Process To Outlaw Protest + New Green Laws

[Churchill]

Great idea leaving your car in lane three of the MI and walking the rest of the way of your journey with a suitcase under each arm :roll:

[Scott777]

If you say so, I have been held up in traffic jams unable to go where I wanted to go longer then them

Not really.  It's your car that's stuck, not you.

[Churchill]

If you say so, I have been held up in traffic jams unable to go where I wanted to go longer then them

[Scott777]

The right to protest peacefully has been our given right in the UK for decades before we were taken into the EU without the people being asked, leaving or staying in the EU will not change that unless our Government of the delay deicides to ban all protests and put Legislation in place to do so, I cannot see that happening.



You can only be arrested if you are suspected of committing an offence or seen to be committing an offence that has a power of arrest attached to it, or if there is warrant for your arrest in existence issued by a Court of Law, if you are not doing either you cannot be arrested, if an officer tried to do that he or she would be acting unlawfully.



You cannot be sent to prison unless convicted in a Court of Law and the offence carries a punishment of imprisonment not all offences do , or if a Court of Law has issued a Commit warrant for your arrest , usually happens if you have not paid Court fines if arrested on that sort of warrant you go before the Court in custody for the Court to send you to prison.

To all intents and purposes, kettling is imprisonment.

[johnofgwent]

Well then, this demonstrates one method of stopping protest.  A kettle is, in effect, imprisonment.  Protest has no value if you are imprisoned.  So the question becomes: what circumstances allow kettles?  And that's where the ambiguous nature of law allows the use of it to change, in effect banning protest.

No that  won't work. You have been allowed to protest. Just not how, and where, you wanted to.

[Churchill]

Banning peaceful protest doesn't require changing our laws.  First of all, protest rights are protected under EU law, so when we leave, our rights will change.  Secondly, the precise meaning of law is eventually set by the courts.  This is changing all the time.



Being arrested without committing an offence is not relevant.  You can be imprisoned without being arrested.  If a cop believes you might commit an offence.  The basis of that suspicion is almost anyone's guess.

The right to protest peacefully has been our given right in the UK for decades before we were taken into the EU without the people being asked, leaving or staying in the EU will not change that unless our Government of the delay deicides to ban all protests and put Legislation in place to do so, I cannot see that happening.



You can only be arrested if you are suspected of committing an offence or seen to be committing an offence that has a power of arrest attached to it, or if there is warrant for your arrest in existence issued by a Court of Law, if you are not doing either you cannot be arrested, if an officer tried to do that he or she would be acting unlawfully.



You cannot be sent to prison unless convicted in a Court of Law and the offence carries a punishment of imprisonment not all offences do , or if a Court of Law has issued a Commit warrant for your arrest , usually happens if you have not paid Court fines if arrested on that sort of warrant you go before the Court in custody for the Court to send you to prison.

[Scott777]

Indeed that bit of legislation Section 14 of the Pubic Order Act was put in place quite some time was done to protect the majority and curtail those whose protests may go beyond the guidelines of lawful peaceful protest.



They have banned some protests in certain locations where the authorities consider a protest may offend the community and could provoke unrest and violence in that area, they offer alterative routes in a different area, as said Police are obliged to facilitate Peaceful Protest.



The Establishment is not trying to ban Peaceful Protests, all such protests have to be regulated for public safety and to up hold the rights of others that do not share the opinion of the protesters who just want to get on with their life in peace.

This is the problem with your perspective on this - you use all these words which are so ambiguous as to be almost meaningless.  "peaceful", "offend", "unrest", "safety".  It's the courts who will decide, and set law based on those decisions.  If they can ban it in one place, why not ban it in more places?

[Scott777]

:hattip



Exactly.



Although as anyone whose ever done it knows, "peaceful protest" these days means being kettled about five miles min from where you wanted to be heard ..

Well then, this demonstrates one method of stopping protest.  A kettle is, in effect, imprisonment.  Protest has no value if you are imprisoned.  So the question becomes: what circumstances allow kettles?  And that's where the ambiguous nature of law allows the use of it to change, in effect banning protest.

[Scott777]

Yes you cannot be arrested if you are not committing an offence , however if you deliberately obstructing the Public Highway and refuse to move on when instructed by a Police Officer you can be arrested without warrant, which I believe many of these protesters have been



If the Government of the day whoever it is wants to ban peaceful protest they would have to formulate far more draconian legislation than exists now, it would be a very sad day if they even tried.



