FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Woman arrested - Abolish monarchy sign
Woman arrested - Abolish monarchy sign
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"A woman was arrested in Edinburg for holding a sign reading “fuck imperialism abolish monarchy”. Police say it was breach of the peace. What’s your thoughts? Free speech, sign holding, protesting. Is this the start of the slippery slope that is “policing language”. " Its free speech and i agree witb her,though today was not the time or place to protest | |||
| |||
"A woman was arrested in Edinburg for holding a sign reading “fuck imperialism abolish monarchy”. Police say it was breach of the peace. What’s your thoughts? Free speech, sign holding, protesting. Is this the start of the slippery slope that is “policing language”. Its free speech and i agree witb her,though today was not the time or place to protest" Funnily enough that’s almost exactly the quote from a woman interviewed there It’s raises the question that if we place limits on when you can use free speech, like “not at this time/place”, then is it actually free speech? We draw the line with racism, where hate speech overrules your free speech. Do we draw the line with the queen to? | |||
"All for free speech but I think 'profane language' is Section 5 offence. Maybe next time, she'll refrain from naughty words in public. Should Children be reading that?" Fair point, I was wondering if the “fuck” has anything to do with it. And as usual, the headline doesn’t mention the “fuck” part. How many miss that? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"A woman was arrested in Edinburg for holding a sign reading “fuck imperialism abolish monarchy”. Police say it was breach of the peace. What’s your thoughts? Free speech, sign holding, protesting. Is this the start of the slippery slope that is “policing language”. Its free speech and i agree witb her,though today was not the time or place to protest Funnily enough that’s almost exactly the quote from a woman interviewed there It’s raises the question that if we place limits on when you can use free speech, like “not at this time/place”, then is it actually free speech? We draw the line with racism, where hate speech overrules your free speech. Do we draw the line with the queen to? " I havent seen it so not sure if she shouted anything or if it was just for the siqn | |||
"She should count herself lucky. For the freedoms given by this country, 200 yrs ago, it would be head off at the Tower." Why | |||
Just like they stepped in to protect the chip shop owner, also in Scotland who opened a bottle of champagne and wrote her thoughts to celebrate the death of the Queen..
Times and places etc.. | |||
"My thoughts are let the police, police such things which by the sound of it they did..
Just like they stepped in to protect the chip shop owner, also in Scotland who opened a bottle of champagne and wrote her thoughts to celebrate the death of the Queen..
Times and places etc.."Today should be about respecting the late queen | |||
"My thoughts are let the police, police such things which by the sound of it they did..
Just like they stepped in to protect the chip shop owner, also in Scotland who opened a bottle of champagne and wrote her thoughts to celebrate the death of the Queen..
Times and places etc..
Today should be about respecting the late queen"Totally.. | |||
| |||
"A woman was arrested in Edinburg for holding a sign reading “fuck imperialism abolish monarchy”. Police say it was breach of the peace. What’s your thoughts? Free speech, sign holding, protesting. Is this the start of the slippery slope that is “policing language”. Its free speech and i agree witb her,though today was not the time or place to protest Funnily enough that’s almost exactly the quote from a woman interviewed there It’s raises the question that if we place limits on when you can use free speech, like “not at this time/place”, then is it actually free speech? We draw the line with racism, where hate speech overrules your free speech. Do we draw the line with the queen to? " So you would be more than happy to have some doing that at a memorial event of one of your family then ? Wrong place wrong time  | |||
| |||
| |||
"She should count herself lucky. For the freedoms given by this country, 200 yrs ago, it would be head off at the Tower." Freedom isn't given, it's only taken away. | |||
| |||
"A woman was arrested in Edinburg for holding a sign reading “fuck imperialism abolish monarchy”. Police say it was breach of the peace. What’s your thoughts? Free speech, sign holding, protesting. Is this the start of the slippery slope that is “policing language”. " I think removing her was for her own safety too. | |||
| |||
| |||
"A woman was arrested in Edinburg for holding a sign reading “fuck imperialism abolish monarchy”. Police say it was breach of the peace. What’s your thoughts? Free speech, sign holding, protesting. Is this the start of the slippery slope that is “policing language”. Its free speech and i agree witb her,though today was not the time or place to protest Funnily enough that’s almost exactly the quote from a woman interviewed there It’s raises the question that if we place limits on when you can use free speech, like “not at this time/place”, then is it actually free speech? We draw the line with racism, where hate speech overrules your free speech. Do we draw the line with the queen to? So you would be more than happy to have some doing that at a memorial event of one of your family then ? Wrong place wrong time "It’s not about being happy. It’s about our rights | |||
"Jaki Pickett was exercising her right to free speech. Unfortunately a large crowd took exception, and she needed police intervention for her safety." What right to free speech? This isn't the US. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"She also had an extremely offensive word in writing on the sign. If I'd have been there with my daughter, I'd have taken offence by it. People should stop looking for things that are not there." Yes, hate for the establishment and law and order seems to make them blind to indecency. | |||
"Jaki Pickett was exercising her right to free speech. Unfortunately a large crowd took exception, and she needed police intervention for her safety." And with right comes responsibility for how one exercises it . She was deliberately being grossly and offensive and whilst not condoning her shop windows being smashed it's upon her own head.. Time and place .. | |||
"What right to free speech? This isn't the US." Same thoughts. Folk watch US media and movies and assume what they see applies to them. The folk in the US fought a war to be free of the monarchy and yet we still have every part of our authorities swearing fealty to them. | |||
| |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now." Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ?" I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose. | |||
"Jaki Pickett was exercising her right to free speech. Unfortunately a large crowd took exception, and she needed police intervention for her safety. And with right comes responsibility for how one exercises it . She was deliberately being grossly and offensive and whilst not condoning her shop windows being smashed it's upon her own head.. Time and place .. "
I think in addition, she may not have done her cause any good with this and may have even set it back | |||
| |||
Had to be taken away because people jumped on him 
| |||
| |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now." "Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ?" "I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest." Having read up on it, I'm at a loss to see what it is that 'severely reduces our rights to protest'. Is it section 78, which prevents someone from recklessly endangering others at a protest? Perhaps it's section 79 which prevents a protester from intimidating or harassing a person. Maybe it's section 82 which allows the police to create safe zones around schools. All I can say is, without you telling us which section you object to, it's easy to come to the conclusion that you've not actually read it. | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. Having read up on it, I'm at a loss to see what it is that 'severely reduces our rights to protest'. Is it section 78, which prevents someone from recklessly endangering others at a protest? Perhaps it's section 79 which prevents a protester from intimidating or harassing a person. Maybe it's section 82 which allows the police to create safe zones around schools. All I can say is, without you telling us which section you object to, it's easy to come to the conclusion that you've not actually read it." Yes you win the argument for the sake of arguing. Well done. Meanwhile if you were interested you could read about why people don't like this bill, and what rights it removes. But you're just here for semantic "wins". So congratulations, you won. | |||
"Same as the muppet who necked at Andrew right in the middle of the funeral procession
Had to be taken away because people jumped on him
"That fu..er should not be seen at all. | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now." "Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ?" "I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest." "Having read up on it, I'm at a loss to see what it is that 'severely reduces our rights to protest'. Is it section 78, which prevents someone from recklessly endangering others at a protest? Perhaps it's section 79 which prevents a protester from intimidating or harassing a person. Maybe it's section 82 which allows the police to create safe zones around schools. All I can say is, without you telling us which section you object to, it's easy to come to the conclusion that you've not actually read it." "Yes you win the argument for the sake of arguing. Well done. Meanwhile if you were interested you could read about why people don't like this bill, and what rights it removes. But you're just here for semantic "wins". So congratulations, you won." Well, I'm happy that I 'won', but I'd far rather we had an actual discussion. I really am interested in which part of the legislation you find so objectionable. I have done some scouting around in the past to see why others don't like it, and which rights they think it removes, but I've yet to find someone that can make a sensible argument. It's quite disappointing that so many people have such a strong opinion, but they don't seem to know why they think that way. | |||
| |||
"An alternative view "A man who claims he had a week-long breakup party with a convicted sex-trafficking paedophile, then paid £12 million to settle a sexual assault lawsuit rather than go to court, is being protected by the police from mean heckles." @jimMfelton If you want to protest against Prince Antiperspirant you have limited opportunities. Meanwhile there is now verified video of someone in Parliament Square holding a blank piece of paper and being approached by police. Just like we condemned in Moscow 6 months ago." What better opportunity to heckle while he follows behind the coffin of his dead mother | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. Having read up on it, I'm at a loss to see what it is that 'severely reduces our rights to protest'. Is it section 78, which prevents someone from recklessly endangering others at a protest? Perhaps it's section 79 which prevents a protester from intimidating or harassing a person. Maybe it's section 82 which allows the police to create safe zones around schools. All I can say is, without you telling us which section you object to, it's easy to come to the conclusion that you've not actually read it. Yes you win the argument for the sake of arguing. Well done. Meanwhile if you were interested you could read about why people don't like this bill, and what rights it removes. But you're just here for semantic "wins". So congratulations, you won. Well, I'm happy that I 'won', but I'd far rather we had an actual discussion. I really am interested in which part of the legislation you find so objectionable. I have done some scouting around in the past to see why others don't like it, and which rights they think it removes, but I've yet to find someone that can make a sensible argument. It's quite disappointing that so many people have such a strong opinion, but they don't seem to know why they think that way." All you ever do is argue semantics. It's really dull. This forum has some weird satire, and some interesting discussion. So you're free to pick any arguments you want to. There is a wealth of information about there about how this bill reduces our rights. Such as the section about noise. The right to protest isn't just for far left tree huggers. There could be a time in the future when the government isn't hateful enough towards foreigners and doesn't give enough public money to their pals. In which case the right wing (who are currently championing this bill) might want to protest and find they can't as freely as they would like. | |||
