FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Public Order Bill 2022
Public Order Bill 2022
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who needs democracy anyway? " What proposed measures are in the Public Order Bill 2022 that will affect our rights to vote for a parliamentary representative? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who needs democracy anyway? What proposed measures are in the Public Order Bill 2022 that will affect our rights to vote for a parliamentary representative?" Is there not more to democracy than that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who needs democracy anyway?" "What proposed measures are in the Public Order Bill 2022 that will affect our rights to vote for a parliamentary representative?" "Is there not more to democracy than that?" OK. Then what aspect of democracy would be affected by the bill, if it passes as currently written? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who needs democracy anyway? What proposed measures are in the Public Order Bill 2022 that will affect our rights to vote for a parliamentary representative? Is there not more to democracy than that? OK. Then what aspect of democracy would be affected by the bill, if it passes as currently written?" Why is the bill necessary? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OK. Then what aspect of democracy would be affected by the bill, if it passes as currently written?" It infringes on the right to protest and freedom of assembly. Simple draconian intimidation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OK. Then what aspect of democracy would be affected by the bill, if it passes as currently written? It infringes on the right to protest and freedom of assembly. Simple draconian intimidation." Exactly, and like I asked earlier, why is it necessary ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who needs democracy anyway? What proposed measures are in the Public Order Bill 2022 that will affect our rights to vote for a parliamentary representative? Is there not more to democracy than that? OK. Then what aspect of democracy would be affected by the bill, if it passes as currently written? Why is the bill necessary? " Probably because the House of Lords pushed back so hard against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. Plus, tories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OK. Then what aspect of democracy would be affected by the bill, if it passes as currently written?" "It infringes on the right to protest and freedom of assembly. Simple draconian intimidation." But that's a rights issue, it has nothing to do with democracy. If you'd started this thread with "Who needs human rights anyway?", I wouldn't have commented. But to try to equate the right to protest with democracy is stretching things too far. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OK. Then what aspect of democracy would be affected by the bill, if it passes as currently written? It infringes on the right to protest and freedom of assembly. Simple draconian intimidation. But that's a rights issue, it has nothing to do with democracy. If you'd started this thread with "Who needs human rights anyway?", I wouldn't have commented. But to try to equate the right to protest with democracy is stretching things too far." The right to protest is fundamental to a healthy and vibrant democracy . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OK. Then what aspect of democracy would be affected by the bill, if it passes as currently written?" "It infringes on the right to protest and freedom of assembly. Simple draconian intimidation." "But that's a rights issue, it has nothing to do with democracy. If you'd started this thread with "Who needs human rights anyway?", I wouldn't have commented. But to try to equate the right to protest with democracy is stretching things too far." "The right to protest is fundamental to a healthy and vibrant democracy . " The proposed bill doesn't inhibit the right to protest, it just criminalises some of the acts of vandalism that regularly get used nowadays. But this is the "oh yes it does", "oh no it doesn't" point of the conversation. Rather than get involved in a pointless gainsaying competition, I'll just state my view that democracy is not invalidated by the denial of some forms of protest, and I'll leave it there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OK. Then what aspect of democracy would be affected by the bill, if it passes as currently written? It infringes on the right to protest and freedom of assembly. Simple draconian intimidation. But that's a rights issue, it has nothing to do with democracy. If you'd started this thread with "Who needs human rights anyway?", I wouldn't have commented. But to try to equate the right to protest with democracy is stretching things too far. The right to protest is fundamental to a healthy and vibrant democracy . " As discussed on other posts, you said yourself that some tactics used by just stop oil were not something you would agree with, but supported their right to protest. This bill is to address the increasing tactic of a small number of people, to bring disruption to the public by criminal means. It is not stopping genuine protests. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But to try to equate the right to protest with democracy is stretching things too far." I'm afraid that's wildly incorrect. Pick up any textbook on parliamentary democracy. And I'll wager you there will be mention of the pillar of the right to protest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is not stopping genuine protests." Have you looked into the Bill? You can be made to wear an electronic tag if you attended (merely attended) any protest that caused "serious distuption" within the last 5 years. And that includes noise. And if you encouraged anyone to attend, or contributed to a protest that caused serious disruption, you can also be tagged (if the bill gets through). It would be naive to think this was just being used to deal with some of the e.g. Oil protests we've seen recently. Powers already existed to address that. This is typical government workings to address one thing up-front (often a voter pleaser, or something seen as urgent and necessary), whilst also sliding half a dozen things in at tbe same time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is not stopping genuine protests. Have you looked into the Bill? You can be made to wear an electronic tag if you attended (merely attended) any protest that caused "serious distuption" within the last 5 years. And that includes noise. And if you encouraged anyone to attend, or contributed to a protest that caused serious disruption, you can also be tagged (if the bill gets through). It would be naive to think this was just being used to deal with some of the e.g. Oil protests we've seen recently. Powers already existed to address that. This is typical government workings to address one thing up-front (often a voter pleaser, or something seen as urgent and necessary), whilst also sliding half a dozen things in at tbe same time." Where does the bill separate from this fact sheet about the bill. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-order-bill-overarching-documents/public-order-bill-factsheet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where does the bill separate from this fact sheet about the bill. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-order-bill-overarching-documents/public-order-bill-factsheet " Sorry, I don't understand the question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is not stopping genuine protests. Have you looked into the Bill? You can be made to wear an electronic tag if you attended (merely attended) any protest that caused "serious distuption" within the last 5 years. And that includes noise. And if you encouraged anyone to attend, or contributed to a protest that caused serious disruption, you can also be tagged (if the bill gets through). It would be naive to think this was just being used to deal with some of the e.g. Oil protests we've seen recently. Powers already existed to address that. This is typical government workings to address one thing up-front (often a voter pleaser, or something seen as urgent and necessary), whilst also sliding half a dozen things in at tbe same time. Where does the bill separate from this fact sheet about the bill. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-order-bill-overarching-documents/public-order-bill-factsheet " To add one more thing, the electronic tagging is in place if a person has committed a crime, arrested and sentenced in court. This is no different today if someone was stealing from a shop, they would eventually be tagged and ordered not to enter the store again. In this case, a protestor climbing the QE2 bridge or throwing paint over a building would be arrested, sentenced and if it was believed that person was to continue to cause criminal damage or disruption, by a judge, they will be tagged. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OK. Then what aspect of democracy would be affected by the bill, if it passes as currently written? It infringes on the right to protest and freedom of assembly. Simple draconian intimidation. But that's a rights issue, it has nothing to do with democracy. If you'd started this thread with "Who needs human rights anyway?", I wouldn't have commented. But to try to equate the right to protest with democracy is stretching things too far. The right to protest is fundamental to a healthy and vibrant democracy . As discussed on other posts, you said yourself that some tactics used by just stop oil were not something you would agree with, but supported their right to protest. This bill is to address the increasing tactic of a small number of people, to bring disruption to the public by criminal means. It is not stopping genuine protests." Why is it necessary then? Simple question, will it make it more difficult for people to protest? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will just have to keep reposting this... Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”" I'm not sure if this refers to the small number of protestors taking freedoms from the public? I know it isn't but isn't easy to spin it around?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OK. Then what aspect of democracy would be affected by the bill, if it passes as currently written? It infringes on the right to protest and freedom of assembly. Simple draconian intimidation. But that's a rights issue, it has nothing to do with democracy. If you'd started this thread with "Who needs human rights anyway?", I wouldn't have commented. But to try to equate the right to protest with democracy is stretching things too far. The right to protest is fundamental to a healthy and vibrant democracy . As discussed on other posts, you said yourself that some tactics used by just stop oil were not something you would agree with, but supported their right to protest. This bill is to address the increasing tactic of a small number of people, to bring disruption to the public by criminal means. It is not stopping genuine protests. Why is it necessary then? Simple question, will it make it more difficult for people to protest? " It is not stopping protests, it is addressing the very small minority that are using criminal actions to cause loss and disruption to the many. The key part is the criminal actions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will just have to keep reposting this... Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” I'm not sure if this refers to the small number of protestors taking freedoms from the public? I know it isn't but isn't easy to spin it around? "Not really. The meaning is crystal clear. A small number of protestors cannot “take control over a people...” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will just have to keep reposting this... Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” I'm not sure if this refers to the small number of protestors taking freedoms from the public? I know it isn't but isn't easy to spin it around?
