Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

focuszing723

veronese68 said:

I think sungod's post above is right, but can't click the 'like' button bacause I don't like it.

Click on like, leave it for ten minutes then click it again to remove, showing your complete disdain.

I do this all the time!

shortfall

sungod said:

i live in london, protests are sometimes annoying

i do not want these measures passed into law

this government has already enacted the greatest removal of individual rights in the history of the uk

the level of state surveillance is unprecedented and increasing

bolstered by a rabid and increasingly fascist press, it is taking actions designed to suppress and punish dissent

q: how does a country become totalitarian?

a: one day at a time

may as well have let the soviets take over

I agree with most of this except the "fascist press" bit. The point about becoming totalitarian bit by bit is spot on and perhaps the posters who like to bracket me with David Icke will take notice of you saying it instead.

rick_chasey

It's a terrible bill. it's in -keeping with the anti-democratic tendencies of the Johnson gov't.

Suspending parliament, trying to use Henry 8th powers as much as possible, ramming through legislation without proper time for reflection etc etc.

ballysmate

For the past 50 years in this country since the introduction of The Criminal Damage Act 1971it has been the case that if you commit minor criminal damage you get a minor sentence. If you commit the same damage with intent to endanger life or are reckless in so doing you can go to prison for life.
People have accepted this as being sensible.
Substitute 'Criminal Damage' with 'Nuisance' and people are up in arms.

To borrow a phrase from Rick, it blows my mind.

ddraver

It's ok the Spectator Podcast will do an episode entitled "When is the real liberterian Boris going to reappear" soon...

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

For the past 50 years in this country since the introduction of The Criminal Damage Act 1971it has been the case that if you commit minor criminal damage you get a minor sentence. If you commit the same damage with intent to endanger life or are reckless in so doing you can go to prison for life.
People have accepted this as being sensible.
Substitute 'Criminal Damage' with 'Nuisance' and people are up in arms.

To borrow a phrase from Rick, it blows my mind.

It's not just a straight substitution though, is it? It comes with plenty of bells and whistles. It was telling that of all the MPs who spoke in favour of the Bill, only one discussed the new powers that the Bill brought in - the provisions relating to noise. All the others just regurgitated a list of things already covered by existing laws.

surrey_commuter

ddraver said:

It's ok the Spectator Podcast will do an episode entitled "When is the real liberterian Boris going to reappear" soon...

@rick_chasey are you still a believer in this?

shirley_basso

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

For the past 50 years in this country since the introduction of The Criminal Damage Act 1971it has been the case that if you commit minor criminal damage you get a minor sentence. If you commit the same damage with intent to endanger life or are reckless in so doing you can go to prison for life.
People have accepted this as being sensible.
Substitute 'Criminal Damage' with 'Nuisance' and people are up in arms.

To borrow a phrase from Rick, it blows my mind.

It's not just a straight substitution though, is it? It comes with plenty of bells and whistles. It was telling that of all the MPs who spoke in favour of the Bill, only one discussed the new powers that the Bill brought in - the provisions relating to noise. All the others just regurgitated a list of things already covered by existing laws.

Can't remember if it was on here or elsewhere - all the MPs who spoke in favour of the bill listed a load of recent events which it the new bill would cover, are already covered (illegal) under existing legislation. They the MPs said exactly the same thing, the same events, read out in the same order.

rjsterry

Also says a lot that that well known wet liberal Theresa May didn't feel she could support the Bill.

ballysmate

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

For the past 50 years in this country since the introduction of The Criminal Damage Act 1971it has been the case that if you commit minor criminal damage you get a minor sentence. If you commit the same damage with intent to endanger life or are reckless in so doing you can go to prison for life.
People have accepted this as being sensible.
Substitute 'Criminal Damage' with 'Nuisance' and people are up in arms.

To borrow a phrase from Rick, it blows my mind.

It's not just a straight substitution though, is it? It comes with plenty of bells and whistles. It was telling that of all the MPs who spoke in favour of the Bill, only one discussed the new powers that the Bill brought in - the provisions relating to noise. All the others just regurgitated a list of things already covered by existing laws.