"An alternative view "A man who claims he had a week-long breakup party with a convicted sex-trafficking paedophile, then paid £12 million to settle a sexual assault lawsuit rather than go to court, is being protected by the police from mean heckles." @jimMfelton If you want to protest against Prince Antiperspirant you have limited opportunities. Meanwhile there is now verified video of someone in Parliament Square holding a blank piece of paper and being approached by police. Just like we condemned in Moscow 6 months ago. What better opportunity to heckle while he follows behind the coffin of his dead mother "Yes, it's distasteful but we're paying for the funeral and that means comment on it, and everything around it is fair game. The nonce should never have been there in the first place. Being besties with a paedo changes the rules a little. Remove him from the procession and you now just have anti-monarchy protesters, and whatever your views on monarchy there is a legitimate argument of "tone it down lads, there's a coffin there. Show some respect for the human. You can protest later". Chuck a taxpayer funded nonce into the mix and respect isn't being offered, so why should it be reciprocated? | |||
"If you all truly think that if this woman hadn't had the word "fuck" in her sign she would have been left alone, I don't know how you operate in the real world with that level of naivety. " There were some protestors with banners in Cardiff on Saturday. Because they didn't feel the need to use profanities, they weren't arrested. | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now." "Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ?" "I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest." "Having read up on it, I'm at a loss to see what it is that 'severely reduces our rights to protest'. Is it section 78, which prevents someone from recklessly endangering others at a protest? Perhaps it's section 79 which prevents a protester from intimidating or harassing a person. Maybe it's section 82 which allows the police to create safe zones around schools. All I can say is, without you telling us which section you object to, it's easy to come to the conclusion that you've not actually read it." "Yes you win the argument for the sake of arguing. Well done. Meanwhile if you were interested you could read about why people don't like this bill, and what rights it removes. But you're just here for semantic "wins". So congratulations, you won." "Well, I'm happy that I 'won', but I'd far rather we had an actual discussion. I really am interested in which part of the legislation you find so objectionable. I have done some scouting around in the past to see why others don't like it, and which rights they think it removes, but I've yet to find someone that can make a sensible argument. It's quite disappointing that so many people have such a strong opinion, but they don't seem to know why they think that way." "All you ever do is argue semantics. It's really dull." Are you sure you know what 'semantics' means? It means 'relating to the meaning of words'. I'm not arguing semantics above, I'm trying to get you to back up your statements about the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Something which you are curiously reluctant to do. "There is a wealth of information about there about how this bill reduces our rights. Such as the section about noise." And yet you won't give us an example of a bit of the new law which 'severely reduces our rights to protest'. Surely with so much information available it would be trivial to come up with an example. | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose. "Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act. After all its you that's quoting the act ??? | |||
"An alternative view "A man who claims he had a week-long breakup party with a convicted sex-trafficking paedophile, then paid £12 million to settle a sexual assault lawsuit rather than go to court, is being protected by the police from mean heckles." @jimMfelton If you want to protest against Prince Antiperspirant you have limited opportunities. Meanwhile there is now verified video of someone in Parliament Square holding a blank piece of paper and being approached by police. Just like we condemned in Moscow 6 months ago. What better opportunity to heckle while he follows behind the coffin of his dead mother "When else can we heckle him ? He is a disgrace. | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. Having read up on it, I'm at a loss to see what it is that 'severely reduces our rights to protest'. Is it section 78, which prevents someone from recklessly endangering others at a protest? Perhaps it's section 79 which prevents a protester from intimidating or harassing a person. Maybe it's section 82 which allows the police to create safe zones around schools. All I can say is, without you telling us which section you object to, it's easy to come to the conclusion that you've not actually read it. Yes you win the argument for the sake of arguing. Well done. Meanwhile if you were interested you could read about why people don't like this bill, and what rights it removes. But you're just here for semantic "wins". So congratulations, you won. Well, I'm happy that I 'won', but I'd far rather we had an actual discussion. I really am interested in which part of the legislation you find so objectionable. I have done some scouting around in the past to see why others don't like it, and which rights they think it removes, but I've yet to find someone that can make a sensible argument. It's quite disappointing that so many people have such a strong opinion, but they don't seem to know why they think that way. All you ever do is argue semantics. It's really dull. Are you sure you know what 'semantics' means? It means 'relating to the meaning of words'. I'm not arguing semantics above, I'm trying to get you to back up your statements about the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Something which you are curiously reluctant to do. There is a wealth of information about there about how this bill reduces our rights. Such as the section about noise. And yet you won't give us an example of a bit of the new law which 'severely reduces our rights to protest'. Surely with so much information available it would be trivial to come up with an example." | |||
| |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???"This might help... In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’. This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”. The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of: - serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or - serious disruption to the life of the community. Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”. This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them. We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes. Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests. The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests. Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I am sick of seeing it all on TV...telling us what we "must all" feel about the death of a 96 yr old privileged lady. I was sad for a while but, this is not someone I knew." Theres an awful lot of stuff on TV I don't like too. Fortunately every TV or media device I've ever owned has an "off" button | |||
"I am sick of seeing it all on TV...telling us what we "must all" feel about the death of a 96 yr old privileged lady. I was sad for a while but, this is not someone I knew. Theres an awful lot of stuff on TV I don't like too. Fortunately every TV or media device I've ever owned has an "off" button" Netflix is your friend here.  | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???
This might help...
In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’.
This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of:
- serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
- serious disruption to the life of the community.
Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future."Reading what you have posted above I think you have attached "protests" only to these powers. I can clearly see these powers covering gatherings that we have seen in London, music blaring, youths gathering in large numbers and creating chaos and fear amongst the local community. It isn't only about protests | |||
| |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???
This might help...
In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’.
This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of:
- serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
- serious disruption to the life of the community.
Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future.
Reading what you have posted above I think you have attached "protests" only to these powers.
I can clearly see these powers covering gatherings that we have seen in London, music blaring, youths gathering in large numbers and creating chaos and fear amongst the local community.
It isn't only about protests
"Indeed and when you start talking about anti-social behaviour and such, then few, if anyone, would disagree. But the concerns appear to be around the latitude and freedom the Police will have to make decisions on the ground. It all sounds good in principle until it is abused and isn’t. The Bill could be amended to suitably cover specifics around Protest vs anti-social behaviour with clear definitions but it hasn’t. That is another concern. | |||
"The guy arrested and de-arrested at Oxford, is an author and a teacher. How does he not know that the Monarch isn't elected and never has been? Even school children are taught this. "I suspect his was a rhetorical question! | |||
"The guy arrested and de-arrested at Oxford, is an author and a teacher. How does he not know that the Monarch isn't elected and never has been? Even school children are taught this. "If this was twitter I'd post a gif of something whooshing over someone's head. As that option isn't available I'll just say that while you obviously know what events happened, you don't understand the events themselves. | |||
"Same as the muppet who necked at Andrew right in the middle of the funeral procession
Had to be taken away because people jumped on him
That fu..er should not be seen at all."It’s his mum’s funeral | |||
"Same as the muppet who necked at Andrew right in the middle of the funeral procession
Had to be taken away because people jumped on him
That fu..er should not be seen at all.
It’s his mum’s funeral "That's not till Monday, and nobody is talking about him not being present at the service. However, he shouldn't be allowed to use the preceding week to try and grief-wash his reputation. | |||
| |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???
This might help...
In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’.
This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of:
- serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
- serious disruption to the life of the community.
Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future.
Reading what you have posted above I think you have attached "protests" only to these powers.
I can clearly see these powers covering gatherings that we have seen in London, music blaring, youths gathering in large numbers and creating chaos and fear amongst the local community.
It isn't only about protests
Indeed and when you start talking about anti-social behaviour and such, then few, if anyone, would disagree. But the concerns appear to be around the latitude and freedom the Police will have to make decisions on the ground. It all sounds good in principle until it is abused and isn’t.
The Bill could be amended to suitably cover specifics around Protest vs anti-social behaviour with clear definitions but it hasn’t. That is another concern."The police will always be walking a tightrope between over policing and allowing anti social behaviour to go unchecked. We would be naive to think protests can't lead to anti social behaviour and can create fear amongst people, types of protests differ significantly too, vandalism and aggression on one extreme, to peaceful uneventful on the other. The police need powers to deal with the ever changing landscape of todays gatherings and protests, I want them to have those powers as a citizen. They will still be held accountable for over policing, it is a given with the coverage protests have, and I would also imagine taking a hard line to close down a protest is not taken lightly due to the consequences of that decision igniting the emotions of a crowd. | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???
This might help...
In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’.
This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of:
- serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
- serious disruption to the life of the community.
Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future.
Reading what you have posted above I think you have attached "protests" only to these powers.
I can clearly see these powers covering gatherings that we have seen in London, music blaring, youths gathering in large numbers and creating chaos and fear amongst the local community.
It isn't only about protests
Indeed and when you start talking about anti-social behaviour and such, then few, if anyone, would disagree. But the concerns appear to be around the latitude and freedom the Police will have to make decisions on the ground. It all sounds good in principle until it is abused and isn’t.
The Bill could be amended to suitably cover specifics around Protest vs anti-social behaviour with clear definitions but it hasn’t. That is another concern.
The police will always be walking a tightrope between over policing and allowing anti social behaviour to go unchecked. We would be naive to think protests can't lead to anti social behaviour and can create fear amongst people, types of protests differ significantly too, vandalism and aggression on one extreme, to peaceful uneventful on the other.
