FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Never before protests
Never before protests
Jump to: Newest in thread
Seen a demo in leafy Marlow... Drove past the roundabout today confronted by about a dozen folks in yellow t shirts and placards seemingly protesting covid measures but some other stuff too.
Now... I didn't agree with any of their placards but I think it's fucking marvellous that people care enough to get off their arses and take some action to protest. I suspect we are going to see a lot more protests as winter of discontent bites harder. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seen a demo in leafy Marlow... Drove past the roundabout today confronted by about a dozen folks in yellow t shirts and placards seemingly protesting covid measures but some other stuff too.
Now... I didn't agree with any of their placards but I think it's fucking marvellous that people care enough to get off their arses and take some action to protest. I suspect we are going to see a lot more protests as winter of discontent bites harder. "
What covid measures? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seen a demo in leafy Marlow... Drove past the roundabout today confronted by about a dozen folks in yellow t shirts and placards seemingly protesting covid measures but some other stuff too.
Now... I didn't agree with any of their placards but I think it's fucking marvellous that people care enough to get off their arses and take some action to protest. I suspect we are going to see a lot more protests as winter of discontent bites harder.
What covid measures?"
Not entirely sure as their placards seemed quite random.. So I may be wrong but I think some were anti lockdown, some had SAD on... Didn't really matter to me it was more about the fact that the yummy mummy's had got out and protested when they wouldn't have before. More power to them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I've never protested anything in my life. You might be able to get me to sign a change.org petition if you're very lucky and I'm feeling generous. I always wanted to make a funny sign though. Proper protests can be spotted a mile off from the hand made signs, none of this pre-printed crap |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
The high possibility for civil unrest was predicted by the Govt some years back which is why they pushed ahead with the Policing Crime and Sentencing Bill.
Remember that you still have a right to protest as long as you aren’t noisy, aren’t disruptive, and don’t upset anyone, including businesses you might be protesting against.
So basically you can only go for an afternoon stroll (but careful not to block the pavement). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
What covid measures?
Not entirely sure as their placards seemed quite random.. So I may be wrong but I think some were anti lockdown, some had SAD on...
Is Marlow in Lockdown ?"
I doubt it. I was just driving through and was struck by how unusual it was to have protestors there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *estivalMan
over a year ago
borehamwood |
Haha there wont be protests this winter people will moan and bitch like they all ways do then do nothing, you may get a handfull of people and thats about it, mass civil unrest aint gona happen in the winter months, and if there anything like the remain protests it will be like a day out, want change u need to wreck central london otherwise dont bother |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In July Extinction Rebellion protested in Marlow against plans for a new film studio. I can't find any news about protests yesterday. Maybe the journalists are caught up in Marlow's Lockdown !"
What a hot bed of activism Marlow is...
Antivaxxers apparently... Must admit I thought they were protesting something else. Still...
Just found this... Probably can't put the link in but theres some words (go giggle it's.... Informative) on the bucks radio website...
"A group of antivax activists campaigning against Covid-19 vaccines falsely claimed they have 'probably' killed over 200,000 people, during a protest in Marlow on Wednesday morning.
Setting up at around 11am on the Westhorpe roundabout just off the A404, the protesters held up signs such as ‘thousands dead from Covid jabs’ and ‘2020 – safe and effective, 2022 – sudden unexpected deaths’ to passing motorists, beckoning them to beep their horns if in agreement.
Speaking to Bucks Radio, one protester told us: “Every single vaccine in history is provably rubbish because there has never been any double-blind control study of any vaccine in history.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"In July Extinction Rebellion protested in Marlow against plans for a new film studio. I can't find any news about protests yesterday. Maybe the journalists are caught up in Marlow's Lockdown !
What a hot bed of activism Marlow is...
Antivaxxers apparently... Must admit I thought they were protesting something else. Still...
Just found this... Probably can't put the link in but theres some words (go giggle it's.... Informative) on the bucks radio website...
"A group of antivax activists campaigning against Covid-19 vaccines falsely claimed they have 'probably' killed over 200,000 people, during a protest in Marlow on Wednesday morning.
Setting up at around 11am on the Westhorpe roundabout just off the A404, the protesters held up signs such as ‘thousands dead from Covid jabs’ and ‘2020 – safe and effective, 2022 – sudden unexpected deaths’ to passing motorists, beckoning them to beep their horns if in agreement.
Speaking to Bucks Radio, one protester told us: “Every single vaccine in history is provably rubbish because there has never been any double-blind control study of any vaccine in history.”"
Ah it all make sense now... That is Little Marlow, not proper Marlow, rough old lot there.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In July Extinction Rebellion protested in Marlow against plans for a new film studio. I can't find any news about protests yesterday. Maybe the journalists are caught up in Marlow's Lockdown !
What a hot bed of activism Marlow is...
Antivaxxers apparently... Must admit I thought they were protesting something else. Still...
Just found this... Probably can't put the link in but theres some words (go giggle it's.... Informative) on the bucks radio website...
