlock, I think even the Met stand a chance of catching you.pblakeney said:
Context.elbowloh said:
Will this law stop that? As the justice minister admitted, harsher sentencing is not a deterrent, the way you police is.ballysmate said:elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.
"Chris Philp, the minister responsible for sentencing, said that detailed research had found that the likelihood of being caught and punished was much more important in discouraging people from committing crime than the length of jail sentences."
Of course. The length of sentence is meaningless if you don't get caught.0 -
According to the beeb article it does.ballysmate said:
No it doesn't. They may be guilty of causing nuisance under this act, but they would also have been guilty of causing nuisance under common law.elbowloh said:
But this law criminalises an individual with a placard and a loud haler.ballysmate said:
I think you conflate getting people to sit up and take notice with disrupt people's right to go about their business freely.elbowloh said:
But it doesn't require a new law though.Pross said:
They got a lot of grief for being "heavy handed" when they did that with Extinction Rebellion. I suspect part of the purpose in protesting in that manner is to trigger a response that can be claimed as the authorities denying a right to peaceful protest. The police will always get criticised on these things either for being to heavy handed or too lenient depending on what the protest is about.elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
The whole point of a protest is to get people to sit up and take notice. This law will completely remove the ability to do that, rendering protest as effective as Chris Grayling's ability to run the railway or negotiate a ferry contract
I wouldn't accept having my life disrupted by a random gang of youths, so why should I accept it from the same people as long as they claim they have an agenda?0 -
All of them, that's the point.ballysmate said:
Fair enough. Guess which protesters this legislation is aimed at.elbowloh said:
FTFY.ballysmate said:elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
SOME Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.0 -
Sorry no, have you been caught in gridlock because of a protest?ballysmate said:
What? getting caught or gluing ourselves to the road?????pangolin said:
Has this happened to many of us?ballysmate said:
If you superglue yourself to the road, causing gridlock, I think even the Met stand a chance of catching you.pblakeney said:
Context.elbowloh said:
Will this law stop that? As the justice minister admitted, harsher sentencing is not a deterrent, the way you police is.ballysmate said:elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.
"Chris Philp, the minister responsible for sentencing, said that detailed research had found that the likelihood of being caught and punished was much more important in discouraging people from committing crime than the length of jail sentences."
Of course. The length of sentence is meaningless if you don't get caught.
Occasionally cycling through parliament square was slow because of one thing or another but I don't think I was ever trapped anywhere.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
elbowloh said:
All of them, that's the point.ballysmate said:
Fair enough. Guess which protesters this legislation is aimed at.elbowloh said:
FTFY.ballysmate said:elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
SOME Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.
It is only the ones that cause serious harm that will find themselves tried by indictment. The low level nuisance cases will be tried summarily and will notice no difference than if they were being prosecuted under common law.0 -
pangolin said:
Sorry no, have you been caught in gridlock because of a protest?ballysmate said:
What? getting caught or gluing ourselves to the road?????pangolin said:
Has this happened to many of us?ballysmate said:
If you superglue yourself to the road, causing gridlock, I think even the Met stand a chance of catching you.pblakeney said:
Context.elbowloh said:
Will this law stop that? As the justice minister admitted, harsher sentencing is not a deterrent, the way you police is.ballysmate said:elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.
"Chris Philp, the minister responsible for sentencing, said that detailed research had found that the likelihood of being caught and punished was much more important in discouraging people from committing crime than the length of jail sentences."
Of course. The length of sentence is meaningless if you don't get caught.
Occasionally cycling through parliament square was slow because of one thing or another but I don't think I was ever trapped anywhere.
I don't live in London which is the chief target for protests, but I would suggest that if it was slow on a bike, it would be infinitely slower in a car.0 -
I don't trust the government to implement this in that manner.ballysmate said:elbowloh said:
All of them, that's the point.ballysmate said:
Fair enough. Guess which protesters this legislation is aimed at.elbowloh said:
FTFY.ballysmate said:elbowloh said:
You could have just policed them properly.ballysmate said:
Parliament can reject or accept SIs btwelbowloh said:
So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?kingstongraham said:
There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.ballysmate said:
No, not at all.kingstongraham said:So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?
Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.
An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?
Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.
"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."
That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.
The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.
It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?
Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.
This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest
SOME Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.
It is only the ones that cause serious harm that will find themselves tried by indictment. The low level nuisance cases will be tried summarily and will notice no difference than if they were being prosecuted under common law.
They seem intent on stamping out dissent and criticism (see attempts to strangle the BBC).
This is the epitome of cancel culture. Where is the outrage from the right?0