But it pretty much is a straight substitution though the max sentence under the new act would be less than if you endangered life by crim dam.
Minor nuisance = minor penalty
Nuisance with intent to cause harm = stiffer sentence.
Any links to theses existing laws covering causing injury or death* by nuisance.
And if as you say, these laws already exist, why the resistance to the new act? And by extension, if you find this measure so restrictive, I presume you will be wanting the existing laws, that you say exist, repealing?

Edit * Should have put 'intending to endanger life or cause serious harm'

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

ddraver said:

It's ok the Spectator Podcast will do an episode entitled "When is the real liberterian Boris going to reappear" soon...

@rick_chasey are you still a believer in this?

That Johnson is a libertarian at heart?

No

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

For the past 50 years in this country since the introduction of The Criminal Damage Act 1971it has been the case that if you commit minor criminal damage you get a minor sentence. If you commit the same damage with intent to endanger life or are reckless in so doing you can go to prison for life.
People have accepted this as being sensible.
Substitute 'Criminal Damage' with 'Nuisance' and people are up in arms.

To borrow a phrase from Rick, it blows my mind.

It's not just a straight substitution though, is it? It comes with plenty of bells and whistles. It was telling that of all the MPs who spoke in favour of the Bill, only one discussed the new powers that the Bill brought in - the provisions relating to noise. All the others just regurgitated a list of things already covered by existing laws.

But it pretty much is a straight substitution though the max sentence under the new act would be less than if you endangered life by crim dam.
Minor nuisance = minor penalty
Nuisance with intent to cause harm = stiffer sentence.
Any links to theses existing laws covering causing injury or death by nuisance.
And if as you say, these laws already exist, why the resistance to the new act? And by extension, if you find this measure so restrictive, I presume you will be wanting the existing laws, that you say exist, repealing?

And the additional provisions not already covered relating to noise? It's almost like you are deliberately avoiding them.

Not to mention the stuff relating to Travellers and trespass that even the Chief Constables don't want.

kingstongraham

Concentrating only on the nuisance bit is like seeing a "ban Mrs Brown's Boys and be nice to puppies" bill is uncontroversial because everyone should already be nice to puppies.

elbowloh

I still can't get past the bit that this is clearly aimed at trying to stamp out people's right to stage an effective protest.

ballysmate

kingstongraham said:

Concentrating only on the nuisance bit is like seeing a "ban Mrs Brown's Boys and be nice to puppies" bill is uncontroversial because everyone should already be nice to puppies.

Well that part did seem vexing to some on here. There's a couple of pages on it. You yourself kicked off the discussion by posting a snapshot of s 59 relating to nuisance, and complaining on how it would affect free speech. So your latest post really should be in the irony thread.
Am I to believe that you have changed your mind and no longer believe it to be the assault on free speech as you thought?
After all, according to some of the other critics on here, the proposed powers exist in other legislation, so there is nothing new to worry about is there?

kingstongraham

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

Concentrating only on the nuisance bit is like seeing a "ban Mrs Brown's Boys and be nice to puppies" bill is uncontroversial because everyone should already be nice to puppies.

Well that part did seem vexing to some on here. There's a couple of pages on it. You yourself kicked off the discussion by posting a snapshot of s 59 relating to nuisance, and complaining on how it would affect free speech. So your latest post really should be in the irony thread.
Am I to believe that you have changed your mind and no longer believe it to be the assault on free speech as you thought?
After all, according to some of the other critics on here, the proposed powers exist in other legislation, so there is nothing new to worry about is there?

No, I still think it's bad that they are extending that, but you think it's "nice to puppies" territory. But you seem to think that's all that's in there.

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

Concentrating only on the nuisance bit is like seeing a "ban Mrs Brown's Boys and be nice to puppies" bill is uncontroversial because everyone should already be nice to puppies.

Well that part did seem vexing to some on here. There's a couple of pages on it. You yourself kicked off the discussion by posting a snapshot of s 59 relating to nuisance, and complaining on how it would affect free speech. So your latest post really should be in the irony thread.
Am I to believe that you have changed your mind and no longer believe it to be the assault on free speech as you thought?
After all, according to some of the other critics on here, the proposed powers exist in other legislation, so there is nothing new to worry about is there?