"A group of antivax activists campaigning against Covid-19 vaccines falsely claimed they have 'probably' killed over 200,000 people, during a protest in Marlow on Wednesday morning.
Setting up at around 11am on the Westhorpe roundabout just off the A404, the protesters held up signs such as ‘thousands dead from Covid jabs’ and ‘2020 – safe and effective, 2022 – sudden unexpected deaths’ to passing motorists, beckoning them to beep their horns if in agreement.
Speaking to Bucks Radio, one protester told us: “Every single vaccine in history is provably rubbish because there has never been any double-blind control study of any vaccine in history.”
Ah it all make sense now... That is Little Marlow, not proper Marlow, rough old lot there. "
Splitters |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Seen a demo in leafy Marlow... Drove past the roundabout today confronted by about a dozen folks in yellow t shirts and placards seemingly protesting covid measures but some other stuff too.
Now... I didn't agree with any of their placards but I think it's fucking marvellous that people care enough to get off their arses and take some action to protest. I suspect we are going to see a lot more protests as winter of discontent bites harder. "
Not to worry, The Public Order Bill will put an end to that.
The Government will be able to place "protest banning" orders on anyone assessed as "disruptive" at a protest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not to worry, The Public Order Bill will put an end to that.
The Government will be able to place "protest banning" orders on anyone assessed as "disruptive" at a protest."
The bill contains no powers to ban protests. The bill contains nothing to prevent an individual from joining a protest. There is no such thing as a "protest banning order". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Not to worry, The Public Order Bill will put an end to that.
The Government will be able to place "protest banning" orders on anyone assessed as "disruptive" at a protest.
The bill contains no powers to ban protests. The bill contains nothing to prevent an individual from joining a protest. There is no such thing as a "protest banning order"."
Well done on misunderstanding English and failing to be a lawyer again.
The Government will be able to place "protest banning" orders on ANYONE assessed as "disruptive" at a protest.
If you prevent enough individuals from protesting you stop protests.
If you prevent protests from being "disruptive" like closing a street to walk down, you prevent protest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Not to worry, The Public Order Bill will put an end to that.
The Government will be able to place "protest banning" orders on anyone assessed as "disruptive" at a protest.
The bill contains no powers to ban protests. The bill contains nothing to prevent an individual from joining a protest. There is no such thing as a "protest banning order"."
What the bill does provide is autonomous subjective decision making for the police commander on the ground. On the surface that seems sensible except there is no guidance or framework to determine when a protest may be deemed to be disruptive or make other people feel uncomfortable. If the police commander decides it is a bit noisy, or is blocking a path or that the chants might upset someone, they can act. It is totally open to abuse and manipulation.
Eg. People protesting outside the office of a company (for whatever reason) can be stopped or arrested if the company makes a complaint.
The bill completely waters down the ability of protesters to have any effect beyond a nice quiet stroll. Strike and picket line breaking will be next. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not to worry, The Public Order Bill will put an end to that.
The Government will be able to place "protest banning" orders on anyone assessed as "disruptive" at a protest."
"The bill contains no powers to ban protests. The bill contains nothing to prevent an individual from joining a protest. There is no such thing as a "protest banning order"."
"Well done on misunderstanding English and failing to be a lawyer again.
The Government will be able to place "protest banning" orders on ANYONE assessed as "disruptive" at a protest."
That simply isn't true. The law would give police the power to arrest people that are being 'disruptive', and remove them from the area. It does not give them the power to ban that person from protesting in the future, so there is no "protest banning order" applicable to individuals.
In layman's terms, the new powers allow the police to stop disruption. They do not allow police to stop protests, or to place court orders on individuals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The way that I read it, is that only a civil court would be able to place a proposed "protest banning order" on a citizen.
Parliament, if it passes this bill, will give the courts that power."
The bill streamlines an already extant power for local authorities to create Public Spaces Protection Orders, for example to prevent anti-abortion protests outside abortion clinics. These orders have to be cleared by the courts before they can be implemented.
There is no such power that applies to individuals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not to worry, The Public Order Bill will put an end to that.
The Government will be able to place "protest banning" orders on anyone assessed as "disruptive" at a protest.
The bill contains no powers to ban protests. The bill contains nothing to prevent an individual from joining a protest. There is no such thing as a "protest banning order".
Well done on misunderstanding English and failing to be a lawyer again.
The Government will be able to place "protest banning" orders on ANYONE assessed as "disruptive" at a protest.
That simply isn't true. The law would give police the power to arrest people that are being 'disruptive', and remove them from the area. It does not give them the power to ban that person from protesting in the future, so there is no "protest banning order" applicable to individuals.
In layman's terms, the new powers allow the police to stop disruption. They do not allow police to stop protests, or to place court orders on individuals."
It appears the police powers are like those for Breach of the Peace where they arrest the miscreant and remove them but later release them when the peace is safe again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business."
"That's mutually exclusive."
No it isn't.
Under the proposed law, you would have the right to stand on the pavement near a petrol station weaving a big banner and shouting "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS". You would not have the right to stand in the road and prevent people from entering the petrol station.