The police need powers to deal with the ever changing landscape of todays gatherings and protests, I want them to have those powers as a citizen. They will still be held accountable for over policing, it is a given with the coverage protests have, and I would also imagine taking a hard line to close down a protest is not taken lightly due to the consequences of that decision igniting the emotions of a crowd."I applaud your optimism but I challenge why the Bill cannot make specific and defined definitions that protect and enshrine the right to protest. In the first/second post I made on this there were examples given that illustrate the point. We have already witnessed a number of heavy handed interpretations by the police. There needs to be tightly defined parameters and I would argue that “causing nuisance or possible distress” is not such a parameter. So thinking about this as I type... Scenario 1: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise upsetting the neighbourhood. Presumably that is anti-social behaviour and should be dealt with. Scenario 2: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise as they march in protest or picket a site upsetting the neighbourhood. Is that anti-social behaviour or a legitimate protest? Should it be dealt with? How do we know? What are the parameters in the Bill to define the difference? | |||
"Same as the muppet who necked at Andrew right in the middle of the funeral procession
Had to be taken away because people jumped on him
That fu..er should not be seen at all.
It’s his mum’s funeral
That's not till Monday, and nobody is talking about him not being present at the service. However, he shouldn't be allowed to use the preceding week to try and grief-wash his reputation."Does anyone actually believe he could grief-wash his reputation? Respect for a bereaved family is not too much to ask. But you are entitled to your opinion | |||
"A woman was arrested in Edinburg for holding a sign reading “fuck imperialism abolish monarchy”. Police say it was breach of the peace. What’s your thoughts? Free speech, sign holding, protesting. Is this the start of the slippery slope that is “policing language”. " Remove the offensive word and hopefully she wouldn’t have been arrested | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???
This might help...
In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’.
This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of:
- serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
- serious disruption to the life of the community.
Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future.
Reading what you have posted above I think you have attached "protests" only to these powers.
I can clearly see these powers covering gatherings that we have seen in London, music blaring, youths gathering in large numbers and creating chaos and fear amongst the local community.
It isn't only about protests
Indeed and when you start talking about anti-social behaviour and such, then few, if anyone, would disagree. But the concerns appear to be around the latitude and freedom the Police will have to make decisions on the ground. It all sounds good in principle until it is abused and isn’t.
The Bill could be amended to suitably cover specifics around Protest vs anti-social behaviour with clear definitions but it hasn’t. That is another concern.
The police will always be walking a tightrope between over policing and allowing anti social behaviour to go unchecked. We would be naive to think protests can't lead to anti social behaviour and can create fear amongst people, types of protests differ significantly too, vandalism and aggression on one extreme, to peaceful uneventful on the other.
The police need powers to deal with the ever changing landscape of todays gatherings and protests, I want them to have those powers as a citizen. They will still be held accountable for over policing, it is a given with the coverage protests have, and I would also imagine taking a hard line to close down a protest is not taken lightly due to the consequences of that decision igniting the emotions of a crowd.
I applaud your optimism but I challenge why the Bill cannot make specific and defined definitions that protect and enshrine the right to protest. In the first/second post I made on this there were examples given that illustrate the point.
We have already witnessed a number of heavy handed interpretations by the police. There needs to be tightly defined parameters and I would argue that “causing nuisance or possible distress” is not such a parameter.
So thinking about this as I type...
Scenario 1: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise upsetting the neighbourhood. Presumably that is anti-social behaviour and should be dealt with.
Scenario 2: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise as they march in protest or picket a site upsetting the neighbourhood. Is that anti-social behaviour or a legitimate protest? Should it be dealt with? How do we know? What are the parameters in the Bill to define the difference? "There is no defined points at crossing thresholds in scenario 2 because the detail would need to be so prescriptive it would make it unworkable. dB levels, words used, time spent in one place, number of complaints and so on. I see you want a clear set of rules, but certain circumstances such as public order or criminal activities would be able to swerve prosecution due to technicalities. I also believe we can't assume the police are doing or making the wrong decisions all of the time. We should expect them to make good decisions and be held accountable when they don't. Protesting, should not be a vehicle for anti social behaviour, criminal activities or violence. Some protests are escalating to the mentioned problems for those wishing to use the large numbers of people as a shield for their unlawful activities. | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???
This might help...
In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’.
This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of:
- serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
- serious disruption to the life of the community.
Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future.
Reading what you have posted above I think you have attached "protests" only to these powers.
I can clearly see these powers covering gatherings that we have seen in London, music blaring, youths gathering in large numbers and creating chaos and fear amongst the local community.
It isn't only about protests
Indeed and when you start talking about anti-social behaviour and such, then few, if anyone, would disagree. But the concerns appear to be around the latitude and freedom the Police will have to make decisions on the ground. It all sounds good in principle until it is abused and isn’t.
The Bill could be amended to suitably cover specifics around Protest vs anti-social behaviour with clear definitions but it hasn’t. That is another concern.
The police will always be walking a tightrope between over policing and allowing anti social behaviour to go unchecked. We would be naive to think protests can't lead to anti social behaviour and can create fear amongst people, types of protests differ significantly too, vandalism and aggression on one extreme, to peaceful uneventful on the other.
The police need powers to deal with the ever changing landscape of todays gatherings and protests, I want them to have those powers as a citizen. They will still be held accountable for over policing, it is a given with the coverage protests have, and I would also imagine taking a hard line to close down a protest is not taken lightly due to the consequences of that decision igniting the emotions of a crowd.
I applaud your optimism but I challenge why the Bill cannot make specific and defined definitions that protect and enshrine the right to protest. In the first/second post I made on this there were examples given that illustrate the point.
We have already witnessed a number of heavy handed interpretations by the police. There needs to be tightly defined parameters and I would argue that “causing nuisance or possible distress” is not such a parameter.
So thinking about this as I type...
Scenario 1: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise upsetting the neighbourhood. Presumably that is anti-social behaviour and should be dealt with.
Scenario 2: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise as they march in protest or picket a site upsetting the neighbourhood. Is that anti-social behaviour or a legitimate protest? Should it be dealt with? How do we know? What are the parameters in the Bill to define the difference?
There is no defined points at crossing thresholds in scenario 2 because the detail would need to be so prescriptive it would make it unworkable.
dB levels, words used, time spent in one place, number of complaints and so on.
I see you want a clear set of rules, but certain circumstances such as public order or criminal activities would be able to swerve prosecution due to technicalities.
I also believe we can't assume the police are doing or making the wrong decisions all of the time. We should expect them to make good decisions and be held accountable when they don't.
Protesting, should not be a vehicle for anti social behaviour, criminal activities or violence. Some protests are escalating to the mentioned problems for those wishing to use the large numbers of people as a shield for their unlawful activities."Hmmm that feels a bit weaselly to me. I think it would be quite easy to define a Protest vs anti-social or criminal behaviour. I do not see why a protest should be stopped from making a lot of noise or be disruptive (surely that is the idea). And as long as no criminal damage actually takes place, then why shouldn’t someone be allowed to chain themselves to an object to disrupt the activity of that object? The suffragettes would not be allowed to protest. The million anti Iraq war march would not be permitted. I think it is relatively east to distinguish between protesting and anti-social behaviour. And let’s remember the role of agent provocateurs (the Miners comes to mind). | |||
| |||
| |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???
This might help...
In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’.
This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of:
- serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
- serious disruption to the life of the community.
Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future.
Reading what you have posted above I think you have attached "protests" only to these powers.
I can clearly see these powers covering gatherings that we have seen in London, music blaring, youths gathering in large numbers and creating chaos and fear amongst the local community.
It isn't only about protests
Indeed and when you start talking about anti-social behaviour and such, then few, if anyone, would disagree. But the concerns appear to be around the latitude and freedom the Police will have to make decisions on the ground. It all sounds good in principle until it is abused and isn’t.
The Bill could be amended to suitably cover specifics around Protest vs anti-social behaviour with clear definitions but it hasn’t. That is another concern.
The police will always be walking a tightrope between over policing and allowing anti social behaviour to go unchecked. We would be naive to think protests can't lead to anti social behaviour and can create fear amongst people, types of protests differ significantly too, vandalism and aggression on one extreme, to peaceful uneventful on the other.
The police need powers to deal with the ever changing landscape of todays gatherings and protests, I want them to have those powers as a citizen. They will still be held accountable for over policing, it is a given with the coverage protests have, and I would also imagine taking a hard line to close down a protest is not taken lightly due to the consequences of that decision igniting the emotions of a crowd.
I applaud your optimism but I challenge why the Bill cannot make specific and defined definitions that protect and enshrine the right to protest. In the first/second post I made on this there were examples given that illustrate the point.
We have already witnessed a number of heavy handed interpretations by the police. There needs to be tightly defined parameters and I would argue that “causing nuisance or possible distress” is not such a parameter.
So thinking about this as I type...
Scenario 1: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise upsetting the neighbourhood. Presumably that is anti-social behaviour and should be dealt with.
Scenario 2: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise as they march in protest or picket a site upsetting the neighbourhood. Is that anti-social behaviour or a legitimate protest? Should it be dealt with? How do we know? What are the parameters in the Bill to define the difference?
There is no defined points at crossing thresholds in scenario 2 because the detail would need to be so prescriptive it would make it unworkable.
dB levels, words used, time spent in one place, number of complaints and so on.
I see you want a clear set of rules, but certain circumstances such as public order or criminal activities would be able to swerve prosecution due to technicalities.
I also believe we can't assume the police are doing or making the wrong decisions all of the time. We should expect them to make good decisions and be held accountable when they don't.
Protesting, should not be a vehicle for anti social behaviour, criminal activities or violence. Some protests are escalating to the mentioned problems for those wishing to use the large numbers of people as a shield for their unlawful activities.