If there was nothing new it really would be a pointless bit of legislation. Clearly there are things beyond existing legislation although you seem curiously unwilling to discuss them.

ballysmate

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

For the past 50 years in this country since the introduction of The Criminal Damage Act 1971it has been the case that if you commit minor criminal damage you get a minor sentence. If you commit the same damage with intent to endanger life or are reckless in so doing you can go to prison for life.
People have accepted this as being sensible.
Substitute 'Criminal Damage' with 'Nuisance' and people are up in arms.

To borrow a phrase from Rick, it blows my mind.

It's not just a straight substitution though, is it? It comes with plenty of bells and whistles. It was telling that of all the MPs who spoke in favour of the Bill, only one discussed the new powers that the Bill brought in - the provisions relating to noise. All the others just regurgitated a list of things already covered by existing laws.

But it pretty much is a straight substitution though the max sentence under the new act would be less than if you endangered life by crim dam.
Minor nuisance = minor penalty
Nuisance with intent to cause harm = stiffer sentence.
Any links to theses existing laws covering causing injury or death by nuisance.
And if as you say, these laws already exist, why the resistance to the new act? And by extension, if you find this measure so restrictive, I presume you will be wanting the existing laws, that you say exist, repealing?

And the additional provisions not already covered relating to noise? It's almost like you are deliberately avoiding them.

Not to mention the stuff relating to Travellers and trespass that even the Chief Constables don't want.

Not avoiding any of them. Tell me which sections and I'll have a look, s61 to 63 perhaps? Which bits are you concerned about?
So is that the sum of your objections now? Noise and travellers?

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

For the past 50 years in this country since the introduction of The Criminal Damage Act 1971it has been the case that if you commit minor criminal damage you get a minor sentence. If you commit the same damage with intent to endanger life or are reckless in so doing you can go to prison for life.
People have accepted this as being sensible.
Substitute 'Criminal Damage' with 'Nuisance' and people are up in arms.

To borrow a phrase from Rick, it blows my mind.

It's not just a straight substitution though, is it? It comes with plenty of bells and whistles. It was telling that of all the MPs who spoke in favour of the Bill, only one discussed the new powers that the Bill brought in - the provisions relating to noise. All the others just regurgitated a list of things already covered by existing laws.

But it pretty much is a straight substitution though the max sentence under the new act would be less than if you endangered life by crim dam.
Minor nuisance = minor penalty
Nuisance with intent to cause harm = stiffer sentence.
Any links to theses existing laws covering causing injury or death by nuisance.
And if as you say, these laws already exist, why the resistance to the new act? And by extension, if you find this measure so restrictive, I presume you will be wanting the existing laws, that you say exist, repealing?

And the additional provisions not already covered relating to noise? It's almost like you are deliberately avoiding them.

Not to mention the stuff relating to Travellers and trespass that even the Chief Constables don't want.

If they are adopting the same laws as Ireland towards travellers then I may have to ready myself to agree with Bally.

I don't suppose they mention horse and trap racing on the A3 in the middle of the day?

ballysmate

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

Concentrating only on the nuisance bit is like seeing a "ban Mrs Brown's Boys and be nice to puppies" bill is uncontroversial because everyone should already be nice to puppies.

Well that part did seem vexing to some on here. There's a couple of pages on it. You yourself kicked off the discussion by posting a snapshot of s 59 relating to nuisance, and complaining on how it would affect free speech. So your latest post really should be in the irony thread.
Am I to believe that you have changed your mind and no longer believe it to be the assault on free speech as you thought?
After all, according to some of the other critics on here, the proposed powers exist in other legislation, so there is nothing new to worry about is there?

If there was nothing new it really would be a pointless bit of legislation. Clearly there are things beyond existing legislation although you seem curiously unwilling to discuss them.

The whole of s59 is new, that's why KG posted it. I've done nothing else but discuss new legislation.

If you want to talk about s61 to 63 re residing on land without consent, tell me which areas concern you.

The original offence dates back to s68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and amendments made under s59 Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.
What is the problem with these new updates. Must confess I haven't read it yet but point me in the direction of your concerns.

ballysmate

elbowloh said:

I still can't get past the bit that this is clearly aimed at trying to stamp out people's right to stage an effective protest.