So, you would have the right to protest, but not to stop people from ignoring you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
That's mutually exclusive.
No it isn't.
Under the proposed law, you would have the right to stand on the pavement near a petrol station weaving a big banner and shouting "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS". You would not have the right to stand in the road and prevent people from entering the petrol station.
So, you would have the right to protest, but not to stop people from ignoring you."
Standing on the pavement and shouting stops pedestrians who want silence from going about their business
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
That's mutually exclusive.
No it isn't.
Under the proposed law, you would have the right to stand on the pavement near a petrol station weaving a big banner and shouting "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS". You would not have the right to stand in the road and prevent people from entering the petrol station.
So, you would have the right to protest, but not to stop people from ignoring you."
And that’s the basis of free speech 
Nobody is going to stop them from protesting, just stop them from forcing their view on others |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
That's mutually exclusive.
No it isn't.
Under the proposed law, you would have the right to stand on the pavement near a petrol station weaving a big banner and shouting "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS". You would not have the right to stand in the road and prevent people from entering the petrol station.
So, you would have the right to protest, but not to stop people from ignoring you.
And that’s the basis of free speech
Nobody is going to stop them from protesting, just stop them from forcing their view on others "
We have freedom of expression, not free speech.
And sure, under the new laws the police do stop people from protesting.
This is portrayed as some kind of left wing problem in the media. But there might be a time in the future, where people across other parts of the political spectrum want to protest against the government, and find themselves being removed and/or arrested.
This should be something that is a cause for concern for all of us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
That's mutually exclusive.
No it isn't.
Under the proposed law, you would have the right to stand on the pavement near a petrol station weaving a big banner and shouting "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS". You would not have the right to stand in the road and prevent people from entering the petrol station.
So, you would have the right to protest, but not to stop people from ignoring you.
And that’s the basis of free speech
Nobody is going to stop them from protesting, just stop them from forcing their view on others
We have freedom of expression, not free speech.
And sure, under the new laws the police do stop people from protesting.
This is portrayed as some kind of left wing problem in the media. But there might be a time in the future, where people across other parts of the political spectrum want to protest against the government, and find themselves being removed and/or arrested.
This should be something that is a cause for concern for all of us."
And so we go full circle...which is why I was pleased to see folks out protesting (regardless that I didn't agree with them) in bloody Marlow of all places.... I mean they'll be popping up in Gerrards Cross next. And for what it's worth..my own opinion.. Peaceful protest is about as effective as cauliflower. The only protest that effects any change is that which causes huge inconvenience to others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
That's mutually exclusive.
No it isn't.
Under the proposed law, you would have the right to stand on the pavement near a petrol station weaving a big banner and shouting "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS". You would not have the right to stand in the road and prevent people from entering the petrol station.
So, you would have the right to protest, but not to stop people from ignoring you.
And that’s the basis of free speech
Nobody is going to stop them from protesting, just stop them from forcing their view on others
We have freedom of expression, not free speech.
And sure, under the new laws the police do stop people from protesting.
This is portrayed as some kind of left wing problem in the media. But there might be a time in the future, where people across other parts of the political spectrum want to protest against the government, and find themselves being removed and/or arrested.
This should be something that is a cause for concern for all of us."
These laws and new rules are only coming in because the protesters like just stop oil ect have ramped up the protest bringing whole cities to a stop effecting other peoples lives and businesses.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
That's mutually exclusive.
No it isn't.
Under the proposed law, you would have the right to stand on the pavement near a petrol station weaving a big banner and shouting "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS". You would not have the right to stand in the road and prevent people from entering the petrol station.
So, you would have the right to protest, but not to stop people from ignoring you.
And that’s the basis of free speech
Nobody is going to stop them from protesting, just stop them from forcing their view on others
We have freedom of expression, not free speech.
And sure, under the new laws the police do stop people from protesting.
This is portrayed as some kind of left wing problem in the media. But there might be a time in the future, where people across other parts of the political spectrum want to protest against the government, and find themselves being removed and/or arrested.
This should be something that is a cause for concern for all of us.
And so we go full circle...which is why I was pleased to see folks out protesting (regardless that I didn't agree with them) in bloody Marlow of all places.... I mean they'll be popping up in Gerrards Cross next. And for what it's worth..my own opinion.. Peaceful protest is about as effective as cauliflower. The only protest that effects any change is that which causes huge inconvenience to others. "
Personally I have always found cauliflower very effective when I want a clear out  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
That's mutually exclusive.
No it isn't.
Under the proposed law, you would have the right to stand on the pavement near a petrol station weaving a big banner and shouting "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS". You would not have the right to stand in the road and prevent people from entering the petrol station.
So, you would have the right to protest, but not to stop people from ignoring you.
And that’s the basis of free speech
Nobody is going to stop them from protesting, just stop them from forcing their view on others
We have freedom of expression, not free speech.
And sure, under the new laws the police do stop people from protesting.
This is portrayed as some kind of left wing problem in the media. But there might be a time in the future, where people across other parts of the political spectrum want to protest against the government, and find themselves being removed and/or arrested.