Hmmm that feels a bit weaselly to me. I think it would be quite easy to define a Protest vs anti-social or criminal behaviour.
I do not see why a protest should be stopped from making a lot of noise or be disruptive (surely that is the idea). And as long as no criminal damage actually takes place, then why shouldn’t someone be allowed to chain themselves to an object to disrupt the activity of that object?
The suffragettes would not be allowed to protest. The million anti Iraq war march would not be permitted.
I think it is relatively east to distinguish between protesting and anti-social behaviour. And let’s remember the role of agent provocateurs (the Miners comes to mind). "It isn't about noise in in isolation is it, it is about the whole situation and being able to assess, threat or possible crime and deal with it the way the public expect it to be dealt with. A protest does not give people a freedom to do whatever they want with no repercussion, however a lot do end up like that as the protests can be hijacked by individuals intent on causing trouble, or making stupid decisions in the heat of the moment. The original definition you posted gave me no concerns that a protest would be in any danger of being stopped for no valid reason, it did make me feel that unplanned mass gatherings intent on anti social behaviour could be dealt with. It feels all if's and maybe's around protesting issues. | |||
"“Man charged over heckling of Prince Andrew as he followed coffin” Seems fair. " A royal scumbag gets to call an interview on national media as an attempt to cover up his repulsive behaviours. This is okay. But if a peasant calls out (what is arguably fact) in the street he gets hauled away by some oaf and then arrested on top! How the thug that yanked him away from the crowd hasn't been charged with assault, I've no idea. | |||
"She should count herself lucky. For the freedoms given by this country, 200 yrs ago, it would be head off at the Tower." She should count herself lucky that her opinion got her arrested? What kind of barbaric thinking is this... People died in wars for the right to protest and speak freely. If people dislike that, then they can sneak into North Korea. C | |||
"“Man charged over heckling of Prince Andrew as he followed coffin” Seems fair. A royal scumbag gets to call an interview on national media as an attempt to cover up his repulsive behaviours. This is okay. But if a peasant calls out (what is arguably fact) in the street he gets hauled away by some oaf and then arrested on top! How the thug that yanked him away from the crowd hasn't been charged with assault, I've no idea. " This is the UK in 2022. The police can arrest and cart off any protesters whenever they want. And you get hounded for even suggesting that it's not great. | |||
"“Man charged over heckling of Prince Andrew as he followed coffin” Seems fair. A royal scumbag gets to call an interview on national media as an attempt to cover up his repulsive behaviours. This is okay. But if a peasant calls out (what is arguably fact) in the street he gets hauled away by some oaf and then arrested on top! How the thug that yanked him away from the crowd hasn't been charged with assault, I've no idea. This is the UK in 2022. The police can arrest and cart off any protesters whenever they want. And you get hounded for even suggesting that it's not great." I hope it gets picked up by a decent legal team and they help the lad press charges. | |||
"I am sick of seeing it all on TV...telling us what we "must all" feel about the death of a 96 yr old privileged lady. I was sad for a while but, this is not someone I knew. Theres an awful lot of stuff on TV I don't like too. Fortunately every TV or media device I've ever owned has an "off" button" There is an off button and I'm using it and Netflix. I just feel its an awful lot of discussion about the death of someone, as if it is not perfectly natural at 96. I also don’t believe the Queen was a Saint like we are being made to believe. | |||
" I also don’t believe the Queen was a Saint like we are being made to believe." She absolutely wasn't. She used her power to get around employing people who aren't white, for one thing. But the royal boot lickers aren't interested in what she was actually like, it's all about the image of the amazing lovely old granny. | |||
| |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???
This might help...
In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’.
This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of:
- serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
- serious disruption to the life of the community.
Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future.
Reading what you have posted above I think you have attached "protests" only to these powers.
I can clearly see these powers covering gatherings that we have seen in London, music blaring, youths gathering in large numbers and creating chaos and fear amongst the local community.
It isn't only about protests
Indeed and when you start talking about anti-social behaviour and such, then few, if anyone, would disagree. But the concerns appear to be around the latitude and freedom the Police will have to make decisions on the ground. It all sounds good in principle until it is abused and isn’t.
The Bill could be amended to suitably cover specifics around Protest vs anti-social behaviour with clear definitions but it hasn’t. That is another concern.
The police will always be walking a tightrope between over policing and allowing anti social behaviour to go unchecked. We would be naive to think protests can't lead to anti social behaviour and can create fear amongst people, types of protests differ significantly too, vandalism and aggression on one extreme, to peaceful uneventful on the other.
The police need powers to deal with the ever changing landscape of todays gatherings and protests, I want them to have those powers as a citizen. They will still be held accountable for over policing, it is a given with the coverage protests have, and I would also imagine taking a hard line to close down a protest is not taken lightly due to the consequences of that decision igniting the emotions of a crowd.
I applaud your optimism but I challenge why the Bill cannot make specific and defined definitions that protect and enshrine the right to protest. In the first/second post I made on this there were examples given that illustrate the point.
We have already witnessed a number of heavy handed interpretations by the police. There needs to be tightly defined parameters and I would argue that “causing nuisance or possible distress” is not such a parameter.
So thinking about this as I type...
Scenario 1: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise upsetting the neighbourhood. Presumably that is anti-social behaviour and should be dealt with.
Scenario 2: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise as they march in protest or picket a site upsetting the neighbourhood. Is that anti-social behaviour or a legitimate protest? Should it be dealt with? How do we know? What are the parameters in the Bill to define the difference?
There is no defined points at crossing thresholds in scenario 2 because the detail would need to be so prescriptive it would make it unworkable.
dB levels, words used, time spent in one place, number of complaints and so on.
I see you want a clear set of rules, but certain circumstances such as public order or criminal activities would be able to swerve prosecution due to technicalities.
I also believe we can't assume the police are doing or making the wrong decisions all of the time. We should expect them to make good decisions and be held accountable when they don't.
Protesting, should not be a vehicle for anti social behaviour, criminal activities or violence. Some protests are escalating to the mentioned problems for those wishing to use the large numbers of people as a shield for their unlawful activities.
Hmmm that feels a bit weaselly to me. I think it would be quite easy to define a Protest vs anti-social or criminal behaviour.
I do not see why a protest should be stopped from making a lot of noise or be disruptive (surely that is the idea). And as long as no criminal damage actually takes place, then why shouldn’t someone be allowed to chain themselves to an object to disrupt the activity of that object?
The suffragettes would not be allowed to protest. The million anti Iraq war march would not be permitted.
I think it is relatively east to distinguish between protesting and anti-social behaviour. And let’s remember the role of agent provocateurs (the Miners comes to mind).
It isn't about noise in in isolation is it, it is about the whole situation and being able to assess, threat or possible crime and deal with it the way the public expect it to be dealt with.
A protest does not give people a freedom to do whatever they want with no repercussion, however a lot do end up like that as the protests can be hijacked by individuals intent on causing trouble, or making stupid decisions in the heat of the moment.
The original definition you posted gave me no concerns that a protest would be in any danger of being stopped for no valid reason, it did make me feel that unplanned mass gatherings intent on anti social behaviour could be dealt with.
It feels all if's and maybe's around protesting issues."Hmmm you and I clearly see this very differently. The proof is obviously in the pudding. So how do you feel about a person being arrested for holding up a banner saying “not my king”? Or the barrister who held up a blank sheet of paper? | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???
This might help...
In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’.
This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of:
- serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
- serious disruption to the life of the community.
Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future.
Reading what you have posted above I think you have attached "protests" only to these powers.
I can clearly see these powers covering gatherings that we have seen in London, music blaring, youths gathering in large numbers and creating chaos and fear amongst the local community.
It isn't only about protests
Indeed and when you start talking about anti-social behaviour and such, then few, if anyone, would disagree. But the concerns appear to be around the latitude and freedom the Police will have to make decisions on the ground. It all sounds good in principle until it is abused and isn’t.
The Bill could be amended to suitably cover specifics around Protest vs anti-social behaviour with clear definitions but it hasn’t. That is another concern.
The police will always be walking a tightrope between over policing and allowing anti social behaviour to go unchecked. We would be naive to think protests can't lead to anti social behaviour and can create fear amongst people, types of protests differ significantly too, vandalism and aggression on one extreme, to peaceful uneventful on the other.
The police need powers to deal with the ever changing landscape of todays gatherings and protests, I want them to have those powers as a citizen. They will still be held accountable for over policing, it is a given with the coverage protests have, and I would also imagine taking a hard line to close down a protest is not taken lightly due to the consequences of that decision igniting the emotions of a crowd.
I applaud your optimism but I challenge why the Bill cannot make specific and defined definitions that protect and enshrine the right to protest. In the first/second post I made on this there were examples given that illustrate the point.
We have already witnessed a number of heavy handed interpretations by the police. There needs to be tightly defined parameters and I would argue that “causing nuisance or possible distress” is not such a parameter.
So thinking about this as I type...
Scenario 1: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise upsetting the neighbourhood. Presumably that is anti-social behaviour and should be dealt with.
Scenario 2: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise as they march in protest or picket a site upsetting the neighbourhood. Is that anti-social behaviour or a legitimate protest? Should it be dealt with? How do we know? What are the parameters in the Bill to define the difference?
There is no defined points at crossing thresholds in scenario 2 because the detail would need to be so prescriptive it would make it unworkable.
dB levels, words used, time spent in one place, number of complaints and so on.
I see you want a clear set of rules, but certain circumstances such as public order or criminal activities would be able to swerve prosecution due to technicalities.
I also believe we can't assume the police are doing or making the wrong decisions all of the time. We should expect them to make good decisions and be held accountable when they don't.