It is at present a given right we all have and long may it continue

Banning peaceful protest doesn't require changing our laws.  First of all, protest rights are protected under EU law, so when we leave, our rights will change.  Secondly, the precise meaning of law is eventually set by the courts.  This is changing all the time.



Being arrested without committing an offence is not relevant.  You can be imprisoned without being arrested.  If a cop believes you might commit an offence.  The basis of that suspicion is almost anyone's guess.

[Churchill]

Not sure but I think the Police only kettle demonstrators if they deviate from the agreed route of the protest

[johnofgwent]

What utter nonsense that the establishment want to ban the right of peaceful protest. There is absolutely no evidence to support this suggestion. What the establishment does seem willing to do is attempt to protect the rights hundreds of thousands of citizens who are having their civil rights compromised by these insufferable people ; the right  of free movement, the right to go and actually get to work, the right to earn a living, the right to expect the police to not be dragged away from areas and activities which require their attention to deal with the passive aggression of these self indulgent scumbags.



They no doubt have a valid point but they have lost the popular support that they might once have had by their inconsiderate and excessive anti-social behaviour. I hope the fines that those arrested will hopefully have to pay will be the absolute maximum the law allows.

 :hattip



Exactly.



Although as anyone whose ever done it knows, "peaceful protest" these days means being kettled about five miles min from where you wanted to be heard ..

[Churchill]

Indeed that bit of legislation Section 14 of the Pubic Order Act was put in place quite some time was done to protect the majority and curtail those whose protests may go beyond the guidelines of lawful peaceful protest.



They have banned some protests in certain locations where the authorities consider a protest may offend the community and could provoke unrest and violence in that area, they offer alterative routes in a different area, as said Police are obliged to facilitate Peaceful Protest.



The Establishment is not trying to ban Peaceful Protests, all such protests have to be regulated for public safety and to up hold the rights of others that do not share the opinion of the protesters who just want to get on with their life in peace.

[Major Sinic]

What utter nonsense that the establishment want to ban the right of peaceful protest. There is absolutely no evidence to support this suggestion. What the establishment does seem willing to do is attempt to protect the rights hundreds of thousands of citizens who are having their civil rights compromised by these insufferable people ; the right  of free movement, the right to go and actually get to work, the right to earn a living, the right to expect the police to not be dragged away from areas and activities which require their attention to deal with the passive aggression of these self indulgent scumbags.



They no doubt have a valid point but they have lost the popular support that they might once have had by their inconsiderate and excessive anti-social behaviour. I hope the fines that those arrested will hopefully have to pay will be the absolute maximum the law allows.

[johnofgwent]

I think we can at least both agree then to a fair degree of shock / surprise at this.



As I have mentioned before I had the unpleasant experience of having to work in London for a while,commuting in from my great aunts place near rickmansworth on the metropolitan line.



Today I think the commute might be easier. But London is a definite marmite thing, people either live or detest working there in my experience



But while I was there I got the full brunt of everything the city could throw at me. And it gave me a new respect for the incredible degree of tolerance of the average Londoner of the nineties and noughties.



That tolerance has clearly gone. Politicians really should stop and think in that



I also think the "retreat" and "dissociation" XRs paid agitators have attempted in order to avoid action should fail. They incited people to behave in breach of the law and should go down for it

[cromwell]

I profoundly disagree.



They got what they deserved. Until Communist party officer Kim Howells allowed (and some put it stronger) two of the pickets he was controlling and directing the efforts of during the miners strike to kill a taxi driver taking a strike breaker to work, support for Scargill in the valleys was absolute. A line was crossed and not even Labour making him a Privy Counsellor can erase that bloodstain.



Had they restricted their efforts to merely being a bloody pain at the tube station gates they would have in large measure been ignored. By all sides.which is how it should be. Yes you have the right to be a whingeing snowflake and I have the right to pour scorn on you for it.



Pissing with my right to earn my living and keep the baliffs from my door crosses the line. Especially these days where most of us are barely a week from repossession.



If it were up to me I'd have him denied hospital treatment.

Well you might deny him hospital treatment John and yes he was in the wrong aiming the first kick but once down on the ground he was being kicked by a fair few,one blow to the head could end in brain damage and an impaired lifetime to follow perhaps even death so disagree all you like but that's shit behaviour with no justification.