This should be something that is a cause for concern for all of us.
And so we go full circle...which is why I was pleased to see folks out protesting (regardless that I didn't agree with them) in bloody Marlow of all places.... I mean they'll be popping up in Gerrards Cross next. And for what it's worth..my own opinion.. Peaceful protest is about as effective as cauliflower. The only protest that effects any change is that which causes huge inconvenience to others. "
All that does is cancels out any support for your cause as most of they had the chance would just pull their hands off the tarmac and push them to one side.
But the police wil just offer them yea and a biscuit and ask if they are ok 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
That's mutually exclusive.
No it isn't.
Under the proposed law, you would have the right to stand on the pavement near a petrol station weaving a big banner and shouting "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS". You would not have the right to stand in the road and prevent people from entering the petrol station.
So, you would have the right to protest, but not to stop people from ignoring you.
And that’s the basis of free speech
Nobody is going to stop them from protesting, just stop them from forcing their view on others
We have freedom of expression, not free speech.
And sure, under the new laws the police do stop people from protesting.
This is portrayed as some kind of left wing problem in the media. But there might be a time in the future, where people across other parts of the political spectrum want to protest against the government, and find themselves being removed and/or arrested.
This should be something that is a cause for concern for all of us.
These laws and new rules are only coming in because the protesters like just stop oil ect have ramped up the protest bringing whole cities to a stop effecting other peoples lives and businesses.
"
What happens if you're prevented from protesting in something you believe in one day? Maybe you'll have a different perspective. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
That's mutually exclusive.
No it isn't.
Under the proposed law, you would have the right to stand on the pavement near a petrol station weaving a big banner and shouting "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS". You would not have the right to stand in the road and prevent people from entering the petrol station.
So, you would have the right to protest, but not to stop people from ignoring you.
And that’s the basis of free speech
Nobody is going to stop them from protesting, just stop them from forcing their view on others
We have freedom of expression, not free speech.
And sure, under the new laws the police do stop people from protesting.
This is portrayed as some kind of left wing problem in the media. But there might be a time in the future, where people across other parts of the political spectrum want to protest against the government, and find themselves being removed and/or arrested.
This should be something that is a cause for concern for all of us.
And so we go full circle...which is why I was pleased to see folks out protesting (regardless that I didn't agree with them) in bloody Marlow of all places.... I mean they'll be popping up in Gerrards Cross next. And for what it's worth..my own opinion.. Peaceful protest is about as effective as cauliflower. The only protest that effects any change is that which causes huge inconvenience to others. "
Very much so. I 100% support people protesting for something they believe in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Will just say “not my king” when people try to say there is nothing to see here. There is! The whole point of protesting is to disrupt the activity of the thing you are protesting against in order to be heard. As I said above, this dilutes the power of protest to such an extent it becomes a meaningless quiet stroll in the park, keeping to one side of the path and smiling so as not to offend.
Not sure the Jarrow March or the Suffragettes or the Miners would have faired too well in 2022!
Just wait until we have a left or centre/left govt in place and they decide to retain these powers. You’ll soon see those currently supporting it decrying it as an infringement of their civil liberties. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
That's mutually exclusive.
No it isn't.
Under the proposed law, you would have the right to stand on the pavement near a petrol station weaving a big banner and shouting "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS". You would not have the right to stand in the road and prevent people from entering the petrol station.
So, you would have the right to protest, but not to stop people from ignoring you.
And that’s the basis of free speech
Nobody is going to stop them from protesting, just stop them from forcing their view on others
We have freedom of expression, not free speech.
And sure, under the new laws the police do stop people from protesting.
This is portrayed as some kind of left wing problem in the media. But there might be a time in the future, where people across other parts of the political spectrum want to protest against the government, and find themselves being removed and/or arrested.
This should be something that is a cause for concern for all of us.
These laws and new rules are only coming in because the protesters like just stop oil ect have ramped up the protest bringing whole cities to a stop effecting other peoples lives and businesses.
What happens if you're prevented from protesting in something you believe in one day? Maybe you'll have a different perspective."
They are not preventing them from protesting they are stopping them from holding everyone else up.
Just like the just stop oil protesters that have just been arrested.
They were holding everyone else to ransom |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
That's mutually exclusive.
No it isn't.
Under the proposed law, you would have the right to stand on the pavement near a petrol station weaving a big banner and shouting "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS". You would not have the right to stand in the road and prevent people from entering the petrol station.
So, you would have the right to protest, but not to stop people from ignoring you.
And that’s the basis of free speech
Nobody is going to stop them from protesting, just stop them from forcing their view on others
We have freedom of expression, not free speech.
And sure, under the new laws the police do stop people from protesting.
This is portrayed as some kind of left wing problem in the media. But there might be a time in the future, where people across other parts of the political spectrum want to protest against the government, and find themselves being removed and/or arrested.
This should be something that is a cause for concern for all of us.
These laws and new rules are only coming in because the protesters like just stop oil ect have ramped up the protest bringing whole cities to a stop effecting other peoples lives and businesses.