Protesting, should not be a vehicle for anti social behaviour, criminal activities or violence. Some protests are escalating to the mentioned problems for those wishing to use the large numbers of people as a shield for their unlawful activities.
Hmmm that feels a bit weaselly to me. I think it would be quite easy to define a Protest vs anti-social or criminal behaviour.
I do not see why a protest should be stopped from making a lot of noise or be disruptive (surely that is the idea). And as long as no criminal damage actually takes place, then why shouldn’t someone be allowed to chain themselves to an object to disrupt the activity of that object?
The suffragettes would not be allowed to protest. The million anti Iraq war march would not be permitted.
I think it is relatively east to distinguish between protesting and anti-social behaviour. And let’s remember the role of agent provocateurs (the Miners comes to mind).
It isn't about noise in in isolation is it, it is about the whole situation and being able to assess, threat or possible crime and deal with it the way the public expect it to be dealt with.
A protest does not give people a freedom to do whatever they want with no repercussion, however a lot do end up like that as the protests can be hijacked by individuals intent on causing trouble, or making stupid decisions in the heat of the moment.
The original definition you posted gave me no concerns that a protest would be in any danger of being stopped for no valid reason, it did make me feel that unplanned mass gatherings intent on anti social behaviour could be dealt with.
It feels all if's and maybe's around protesting issues.
Hmmm you and I clearly see this very differently. The proof is obviously in the pudding. So how do you feel about a person being arrested for holding up a banner saying “not my king”? Or the barrister who held up a blank sheet of paper?"I wont get into the details of any protests as that is not what this is about. A protest that does not break the law will be fine, it always has been, those that seek violence and trouble under the guise of a protest will not. Do you think violence or criminal damage should go unchecked, because it was during a protest? | |||
" So how do you feel about a person being arrested for holding up a banner saying “not my king”? Or the barrister who held up a blank sheet of paper?" Was anyone arrested for holding up a "not my king" banner or a blank sheet of paper ? | |||
 | |||
" So how do you feel about a person being arrested for holding up a banner saying “not my king”? Or the barrister who held up a blank sheet of paper? Was anyone arrested for holding up a "not my king" banner or a blank sheet of paper ?" Google is your friend. People have been arrested and then de-arrested. They were detained snd stopped from protesting. | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???
This might help...
In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’.
This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of:
- serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
- serious disruption to the life of the community.
Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future.
Reading what you have posted above I think you have attached "protests" only to these powers.
I can clearly see these powers covering gatherings that we have seen in London, music blaring, youths gathering in large numbers and creating chaos and fear amongst the local community.
It isn't only about protests
Indeed and when you start talking about anti-social behaviour and such, then few, if anyone, would disagree. But the concerns appear to be around the latitude and freedom the Police will have to make decisions on the ground. It all sounds good in principle until it is abused and isn’t.
The Bill could be amended to suitably cover specifics around Protest vs anti-social behaviour with clear definitions but it hasn’t. That is another concern.
The police will always be walking a tightrope between over policing and allowing anti social behaviour to go unchecked. We would be naive to think protests can't lead to anti social behaviour and can create fear amongst people, types of protests differ significantly too, vandalism and aggression on one extreme, to peaceful uneventful on the other.
The police need powers to deal with the ever changing landscape of todays gatherings and protests, I want them to have those powers as a citizen. They will still be held accountable for over policing, it is a given with the coverage protests have, and I would also imagine taking a hard line to close down a protest is not taken lightly due to the consequences of that decision igniting the emotions of a crowd.
I applaud your optimism but I challenge why the Bill cannot make specific and defined definitions that protect and enshrine the right to protest. In the first/second post I made on this there were examples given that illustrate the point.
We have already witnessed a number of heavy handed interpretations by the police. There needs to be tightly defined parameters and I would argue that “causing nuisance or possible distress” is not such a parameter.
So thinking about this as I type...
Scenario 1: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise upsetting the neighbourhood. Presumably that is anti-social behaviour and should be dealt with.
Scenario 2: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise as they march in protest or picket a site upsetting the neighbourhood. Is that anti-social behaviour or a legitimate protest? Should it be dealt with? How do we know? What are the parameters in the Bill to define the difference?
There is no defined points at crossing thresholds in scenario 2 because the detail would need to be so prescriptive it would make it unworkable.
dB levels, words used, time spent in one place, number of complaints and so on.
I see you want a clear set of rules, but certain circumstances such as public order or criminal activities would be able to swerve prosecution due to technicalities.
I also believe we can't assume the police are doing or making the wrong decisions all of the time. We should expect them to make good decisions and be held accountable when they don't.
Protesting, should not be a vehicle for anti social behaviour, criminal activities or violence. Some protests are escalating to the mentioned problems for those wishing to use the large numbers of people as a shield for their unlawful activities.
Hmmm that feels a bit weaselly to me. I think it would be quite easy to define a Protest vs anti-social or criminal behaviour.
I do not see why a protest should be stopped from making a lot of noise or be disruptive (surely that is the idea). And as long as no criminal damage actually takes place, then why shouldn’t someone be allowed to chain themselves to an object to disrupt the activity of that object?
The suffragettes would not be allowed to protest. The million anti Iraq war march would not be permitted.
I think it is relatively east to distinguish between protesting and anti-social behaviour. And let’s remember the role of agent provocateurs (the Miners comes to mind).
It isn't about noise in in isolation is it, it is about the whole situation and being able to assess, threat or possible crime and deal with it the way the public expect it to be dealt with.
A protest does not give people a freedom to do whatever they want with no repercussion, however a lot do end up like that as the protests can be hijacked by individuals intent on causing trouble, or making stupid decisions in the heat of the moment.
The original definition you posted gave me no concerns that a protest would be in any danger of being stopped for no valid reason, it did make me feel that unplanned mass gatherings intent on anti social behaviour could be dealt with.
It feels all if's and maybe's around protesting issues.
Hmmm you and I clearly see this very differently. The proof is obviously in the pudding. So how do you feel about a person being arrested for holding up a banner saying “not my king”? Or the barrister who held up a blank sheet of paper?
I wont get into the details of any protests as that is not what this is about.
A protest that does not break the law will be fine, it always has been, those that seek violence and trouble under the guise of a protest will not.
Do you think violence or criminal damage should go unchecked, because it was during a protest? "If you won’t answer my questions then I won’t answer yours! Quid pro quo and all that
However, my posts have been clear on my views and they are not open to interpretation. | |||
" So how do you feel about a person being arrested for holding up a banner saying “not my king”? Or the barrister who held up a blank sheet of paper? Was anyone arrested for holding up a "not my king" banner or a blank sheet of paper ? Google is your friend. People have been arrested and then de-arrested. They were detained snd stopped from protesting." Goggle isnt my friend because it told me a woman was led away for holding up a "not my king" sign nothing about being arrested. Another with an obscene sign was arrested. Didn't see anything that alarming to be honest | |||
" So how do you feel about a person being arrested for holding up a banner saying “not my king”? Or the barrister who held up a blank sheet of paper? Was anyone arrested for holding up a "not my king" banner or a blank sheet of paper ? Google is your friend. People have been arrested and then de-arrested. They were detained snd stopped from protesting. Goggle isnt my friend because it told me a woman was led away for holding up a "not my king" sign nothing about being arrested. Another with an obscene sign was arrested. Didn't see anything that alarming to be honest " Not sure what search string you used but there is plenty there. Try... Protesters arrested UK | |||
" So how do you feel about a person being arrested for holding up a banner saying “not my king”? Or the barrister who held up a blank sheet of paper? Was anyone arrested for holding up a "not my king" banner or a blank sheet of paper ? Google is your friend. People have been arrested and then de-arrested. They were detained snd stopped from protesting. Goggle isnt my friend because it told me a woman was led away for holding up a "not my king" sign nothing about being arrested. Another with an obscene sign was arrested. Didn't see anything that alarming to be honest " She was moved along not arrested | |||
"A woman was arrested in Edinburg for holding a sign reading “fuck imperialism abolish monarchy”. Police say it was breach of the peace. What’s your thoughts? Free speech, sign holding, protesting. Is this the start of the slippery slope that is “policing language”. Remove the offensive word and hopefully she wouldn’t have been arrested " | |||
" So how do you feel about a person being arrested for holding up a banner saying “not my king”? Or the barrister who held up a blank sheet of paper? Was anyone arrested for holding up a "not my king" banner or a blank sheet of paper ? Google is your friend. People have been arrested and then de-arrested. They were detained snd stopped from protesting. Goggle isnt my friend because it told me a woman was led away for holding up a "not my king" sign nothing about being arrested. Another with an obscene sign was arrested. Didn't see anything that alarming to be honest Not sure what search string you used but there is plenty there. Try... Protesters arrested UK" Unfortunately I read what was there and not what you wanted me to see sorry | |||
"A woman was arrested in Edinburg for holding a sign reading “fuck imperialism abolish monarchy”. Police say it was breach of the peace. What’s your thoughts? Free speech, sign holding, protesting. Is this the start of the slippery slope that is “policing language”. " I’ve just watched people applauding, cheering and whistling at seeing the dead monarch driven past them into Buckingham Palace. Is anti-Royalism spreading that quickly? Those first few anti-Royals didn’t realise they could have safely cheered to see the Queen dead, did they? | |||
| |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???
This might help...
In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’.
This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of:
- serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
- serious disruption to the life of the community.
Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future.
Reading what you have posted above I think you have attached "protests" only to these powers.
I can clearly see these powers covering gatherings that we have seen in London, music blaring, youths gathering in large numbers and creating chaos and fear amongst the local community.