All depends on what you call effective protest doesn't it?
People have a right to protest and people have a right to go about their daily lives. The police are charged with trying to enable both. At what point does a crowd outside McDonalds* for instance, stopping people from entering, change from a protest group to become a crowd preventing people going about their lives and interfering with a legitimate business?

* substitute any establishment you want.

kingstongraham

54 to 56 - you say it's "just" about noise, but the ability to restrict protests being organised based on people being able to hear them is quite a big change.

And I still don't think that there is an annoyance that could justify a 10 year sentence.

ballysmate

kingstongraham said:

54 to 56 - you say it's "just" about noise, but the ability to restrict protests being organised based on people being able to hear them is quite a big change.

And I still don't think that there is an annoyance that could justify a 10 year sentence.

First off, I haven't said anything about 'just noise'
S54 updates s 12 Public Order Act 1986 and does deal as you say with noise.

For instance, it asks for this to be inserted.

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(ab)(i), the noise generated by
persons taking part in a public procession may have a relevant impact
on persons in the vicinity of the procession if—
(a) it may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of
reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to
be in the vicinity, or
(b) it may cause such persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or
distress.
(2B) In considering for the purposes of subsection (1)(ab)(ii) whether the
noise generated by persons taking part in a public procession may have
a significant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession, the
senior police officer must have regard to—
(a) the likely number of persons of the kind mentioned in
paragraph (a) of subsection (2A) who may experience an impact
of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) that subsection,
(b) the likely duration of that impact on such persons, and
(c) the likely intensity of that impact on such persons.”

That seems eminently reasonable. It mentions causing unease alarm or distress.
If you as an individual were to cause such alarm or distress to the said person of reasonable firmness, you would be committing an offence under s5 POA 1986. So why should you be absolved because you are in a group?

But the new legislation does not make it a 'absolute' offence, there are caveats. The act goes on to state

(2B) In considering for the purposes of subsection (1)(ab)(ii) whether the
noise generated by persons taking part in a public procession may have
a significant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession, the
senior police officer must have regard to—
(a) the likely number of persons of the kind mentioned in
paragraph (a) of subsection (2A) who may experience an impact
of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) that subsection,
(b) the likely duration of that impact on such persons, and
(c) the likely intensity of that impact on such persons.”

There is a judgement call regarding the number present that are affected, the intensity and the duration.

rjsterry

From the Gov.uk website: the Bill seeks to "Broaden the range of circumstances in which police may impose conditions on a protest... to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity"

Pretty clear that restricting the right to protest is precisely the point of this part of the Bill as they say so themselves.

Is noise at protests a problem that needs legislation? Who decides what significant impact is?

On the criminalisation of trespass, the police have stated that they don't want this power, so why do you support it?

I'm sure local authorities support it as it saves them the bother of having to provide suitable sites and allows them to get the police to sort it out instead of clearing up their own mess.

With any new law the question should be why do we need it, rather why shouldn't we.

kingstongraham

It's intended to restrict protests. It will do that.

orraloon

Hong Kong here we come.

(We Don't Need This) Fascist Groove Thang, prescient by 40 years by Heaven 17.

pblakeney

Things that intrigue me.
When was the last successful protest? Poll tax?

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

Things that intrigue me.
When was the last successful protest? Poll tax?

Cabbies in London will claim their weekly protests got the minimum wage for Uber drivers

ballysmate

@rjs Please see my reply above to KG re the noise legislation. I have shown what the new update refers to and how it is to be policed.

From 2a in my post above, this is one of the judgements to be made.

it may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of
reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to
be in the vicinity,


We can infer from this that the threshold for the noise will be different if the protest is outside an old folks home than a football stadium for instance. Nothing sinister about the police being asked to exercise a judgement call when it comes to applying laws and guidelines.

I'm lucky enough to not live in an area blessed with protests, but if I did, I'm pretty sure the novelty of the noise would wear off quite quickly.

Which bit of the act are you referring to when you mention trespass?
Aggravated trespass has been an offence since 1994. There was even a power of arrest built into the act because it was only a summary offence and would not automatically be arrestable under other legislation.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Things that intrigue me.
When was the last successful protest? Poll tax?

Cabbies in London will claim their weekly protests got the minimum wage for Uber drivers

I'd claim they had ulterior motives and that a single driver* taking them to court would have achieved the same.

*Crowdfunded, natch.