What happens if you're prevented from protesting in something you believe in one day? Maybe you'll have a different perspective.
They are not preventing them from protesting they are stopping them from holding everyone else up.
Just like the just stop oil protesters that have just been arrested.
They were holding everyone else to ransom "
Yes, you're nearly getting it!
All protests cause disruption and hold people up.
One day there might be a cause that you want to protest for/against. And can't, or are arrested and removed from. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
That's mutually exclusive.
No it isn't.
Under the proposed law, you would have the right to stand on the pavement near a petrol station weaving a big banner and shouting "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS". You would not have the right to stand in the road and prevent people from entering the petrol station.
So, you would have the right to protest, but not to stop people from ignoring you.
And that’s the basis of free speech
Nobody is going to stop them from protesting, just stop them from forcing their view on others
We have freedom of expression, not free speech.
And sure, under the new laws the police do stop people from protesting.
This is portrayed as some kind of left wing problem in the media. But there might be a time in the future, where people across other parts of the political spectrum want to protest against the government, and find themselves being removed and/or arrested.
This should be something that is a cause for concern for all of us.
These laws and new rules are only coming in because the protesters like just stop oil ect have ramped up the protest bringing whole cities to a stop effecting other peoples lives and businesses.
What happens if you're prevented from protesting in something you believe in one day? Maybe you'll have a different perspective.
They are not preventing them from protesting they are stopping them from holding everyone else up.
Just like the just stop oil protesters that have just been arrested.
They were holding everyone else to ransom
Yes, you're nearly getting it!
All protests cause disruption and hold people up.
One day there might be a cause that you want to protest for/against. And can't, or are arrested and removed from. "
Like protesting against protests? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
That's mutually exclusive.
No it isn't.
Under the proposed law, you would have the right to stand on the pavement near a petrol station weaving a big banner and shouting "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS". You would not have the right to stand in the road and prevent people from entering the petrol station.
So, you would have the right to protest, but not to stop people from ignoring you.
And that’s the basis of free speech
Nobody is going to stop them from protesting, just stop them from forcing their view on others
We have freedom of expression, not free speech.
And sure, under the new laws the police do stop people from protesting.
This is portrayed as some kind of left wing problem in the media. But there might be a time in the future, where people across other parts of the political spectrum want to protest against the government, and find themselves being removed and/or arrested.
This should be something that is a cause for concern for all of us.
These laws and new rules are only coming in because the protesters like just stop oil ect have ramped up the protest bringing whole cities to a stop effecting other peoples lives and businesses.
What happens if you're prevented from protesting in something you believe in one day? Maybe you'll have a different perspective.
They are not preventing them from protesting they are stopping them from holding everyone else up.
Just like the just stop oil protesters that have just been arrested.
They were holding everyone else to ransom
Yes, you're nearly getting it!
All protests cause disruption and hold people up.
One day there might be a cause that you want to protest for/against. And can't, or are arrested and removed from.
Like protesting against protests? "
Lol. Presumably that person believes in something other than people not being allowed to protest freely. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All protests cause disruption and hold people up."
That's just not true. The recent silly woman pouring poo on a 'statue' didn't cause any disruption, or hold anyone up.
I've been on protests that blocked Central London. We didn't intend to, but so many people turned up that it just happened that way. We also blocked access to parliament, but moved aside when a policeman asked nicely if we wouldn't mind letting a car out. It's perfectly possible to make your voice heard without overly inconveniencing people.
The problem with a lot of modern protestors is that they don't understand their opponents. They make the assumption that the reason people aren't joining them is because they haven't heard the message, so forcing them to listen will convert them. In reality it's that people have heard their message, and just disagree. Forcing those people to listen (again) will not change their minds it'll just turn them against the protestors. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All protests cause disruption and hold people up.
That's just not true. The recent silly woman pouring poo on a 'statue' didn't cause any disruption, or hold anyone up.
I've been on protests that blocked Central London. We didn't intend to, but so many people turned up that it just happened that way. We also blocked access to parliament, but moved aside when a policeman asked nicely if we wouldn't mind letting a car out. It's perfectly possible to make your voice heard without overly inconveniencing people.
The problem with a lot of modern protestors is that they don't understand their opponents. They make the assumption that the reason people aren't joining them is because they haven't heard the message, so forcing them to listen will convert them. In reality it's that people have heard their message, and just disagree. Forcing those people to listen (again) will not change their minds it'll just turn them against the protestors."
You're quite right, I should have used to word "or" instead of "and". Excellent work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orny PTMan
over a year ago
Peterborough |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business."
So I can ignore the strikes and drive a train that's sitting idle this Saturday, then??? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
So I can ignore the strikes and drive a train that's sitting idle this Saturday, then???"
I don't really know how you got to that scenario, but if you are looking for permission, go for it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
So I can ignore the strikes and drive a train that's sitting idle this Saturday, then???
I don't really know how you got to that scenario, but if you are looking for permission, go for it "
Can you do it on Chiltern railways please.? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Not to worry, The Public Order Bill will put an end to that.