It isn't only about protests
Indeed and when you start talking about anti-social behaviour and such, then few, if anyone, would disagree. But the concerns appear to be around the latitude and freedom the Police will have to make decisions on the ground. It all sounds good in principle until it is abused and isn’t.
The Bill could be amended to suitably cover specifics around Protest vs anti-social behaviour with clear definitions but it hasn’t. That is another concern.
The police will always be walking a tightrope between over policing and allowing anti social behaviour to go unchecked. We would be naive to think protests can't lead to anti social behaviour and can create fear amongst people, types of protests differ significantly too, vandalism and aggression on one extreme, to peaceful uneventful on the other.
The police need powers to deal with the ever changing landscape of todays gatherings and protests, I want them to have those powers as a citizen. They will still be held accountable for over policing, it is a given with the coverage protests have, and I would also imagine taking a hard line to close down a protest is not taken lightly due to the consequences of that decision igniting the emotions of a crowd.
I applaud your optimism but I challenge why the Bill cannot make specific and defined definitions that protect and enshrine the right to protest. In the first/second post I made on this there were examples given that illustrate the point.
We have already witnessed a number of heavy handed interpretations by the police. There needs to be tightly defined parameters and I would argue that “causing nuisance or possible distress” is not such a parameter.
So thinking about this as I type...
Scenario 1: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise upsetting the neighbourhood. Presumably that is anti-social behaviour and should be dealt with.
Scenario 2: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise as they march in protest or picket a site upsetting the neighbourhood. Is that anti-social behaviour or a legitimate protest? Should it be dealt with? How do we know? What are the parameters in the Bill to define the difference?
There is no defined points at crossing thresholds in scenario 2 because the detail would need to be so prescriptive it would make it unworkable.
dB levels, words used, time spent in one place, number of complaints and so on.
I see you want a clear set of rules, but certain circumstances such as public order or criminal activities would be able to swerve prosecution due to technicalities.
I also believe we can't assume the police are doing or making the wrong decisions all of the time. We should expect them to make good decisions and be held accountable when they don't.
Protesting, should not be a vehicle for anti social behaviour, criminal activities or violence. Some protests are escalating to the mentioned problems for those wishing to use the large numbers of people as a shield for their unlawful activities.
Hmmm that feels a bit weaselly to me. I think it would be quite easy to define a Protest vs anti-social or criminal behaviour.
I do not see why a protest should be stopped from making a lot of noise or be disruptive (surely that is the idea). And as long as no criminal damage actually takes place, then why shouldn’t someone be allowed to chain themselves to an object to disrupt the activity of that object?
The suffragettes would not be allowed to protest. The million anti Iraq war march would not be permitted.
I think it is relatively east to distinguish between protesting and anti-social behaviour. And let’s remember the role of agent provocateurs (the Miners comes to mind).
It isn't about noise in in isolation is it, it is about the whole situation and being able to assess, threat or possible crime and deal with it the way the public expect it to be dealt with.
A protest does not give people a freedom to do whatever they want with no repercussion, however a lot do end up like that as the protests can be hijacked by individuals intent on causing trouble, or making stupid decisions in the heat of the moment.
The original definition you posted gave me no concerns that a protest would be in any danger of being stopped for no valid reason, it did make me feel that unplanned mass gatherings intent on anti social behaviour could be dealt with.
It feels all if's and maybe's around protesting issues.
Hmmm you and I clearly see this very differently. The proof is obviously in the pudding. So how do you feel about a person being arrested for holding up a banner saying “not my king”? Or the barrister who held up a blank sheet of paper?
I wont get into the details of any protests as that is not what this is about.
A protest that does not break the law will be fine, it always has been, those that seek violence and trouble under the guise of a protest will not.
Do you think violence or criminal damage should go unchecked, because it was during a protest?
If you won’t answer my questions then I won’t answer yours! Quid pro quo and all that
However, my posts have been clear on my views and they are not open to interpretation."They have been clear and I feel you haven't fielded a clear argument to support your views. Not your usual self, in my opinion. | |||
" So how do you feel about a person being arrested for holding up a banner saying “not my king”? Or the barrister who held up a blank sheet of paper? Was anyone arrested for holding up a "not my king" banner or a blank sheet of paper ? Google is your friend. People have been arrested and then de-arrested. They were detained snd stopped from protesting." Have you considered any other reason than stopped from protesting? Saving them from harm, maybe? | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???
This might help...
In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’.
This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of:
- serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
- serious disruption to the life of the community.
Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future.
Reading what you have posted above I think you have attached "protests" only to these powers.
I can clearly see these powers covering gatherings that we have seen in London, music blaring, youths gathering in large numbers and creating chaos and fear amongst the local community.
It isn't only about protests
Indeed and when you start talking about anti-social behaviour and such, then few, if anyone, would disagree. But the concerns appear to be around the latitude and freedom the Police will have to make decisions on the ground. It all sounds good in principle until it is abused and isn’t.
The Bill could be amended to suitably cover specifics around Protest vs anti-social behaviour with clear definitions but it hasn’t. That is another concern.
The police will always be walking a tightrope between over policing and allowing anti social behaviour to go unchecked. We would be naive to think protests can't lead to anti social behaviour and can create fear amongst people, types of protests differ significantly too, vandalism and aggression on one extreme, to peaceful uneventful on the other.
The police need powers to deal with the ever changing landscape of todays gatherings and protests, I want them to have those powers as a citizen. They will still be held accountable for over policing, it is a given with the coverage protests have, and I would also imagine taking a hard line to close down a protest is not taken lightly due to the consequences of that decision igniting the emotions of a crowd.
I applaud your optimism but I challenge why the Bill cannot make specific and defined definitions that protect and enshrine the right to protest. In the first/second post I made on this there were examples given that illustrate the point.
We have already witnessed a number of heavy handed interpretations by the police. There needs to be tightly defined parameters and I would argue that “causing nuisance or possible distress” is not such a parameter.
So thinking about this as I type...
Scenario 1: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise upsetting the neighbourhood. Presumably that is anti-social behaviour and should be dealt with.
Scenario 2: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise as they march in protest or picket a site upsetting the neighbourhood. Is that anti-social behaviour or a legitimate protest? Should it be dealt with? How do we know? What are the parameters in the Bill to define the difference?
There is no defined points at crossing thresholds in scenario 2 because the detail would need to be so prescriptive it would make it unworkable.
dB levels, words used, time spent in one place, number of complaints and so on.
I see you want a clear set of rules, but certain circumstances such as public order or criminal activities would be able to swerve prosecution due to technicalities.
I also believe we can't assume the police are doing or making the wrong decisions all of the time. We should expect them to make good decisions and be held accountable when they don't.
Protesting, should not be a vehicle for anti social behaviour, criminal activities or violence. Some protests are escalating to the mentioned problems for those wishing to use the large numbers of people as a shield for their unlawful activities.
Hmmm that feels a bit weaselly to me. I think it would be quite easy to define a Protest vs anti-social or criminal behaviour.
I do not see why a protest should be stopped from making a lot of noise or be disruptive (surely that is the idea). And as long as no criminal damage actually takes place, then why shouldn’t someone be allowed to chain themselves to an object to disrupt the activity of that object?
The suffragettes would not be allowed to protest. The million anti Iraq war march would not be permitted.
I think it is relatively east to distinguish between protesting and anti-social behaviour. And let’s remember the role of agent provocateurs (the Miners comes to mind).
It isn't about noise in in isolation is it, it is about the whole situation and being able to assess, threat or possible crime and deal with it the way the public expect it to be dealt with.
A protest does not give people a freedom to do whatever they want with no repercussion, however a lot do end up like that as the protests can be hijacked by individuals intent on causing trouble, or making stupid decisions in the heat of the moment.
The original definition you posted gave me no concerns that a protest would be in any danger of being stopped for no valid reason, it did make me feel that unplanned mass gatherings intent on anti social behaviour could be dealt with.
It feels all if's and maybe's around protesting issues.
Hmmm you and I clearly see this very differently. The proof is obviously in the pudding. So how do you feel about a person being arrested for holding up a banner saying “not my king”? Or the barrister who held up a blank sheet of paper?
I wont get into the details of any protests as that is not what this is about.
A protest that does not break the law will be fine, it always has been, those that seek violence and trouble under the guise of a protest will not.
Do you think violence or criminal damage should go unchecked, because it was during a protest?
If you won’t answer my questions then I won’t answer yours! Quid pro quo and all that
However, my posts have been clear on my views and they are not open to interpretation.
They have been clear and I feel you haven't fielded a clear argument to support your views. Not your usual self, in my opinion.
"Oh well sorry to disappoint. I disagree but that is the joy of opinion and subjectivity... And THAT is the issue with Bill as written. It provides too much latitude for subjective decision making. When it comes to protecting our democratic right to protest, it should be wholly objective with clearly defined parameters. | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???
This might help...
In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’.
This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of:
- serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
- serious disruption to the life of the community.
Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future.
Reading what you have posted above I think you have attached "protests" only to these powers.
I can clearly see these powers covering gatherings that we have seen in London, music blaring, youths gathering in large numbers and creating chaos and fear amongst the local community.
It isn't only about protests
Indeed and when you start talking about anti-social behaviour and such, then few, if anyone, would disagree. But the concerns appear to be around the latitude and freedom the Police will have to make decisions on the ground. It all sounds good in principle until it is abused and isn’t.
The Bill could be amended to suitably cover specifics around Protest vs anti-social behaviour with clear definitions but it hasn’t. That is another concern.
The police will always be walking a tightrope between over policing and allowing anti social behaviour to go unchecked. We would be naive to think protests can't lead to anti social behaviour and can create fear amongst people, types of protests differ significantly too, vandalism and aggression on one extreme, to peaceful uneventful on the other.