The Government will be able to place "protest banning" orders on anyone assessed as "disruptive" at a protest.
The bill contains no powers to ban protests. The bill contains nothing to prevent an individual from joining a protest. There is no such thing as a "protest banning order".
Well done on misunderstanding English and failing to be a lawyer again.
The Government will be able to place "protest banning" orders on ANYONE assessed as "disruptive" at a protest.
That simply isn't true. The law would give police the power to arrest people that are being 'disruptive', and remove them from the area. It does not give them the power to ban that person from protesting in the future, so there is no "protest banning order" applicable to individuals.
In layman's terms, the new powers allow the police to stop disruption. They do not allow police to stop protests, or to place court orders on individuals."
If so sensible, why do you think that the House of Lords rejected this legislation multiple times when they were part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Act?
You will not have to be convicted of an offence to be subject to a "Serious Disruption Prevention Orders" (protest ban) issued by a Magistrates Court on request from a Chief Constable.
In layman's terms you should probably look more closely. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If so sensible, why do you think that the House of Lords rejected this legislation multiple times when they were part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Act?"
I'm not saying that the law is sensible, or proportionate, or appropriate, I'm just saying that the claims you are making about it are not true.
"You will not have to be convicted of an offence to be subject to a "Serious Disruption Prevention Orders" (protest ban) issued by a Magistrates Court on request from a Chief Constable."
Incorrect.
A Serious Distribution Prevention Order can only be issued by a magistrate if:
1. the police apply for such an order
and
2. the person is currently in court for a protest-related offence
and
3. The person is convicted of the offence, or given a conditional discharge
and
4. the person already has a previous protest-related conviction within the last 5 years.
It's all laid out in section 16 "Serious disruption prevention order made on conviction", of the Public Order Bill: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0116/220116.pdf
For those that are skim reading, here's a reminder that the bill is not law yet, and may never become so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"If so sensible, why do you think that the House of Lords rejected this legislation multiple times when they were part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Act?
I'm not saying that the law is sensible, or proportionate, or appropriate, I'm just saying that the claims you are making about it are not true.
You will not have to be convicted of an offence to be subject to a "Serious Disruption Prevention Orders" (protest ban) issued by a Magistrates Court on request from a Chief Constable.
Incorrect.
A Serious Distribution Prevention Order can only be issued by a magistrate if:
1. the police apply for such an order
and
2. the person is currently in court for a protest-related offence
and
3. The person is convicted of the offence, or given a conditional discharge
and
4. the person already has a previous protest-related conviction within the last 5 years.
It's all laid out in section 16 "Serious disruption prevention order made on conviction", of the Public Order Bill: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0116/220116.pdf
For those that are skim reading, here's a reminder that the bill is not law yet, and may never become so."
For those skim reading the Bill they could have a look at section 17.
"17 Serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction"
Why so determined to disprove me on every post?
I never stated that it will become law, but it is what the Government wants to do. That was the point being made. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
So I can ignore the strikes and drive a train that's sitting idle this Saturday, then???"
Not even close to the same  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those skim reading the Bill they could have a look at section 17.
"17 Serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction""
Oh, so you _have_ read it. But you'll notice that section 17 only applies if the person in question has been charged with a protest-related offence at least twice in the previous 5 years.
"Why so determined to disprove me on every post?"
I only jump in to disprove you when you are wrong. If that ends up being on every post, well I'm sorry for wanting people to hear the truth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"For those skim reading the Bill they could have a look at section 17.
"17 Serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction"
Oh, so you _have_ read it. But you'll notice that section 17 only applies if the person in question has been charged with a protest-related offence at least twice in the previous 5 years.
Why so determined to disprove me on every post?
I only jump in to disprove you when you are wrong. If that ends up being on every post, well I'm sorry for wanting people to hear the truth."
That "protest-related offence" can be:
"(iv) caused or contributed to the commission by any other person
of a protest-related offence or a protest-related breach of an
injunction, or
(v) caused or contributed to the carrying out by any other person
of activities related to a protest that resulted in, or were likely
to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or
to an organisation, in England and Wales"
This could be having some unspecified involvement in in something that might have happened.
What are you actually trying to make?
The legislation is intended to provide very loose and pretty much arbitrary parameters to prevent individuals from protesting at will.
As stated in my first post.
Sloppy drafting by a crap solicitor who became a terrible Attorney General and is already proving to be an awful Home Secretary. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That "protest-related offence" can be:
"(iv) caused or contributed to the commission by any other person of a protest-related offence or a protest-related breach of an injunction, or
(v) caused or contributed to the carrying out by any other person
of activities related to a protest that resulted in, or were likely
to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales"
This could be having some unspecified involvement in in something that might have happened."
You realise that this order has to be issued by a court? The police will no doubt try to push an order through, but even a magistrate will want to see proof that an offence was committed, and that the person in question was aiding and abetting it. A plea of "I saw I'm do it guv, honest" isn't going to get an order signed. In the real world, a court order won't be issued unless the person has been charged at least twice, and only let off on a technicality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"That "protest-related offence" can be:
"(iv) caused or contributed to the commission by any other person of a protest-related offence or a protest-related breach of an injunction, or
(v) caused or contributed to the carrying out by any other person
of activities related to a protest that resulted in, or were likely
to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales"
This could be having some unspecified involvement in in something that might have happened.
You realise that this order has to be issued by a court? The police will no doubt try to push an order through, but even a magistrate will want to see proof that an offence was committed, and that the person in question was aiding and abetting it. A plea of "I saw I'm do it guv, honest" isn't going to get an order signed. In the real world, a court order won't be issued unless the person has been charged at least twice, and only let off on a technicality."
Again, what point are you making that contradicts what I originally stated? You've slid from one incorrect "gotcha" to the next.
Once again, read what it says.
You have zero idea what will actually happen in "the real world" with sloppy, loose, arbitrary legislation.
Read it again and try to understand what these words can mean:
"caused OR CONTRIBUTED to the carrying out by ANY OTHER PERSON
of activities related to a protest that resulted in, OR WERE LIKELY TO RESULT IN , serious disruption" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Again, what point are you making that contradicts what I originally stated?"
Well you started off by saying "The Government will be able to place 'protest banning' orders on anyone assessed as 'disruptive' at a protest". That clearly isn't true.
But I see that you've made you mind up, and there's no point trying to lead you to the truth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orny PTMan
over a year ago
Peterborough |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
So I can ignore the strikes and drive a train that's sitting idle this Saturday, then???
I don't really know how you got to that scenario, but if you are looking for permission, go for it "
Well, supermarkets seem to thinks that they can sack check out staff and get us to do those jobs for them and it takes longer.
Conclusion:
workers nil
customer experience nil
accountants 1
That was eloquently explained elsewhere in the forums...it was an amazing write up, by the way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Again, what point are you making that contradicts what I originally stated?
Well you started off by saying "The Government will be able to place 'protest banning' orders on anyone assessed as 'disruptive' at a protest". That clearly isn't true.
But I see that you've made you mind up, and there's no point trying to lead you to the truth."
It clearly isn't, because they don't even have to be disruptive.
They only have to "contribute" towards "any other person" to be "likely" to cause a disruptive protest.
You really do not understand the words or how dangerous they are do you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Suella Braverman was a piss poor attorney general and is an even worse Home Secretary - she is not even qualified as a KC and is regarded within the profession as a bit thick - much like our esteemed pm! I wonder if the Tory party members have any concept of what life is like for Normal people or if they just look in the mirror, see perfection and carry on existing in their gated world - sad fuckers |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orny PTMan
over a year ago
Peterborough |
"Suella Braverman was a piss poor attorney general and is an even worse Home Secretary - she is not even qualified as a KC and is regarded within the profession as a bit thick - much like our esteemed pm! I wonder if the Tory party members have any concept of what life is like for Normal people or if they just look in the mirror, see perfection and carry on existing in their gated world - sad fuckers "
I've just seen a sickening video of a guy with a uni degree having ago at Walter the Softy (Jacob Rees Mogg) for destroying his livelihood as a youth worker. The fact that he also has cerebral palsy, means he had twice as much frustration welling up inside him as Walter wouldn't let him say his piece and not only talked down to him, but constantly talked over him saying that's what the welfare state was for.
Doesn't this thick shit MP, know that anyone who wants to stay of benefits is a what this country needs and is probably a voter too and can contribute his taxes, to pay this toff's wages?
Why didn't Walter say "Cripples shouldn't work!"? Because that's what it looked like from where I was sitting.
Bet Walter wouldn't have spoken to Stephen Hawkins like that, but if he did, then he would deserve to be run over by his motorised chair. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"People have the right to protest, they don’t have the right to stop others from going about their daily business.
So I can ignore the strikes and drive a train that's sitting idle this Saturday, then???
I don't really know how you got to that scenario, but if you are looking for permission, go for it
Well, supermarkets seem to thinks that they can sack check out staff and get us to do those jobs for them and it takes longer.
Conclusion:
workers nil
customer experience nil
accountants 1
That was eloquently explained elsewhere in the forums...it was an amazing write up, by the way."
Actually, this is not inherently bad.
These are low paid, low skilled jobs being replaced by automation requiring higher skilled and better paid technical jobs in design, installation and service.
There are manual tills to allow for customer interaction and they are very important for those with little human contact. There should probably be a mandated ratio Amazon Fresh is a horror.
We don't have enough people to do all of the jobs, so the mundane tasks need to be automated and humans engaged in activities that are more complex.
It's commoditising people and paying the minimum possible that is the problem, particularly as this means that tax payers have to step in to provide even those in full-time work with a subsidy to achieve basic living standards. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are manual tills to allow for customer interaction and they are very important for those with little human contact."
Without wishing to attack anything you've said in your last post, we've come to a terrible point in human history if all the elderly can look forward to is a few words exchanged with a checkout operator.
We don't need human operated tills to keep the elderly sane, we need a societal change that makes old people valued. Sadly, I have no idea how that could be accomplished. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"There are manual tills to allow for customer interaction and they are very important for those with little human contact.