The police need powers to deal with the ever changing landscape of todays gatherings and protests, I want them to have those powers as a citizen. They will still be held accountable for over policing, it is a given with the coverage protests have, and I would also imagine taking a hard line to close down a protest is not taken lightly due to the consequences of that decision igniting the emotions of a crowd.
I applaud your optimism but I challenge why the Bill cannot make specific and defined definitions that protect and enshrine the right to protest. In the first/second post I made on this there were examples given that illustrate the point.
We have already witnessed a number of heavy handed interpretations by the police. There needs to be tightly defined parameters and I would argue that “causing nuisance or possible distress” is not such a parameter.
So thinking about this as I type...
Scenario 1: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise upsetting the neighbourhood. Presumably that is anti-social behaviour and should be dealt with.
Scenario 2: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise as they march in protest or picket a site upsetting the neighbourhood. Is that anti-social behaviour or a legitimate protest? Should it be dealt with? How do we know? What are the parameters in the Bill to define the difference?
There is no defined points at crossing thresholds in scenario 2 because the detail would need to be so prescriptive it would make it unworkable.
dB levels, words used, time spent in one place, number of complaints and so on.
I see you want a clear set of rules, but certain circumstances such as public order or criminal activities would be able to swerve prosecution due to technicalities.
I also believe we can't assume the police are doing or making the wrong decisions all of the time. We should expect them to make good decisions and be held accountable when they don't.
Protesting, should not be a vehicle for anti social behaviour, criminal activities or violence. Some protests are escalating to the mentioned problems for those wishing to use the large numbers of people as a shield for their unlawful activities.
Hmmm that feels a bit weaselly to me. I think it would be quite easy to define a Protest vs anti-social or criminal behaviour.
I do not see why a protest should be stopped from making a lot of noise or be disruptive (surely that is the idea). And as long as no criminal damage actually takes place, then why shouldn’t someone be allowed to chain themselves to an object to disrupt the activity of that object?
The suffragettes would not be allowed to protest. The million anti Iraq war march would not be permitted.
I think it is relatively east to distinguish between protesting and anti-social behaviour. And let’s remember the role of agent provocateurs (the Miners comes to mind).
It isn't about noise in in isolation is it, it is about the whole situation and being able to assess, threat or possible crime and deal with it the way the public expect it to be dealt with.
A protest does not give people a freedom to do whatever they want with no repercussion, however a lot do end up like that as the protests can be hijacked by individuals intent on causing trouble, or making stupid decisions in the heat of the moment.
The original definition you posted gave me no concerns that a protest would be in any danger of being stopped for no valid reason, it did make me feel that unplanned mass gatherings intent on anti social behaviour could be dealt with.
It feels all if's and maybe's around protesting issues.
Hmmm you and I clearly see this very differently. The proof is obviously in the pudding. So how do you feel about a person being arrested for holding up a banner saying “not my king”? Or the barrister who held up a blank sheet of paper?
I wont get into the details of any protests as that is not what this is about.
A protest that does not break the law will be fine, it always has been, those that seek violence and trouble under the guise of a protest will not.
Do you think violence or criminal damage should go unchecked, because it was during a protest?
If you won’t answer my questions then I won’t answer yours! Quid pro quo and all that
However, my posts have been clear on my views and they are not open to interpretation.
They have been clear and I feel you haven't fielded a clear argument to support your views. Not your usual self, in my opinion.
Oh well sorry to disappoint. I disagree but that is the joy of opinion and subjectivity...
And THAT is the issue with Bill as written. It provides too much latitude for subjective decision making. When it comes to protecting our democratic right to protest, it should be wholly objective with clearly defined parameters."Have you got examples of defined parameters that are missing? | |||
| |||
"I wish people on the forum would occasionally crop their posts. On a phone some of this is unreadable!" Agree but it is also very time consuming to edit out all but the latest part you are quote replying. | |||
"Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 This is how it is now. Protesters can be arrested at will now. Which section in particular do you find more repressive than the previous act ? Please fully explain your issue ? I'd reccomend reading up on it. Severely reduces our rights to protest. You may, or may not reply in any manner you choose and explain your answer to any degree you choose.
Actually I'd prefer if you give me specific details of the section that you find more repressive than the previous act.
After all its you that's quoting the act ???
This might help...
In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act strengthens the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause ‘serious disruption’.
This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of:
- serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
- serious disruption to the life of the community.
Previously, there were different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law allows senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
This creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by these changes.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting that the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The Act gives the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future.
Reading what you have posted above I think you have attached "protests" only to these powers.
I can clearly see these powers covering gatherings that we have seen in London, music blaring, youths gathering in large numbers and creating chaos and fear amongst the local community.
It isn't only about protests
Indeed and when you start talking about anti-social behaviour and such, then few, if anyone, would disagree. But the concerns appear to be around the latitude and freedom the Police will have to make decisions on the ground. It all sounds good in principle until it is abused and isn’t.
The Bill could be amended to suitably cover specifics around Protest vs anti-social behaviour with clear definitions but it hasn’t. That is another concern.
The police will always be walking a tightrope between over policing and allowing anti social behaviour to go unchecked. We would be naive to think protests can't lead to anti social behaviour and can create fear amongst people, types of protests differ significantly too, vandalism and aggression on one extreme, to peaceful uneventful on the other.
The police need powers to deal with the ever changing landscape of todays gatherings and protests, I want them to have those powers as a citizen. They will still be held accountable for over policing, it is a given with the coverage protests have, and I would also imagine taking a hard line to close down a protest is not taken lightly due to the consequences of that decision igniting the emotions of a crowd.
I applaud your optimism but I challenge why the Bill cannot make specific and defined definitions that protect and enshrine the right to protest. In the first/second post I made on this there were examples given that illustrate the point.
We have already witnessed a number of heavy handed interpretations by the police. There needs to be tightly defined parameters and I would argue that “causing nuisance or possible distress” is not such a parameter.
So thinking about this as I type...
Scenario 1: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise upsetting the neighbourhood. Presumably that is anti-social behaviour and should be dealt with.
Scenario 2: A group of young men are in the street shouting and making a lot of noise as they march in protest or picket a site upsetting the neighbourhood. Is that anti-social behaviour or a legitimate protest? Should it be dealt with? How do we know? What are the parameters in the Bill to define the difference?
There is no defined points at crossing thresholds in scenario 2 because the detail would need to be so prescriptive it would make it unworkable.
dB levels, words used, time spent in one place, number of complaints and so on.
I see you want a clear set of rules, but certain circumstances such as public order or criminal activities would be able to swerve prosecution due to technicalities.
I also believe we can't assume the police are doing or making the wrong decisions all of the time. We should expect them to make good decisions and be held accountable when they don't.
Protesting, should not be a vehicle for anti social behaviour, criminal activities or violence. Some protests are escalating to the mentioned problems for those wishing to use the large numbers of people as a shield for their unlawful activities.
Hmmm that feels a bit weaselly to me. I think it would be quite easy to define a Protest vs anti-social or criminal behaviour.
I do not see why a protest should be stopped from making a lot of noise or be disruptive (surely that is the idea). And as long as no criminal damage actually takes place, then why shouldn’t someone be allowed to chain themselves to an object to disrupt the activity of that object?
The suffragettes would not be allowed to protest. The million anti Iraq war march would not be permitted.
I think it is relatively east to distinguish between protesting and anti-social behaviour. And let’s remember the role of agent provocateurs (the Miners comes to mind).
It isn't about noise in in isolation is it, it is about the whole situation and being able to assess, threat or possible crime and deal with it the way the public expect it to be dealt with.
A protest does not give people a freedom to do whatever they want with no repercussion, however a lot do end up like that as the protests can be hijacked by individuals intent on causing trouble, or making stupid decisions in the heat of the moment.
The original definition you posted gave me no concerns that a protest would be in any danger of being stopped for no valid reason, it did make me feel that unplanned mass gatherings intent on anti social behaviour could be dealt with.
It feels all if's and maybe's around protesting issues.
Hmmm you and I clearly see this very differently. The proof is obviously in the pudding. So how do you feel about a person being arrested for holding up a banner saying “not my king”? Or the barrister who held up a blank sheet of paper?
I wont get into the details of any protests as that is not what this is about.
A protest that does not break the law will be fine, it always has been, those that seek violence and trouble under the guise of a protest will not.
Do you think violence or criminal damage should go unchecked, because it was during a protest?
If you won’t answer my questions then I won’t answer yours! Quid pro quo and all that
However, my posts have been clear on my views and they are not open to interpretation.
They have been clear and I feel you haven't fielded a clear argument to support your views. Not your usual self, in my opinion.
Oh well sorry to disappoint. I disagree but that is the joy of opinion and subjectivity...
And THAT is the issue with Bill as written. It provides too much latitude for subjective decision making. When it comes to protecting our democratic right to protest, it should be wholly objective with clearly defined parameters.
Have you got examples of defined parameters that are missing?