Without wishing to attack anything you've said in your last post, we've come to a terrible point in human history if all the elderly can look forward to is a few words exchanged with a checkout operator.
We don't need human operated tills to keep the elderly sane, we need a societal change that makes old people valued. Sadly, I have no idea how that could be accomplished."
Agreed, but there is no plan to provide an overall improvement Nd have to protect what there is.
Geographic dispersal moving extended families so far apart is one of the biggest problems. As is so many small towns and cities being places to escape from. Levelling up is just a phrase for the current party in power, but a wider distribution of wealth geographically reduces this need to move.
The UK has the biggest financial difference between it's major economic centre and the next biggest of anywhere else in the world. That doesn't mean punishing London, it means investing properly in everywhere else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are manual tills to allow for customer interaction and they are very important for those with little human contact."
"Without wishing to attack anything you've said in your last post, we've come to a terrible point in human history if all the elderly can look forward to is a few words exchanged with a checkout operator.
We don't need human operated tills to keep the elderly sane, we need a societal change that makes old people valued. Sadly, I have no idea how that could be accomplished."
"Agreed, but there is no plan to provide an overall improvement Nd have to protect what there is.
Geographic dispersal moving extended families so far apart is one of the biggest problems. As is so many small towns and cities being places to escape from. Levelling up is just a phrase for the current party in power, but a wider distribution of wealth geographically reduces this need to move.
The UK has the biggest financial difference between it's major economic centre and the next biggest of anywhere else in the world. That doesn't mean punishing London, it means investing properly in everywhere else."
It seems to me that the basic problem is that youth and novelty are valued highly in our society, while age and experience are not. That's the reason for the geographic dispersal, because people value money and neighborhood over access to their elders.
Sadly we will all have to get used to being lonely as we get older. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's an interesting discussion. Who determines, or sets, or evolves the culture of a nation? Because it is eminently achievable to not use the latest tech which serves to isolate and remove personal contact and interactions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"There are manual tills to allow for customer interaction and they are very important for those with little human contact.
Without wishing to attack anything you've said in your last post, we've come to a terrible point in human history if all the elderly can look forward to is a few words exchanged with a checkout operator.
We don't need human operated tills to keep the elderly sane, we need a societal change that makes old people valued. Sadly, I have no idea how that could be accomplished.
Agreed, but there is no plan to provide an overall improvement Nd have to protect what there is.
Geographic dispersal moving extended families so far apart is one of the biggest problems. As is so many small towns and cities being places to escape from. Levelling up is just a phrase for the current party in power, but a wider distribution of wealth geographically reduces this need to move.
The UK has the biggest financial difference between it's major economic centre and the next biggest of anywhere else in the world. That doesn't mean punishing London, it means investing properly in everywhere else.
It seems to me that the basic problem is that youth and novelty are valued highly in our society, while age and experience are not. That's the reason for the geographic dispersal, because people value money and neighborhood over access to their elders.
Sadly we will all have to get used to being lonely as we get older."
Sounds like an oversimplification.
Should people not "get on their bikes" to go to where the work is as they were exhorted to for years?
Why do they have to choose between professional and financial aspiration and social ties?
Why aren't there good jobs closer to where they live? If you've trained as a civil engineer and there are no jobs near you, what should you do?
If you have a talent for advertising and the big agencies are in London, what should you do? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"It's an interesting discussion. Who determines, or sets, or evolves the culture of a nation? Because it is eminently achievable to not use the latest tech which serves to isolate and remove personal contact and interactions."
The technology is not the problem. It's the overall isolation.
With a demographic shift towards the old we either have more immigration or substitute for people where it is possible.
Of course if care is still poorly paid and allows no time for social interaction then that doesn't necessarily mean that those who feel isolated will be any better served.
Of course we often hear that the less well paid are lazy and feckless and only really want to claim benefits anyway and minimum wage is more than enough... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orny PTMan
over a year ago
Peterborough |
Am I the only person who has to call a member of staff over every time because the touch screen self service silts do not work?
It's OK saying crap jobs are being replaced with better jobs, because that's a lie, call centres still end up being woefully understaffed as not everything can be done online, like replacing a photo on a driving licence, this still requires a CHEQUE!
Chasing up lost documents and Gp apts, can be always be done online either
Have you tried negotiating a lower quote with a website? Or is that a human to human only thing? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Am I the only person who has to call a member of staff over every time because the touch screen self service silts do not work?
It's OK saying crap jobs are being replaced with better jobs, because that's a lie, call centres still end up being woefully understaffed as not everything can be done online, like replacing a photo on a driving licence, this still requires a CHEQUE!
Chasing up lost documents and Gp apts, can be always be done online either
Have you tried negotiating a lower quote with a website? Or is that a human to human only thing?"
That's the point. The mundane work should be carried out in as automated a way as possible so that real people can carry out complex tasks at a proper wages.
Companies choosing to not pay well and expecting the state to make-up the difference is a different question.
How are we better off if jobs just don't get done? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