"If I had time yes although it is less what is missing and more the latitude for subjectivity in how it is written. Feel free to have a good read and see what you think! Eg. Who determines whether something may cause offence, distress or disturbance? On what basis do they make that judgement? Why is that subjective judgement correct versus someone else's subjective opinion? While I am neither a republican or monarchist (jury’s out for me) I am not offended by a banner saying “Not My King” but clearly the Police Officers decided that it “may cause offence, distress or disturbance” but that is subjective. And you know what? They were probably right as there may have been ardent monarchists who would have taken umbrage at that resulting in worse action. But where does it end? Where do we draw that line? On LBC there was a caller saying the Police were right and the person holding such a banner should be arrested. When asked if the banner had been pro monarchy held aloft at a Republican rally/event the caller said no because they were entitled to their opinion! My whole argument is that the law should be objective not subjective. The Police do a very difficult job and introducing subjectivity only makes this worse! | |||
"I wish people on the forum would occasionally crop their posts. On a phone some of this is unreadable! Agree but it is also very time consuming to edit out all but the latest part you are quote replying." It's also very time consuming to scroll past the same, mile long text 27 times! | |||
"I wish people on the forum would occasionally crop their posts. On a phone some of this is unreadable! Agree but it is also very time consuming to edit out all but the latest part you are quote replying. It's also very time consuming to scroll past the same, mile long text 27 times!" So your time is more precious than those who are quote replying? You know you don’t have to read the thread right? If it really bothers you that much then why not send a suggestion to Fab admin that they look at ways to collapse quotes as per many other discussion forums | |||
"I wish people on the forum would occasionally crop their posts. On a phone some of this is unreadable! Agree but it is also very time consuming to edit out all but the latest part you are quote replying. It's also very time consuming to scroll past the same, mile long text 27 times!" Maybe you could think of a solution that you can submit to the feedback section? | |||
"I wish people on the forum would occasionally crop their posts. On a phone some of this is unreadable! Agree but it is also very time consuming to edit out all but the latest part you are quote replying. It's also very time consuming to scroll past the same, mile long text 27 times! So your time is more precious than those who are quote replying? You know you don’t have to read the thread right? If it really bothers you that much then why not send a suggestion to Fab admin that they look at ways to collapse quotes as per many other discussion forums "Ah, we have agreement
| |||
"To help our fellow forum user, I have cropped the post. If I had time yes although it is less what is missing and more the latitude for subjectivity in how it is written. Feel free to have a good read and see what you think! Eg. Who determines whether something may cause offence, distress or disturbance? On what basis do they make that judgement? Why is that subjective judgement correct versus someone else's subjective opinion? While I am neither a republican or monarchist (jury’s out for me) I am not offended by a banner saying “Not My King” but clearly the Police Officers decided that it “may cause offence, distress or disturbance” but that is subjective. And you know what? They were probably right as there may have been ardent monarchists who would have taken umbrage at that resulting in worse action. But where does it end? Where do we draw that line? On LBC there was a caller saying the Police were right and the person holding such a banner should be arrested. When asked if the banner had been pro monarchy held aloft at a Republican rally/event the caller said no because they were entitled to their opinion! My whole argument is that the law should be objective not subjective. The Police do a very difficult job and introducing subjectivity only makes this worse!" The police will always need to make these decisions, it can't be a one size fits all because of the many variables a situation can throw up. Take the person shouting at Andrew. If you look at it from the anti monarchy view, the police officer should have arrested the 2 guys who pulled him out of the crowd. If you look at it from a Royalist view, the 2 guys were hero's and the police officer was right to arrest him. If you look at it from the police officers view. In a large crowd mourning the death of the Queen a young man starts shouting at the top his voice at the hearse and royal family. The crowd become agitated, and 2 guys take hold of him. The police officer steps in and takes hold of the young man, removing him from the flash point. Do we know if that person was arrested for shouting in the crowd or something that may have happened after the police officer took him out of the crowd? Assumptions and reactions from every angle, the police officer needs to make a decision, sometimes they will get it right other times they get it wrong. In this instance I think the police officer got it right, if he had done nothing, that young man's day could have ended badly. | |||
 | |||
"To help our fellow forum user, I have cropped the post. If I had time yes although it is less what is missing and more the latitude for subjectivity in how it is written. Feel free to have a good read and see what you think! Eg. Who determines whether something may cause offence, distress or disturbance? On what basis do they make that judgement? Why is that subjective judgement correct versus someone else's subjective opinion? While I am neither a republican or monarchist (jury’s out for me) I am not offended by a banner saying “Not My King” but clearly the Police Officers decided that it “may cause offence, distress or disturbance” but that is subjective. And you know what? They were probably right as there may have been ardent monarchists who would have taken umbrage at that resulting in worse action. But where does it end? Where do we draw that line? On LBC there was a caller saying the Police were right and the person holding such a banner should be arrested. When asked if the banner had been pro monarchy held aloft at a Republican rally/event the caller said no because they were entitled to their opinion! My whole argument is that the law should be objective not subjective. The Police do a very difficult job and introducing subjectivity only makes this worse! The police will always need to make these decisions, it can't be a one size fits all because of the many variables a situation can throw up. Take the person shouting at Andrew. If you look at it from the anti monarchy view, the police officer should have arrested the 2 guys who pulled him out of the crowd. If you look at it from a Royalist view, the 2 guys were hero's and the police officer was right to arrest him. If you look at it from the police officers view. In a large crowd mourning the death of the Queen a young man starts shouting at the top his voice at the hearse and royal family. The crowd become agitated, and 2 guys take hold of him. The police officer steps in and takes hold of the young man, removing him from the flash point. Do we know if that person was arrested for shouting in the crowd or something that may have happened after the police officer took him out of the crowd? Assumptions and reactions from every angle, the police officer needs to make a decision, sometimes they will get it right other times they get it wrong. In this instance I think the police officer got it right, if he had done nothing, that young man's day could have ended badly. " He was arrested and has been charged with “breach of the peace”... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/prince-andrew-queen-funeral-protest-edinburgh-b2166110.html?amp I will repeat but also leave it there as we clearly do not agree... My whole argument is that the law should be objective not subjective. | |||
"I wish people on the forum would occasionally crop their posts. On a phone some of this is unreadable! Agree but it is also very time consuming to edit out all but the latest part you are quote replying. It's also very time consuming to scroll past the same, mile long text 27 times! So your time is more precious than those who are quote replying? You know you don’t have to read the thread right? "You wouldn't know a thread had long quoted posts unless you read it, by that time it is too late | |||
"I wish people on the forum would occasionally crop their posts. On a phone some of this is unreadable!" It does kill off the discussion. But perhaps that's the intent. | |||
"I wish people on the forum would occasionally crop their posts. On a phone some of this is unreadable! Agree but it is also very time consuming to edit out all but the latest part you are quote replying. It's also very time consuming to scroll past the same, mile long text 27 times! So your time is more precious than those who are quote replying? You know you don’t have to read the thread right?
You wouldn't know a thread had long quoted posts unless you read it, by that time it is too late"Very true! Instead of reply+quote I sometimes @name the person I am replying to. But if you are on a phone, snipping a long quote is tedious in the extreme! | |||
| |||
"Everyone has the right to protest and I would stand for that all day. However, there is a time and place to get your point across with the most impact. Today was not that day. If anything the disrespect shown by this woman did her cause more harm than good." Actually it is a common misconception that everyone has the right to protest wherever they like. If you are considered a public risk Or there is potential to cause breach of the peace you can be arrested we know this with extinction rebellion protesters and the like. With a situation like that and emotions running high it was probably in the protesters best interests to be removed by police. | |||
"Everyone has the right to protest and I would stand for that all day. However, there is a time and place to get your point across with the most impact. Today was not that day. If anything the disrespect shown by this woman did her cause more harm than good. Actually it is a common misconception that everyone has the right to protest wherever they like. If you are considered a public risk Or there is potential to cause breach of the peace you can be arrested we know this with extinction rebellion protesters and the like. With a situation like that and emotions running high it was probably in the protesters best interests to be removed by police. " Hmm think what they do is not allowed as they block the Kings Highway, and then it becomes a criminal act if I recall correctly... | |||
"Everyone has the right to protest and I would stand for that all day. However, there is a time and place to get your point across with the most impact. Today was not that day. If anything the disrespect shown by this woman did her cause more harm than good. Actually it is a common misconception that everyone has the right to protest wherever they like. If you are considered a public risk Or there is potential to cause breach of the peace you can be arrested we know this with extinction rebellion protesters and the like. With a situation like that and emotions running high it was probably in the protesters best interests to be removed by police. Hmm think what they do is not allowed as they block the Kings Highway, and then it becomes a criminal act if I recall correctly... " Possibly but people have also been arrested for protesting at train and tube stations. | |||
"Everyone has the right to protest and I would stand for that all day. However, there is a time and place to get your point across with the most impact. Today was not that day. If anything the disrespect shown by this woman did her cause more harm than good. Actually it is a common misconception that everyone has the right to protest wherever they like. If you are considered a public risk Or there is potential to cause breach of the peace you can be arrested we know this with extinction rebellion protesters and the like. With a situation like that and emotions running high it was probably in the protesters best interests to be removed by police. Hmm think what they do is not allowed as they block the Kings Highway, and then it becomes a criminal act if I recall correctly... Possibly but people have also been arrested for protesting at train and tube stations. " Same thing as deemed as transport, and everyone has the right to travel, if you block that then denying that right | |||
"Everyone has the right to protest and I would stand for that all day. However, there is a time and place to get your point across with the most impact. Today was not that day. If anything the disrespect shown by this woman did her cause more harm than good. Actually it is a common misconception that everyone has the right to protest wherever they like. If you are considered a public risk Or there is potential to cause breach of the peace you can be arrested we know this with extinction rebellion protesters and the like. With a situation like that and emotions running high it was probably in the protesters best interests to be removed by police. Hmm think what they do is not allowed as they block the Kings Highway, and then it becomes a criminal act if I recall correctly... Possibly but people have also been arrested for protesting at train and tube stations. Same thing as deemed as transport, and everyone has the right to travel, if you block that then denying that right" Well by that logic people can't protest anywhere except designated areas because otherwise anyone could say they were being stopped from their right to travel. Blocking a pavement for example. | |||