Not really. The meaning is crystal clear. A small number of protestors cannot “take control over a people...”"But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will just have to keep reposting this... Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” I'm not sure if this refers to the small number of protestors taking freedoms from the public? I know it isn't but isn't easy to spin it around?
Not really. The meaning is crystal clear. A small number of protestors cannot “take control over a people...”
But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely?
"Precisely... “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I may not agree with the protesters but I do agree with their right to protest Try reading the poem First they came for" Posted directly above your post  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely?" That's presumably why they want to slap injunctions on anyone who is *likely* to attend a protest that causes serious disruption. That's just chilling. The government know that the energy crisis, cost of living crisis, food crisis, climate crisis and further austerity measures mean that increased protests are very likely. As they should be. This is simply about proactively removing that likelihood. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will just have to keep reposting this... Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” I'm not sure if this refers to the small number of protestors taking freedoms from the public? I know it isn't but isn't easy to spin it around?
Not really. The meaning is crystal clear. A small number of protestors cannot “take control over a people...”
But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely?
Precisely...
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”"I'm going to disagree with you here, I'm very clear in how I feel about a small bunch of people who are playing one-upmanship on the stakes, that will inevitably lead to a loss of life at some point if allowed to continue unchecked. I believe people have the right to protest but not to hold people to ransom with criminal acts. Simply throwing away all social and community values by allowing people to do whatever they want to make a point is, wrong. The inability to not be able to challenge those that are causing criminal damage and disruption leads to a further divide of those who will allow anything to happen under a faux human rights and those that see clearly criminal damage is happening and nothing is being done to prevent it. I do not condone the tactics being used by organisations like just stop oil. I support their right to protest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely? That's presumably why they want to slap injunctions on anyone who is *likely* to attend a protest that causes serious disruption. That's just chilling. The government know that the energy crisis, cost of living crisis, food crisis, climate crisis and further austerity measures mean that increased protests are very likely. As they should be. This is simply about proactively removing that likelihood." This is not a conspiracy, it is a measure to prevent the same few individuals from committing a crime in a protest, or to keep returning to the protest once removed. The courts will have the last say not the police. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I may not agree with the protesters but I do agree with their right to protest Try reading the poem First they came for Posted directly above your post "2 mins difference must have been while I was typing. Wonder if its great minds think alike or fools seldom differ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will just have to keep reposting this... Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” I'm not sure if this refers to the small number of protestors taking freedoms from the public? I know it isn't but isn't easy to spin it around?
Not really. The meaning is crystal clear. A small number of protestors cannot “take control over a people...”
But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely?
Precisely...
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
I'm going to disagree with you here, I'm very clear in how I feel about a small bunch of people who are playing one-upmanship on the stakes, that will inevitably lead to a loss of life at some point if allowed to continue unchecked.
I believe people have the right to protest but not to hold people to ransom with criminal acts.
Simply throwing away all social and community values by allowing people to do whatever they want to make a point is, wrong. The inability to not be able to challenge those that are causing criminal damage and disruption leads to a further divide of those who will allow anything to happen under a faux human rights and those that see clearly criminal damage is happening and nothing is being done to prevent it.
I do not condone the tactics being used by organisations like just stop oil. I support their right to protest. "Except the powers in law for the police deal with illegal and criminal activity in relation to protests already exist. This Bill is unnecessary. It is an overreach. SKS was interviewed and answered questions from the public on LBC the other morning and this came up. I think his answer was spot on. We do not need new laws or legislation. All the power needed is already there. And he condemned the behaviour of Stop Oil and said they should be arrested etc but still believes this bill is not needed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I may not agree with the protesters but I do agree with their right to protest Try reading the poem First they came for Posted directly above your post
2 mins difference must have been while I was typing.
Wonder if its great minds think alike or fools seldom differ "Great minds obviously | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely? That's presumably why they want to slap injunctions on anyone who is *likely* to attend a protest that causes serious disruption. That's just chilling. The government know that the energy crisis, cost of living crisis, food crisis, climate crisis and further austerity measures mean that increased protests are very likely. As they should be. This is simply about proactively removing that likelihood. This is not a conspiracy, it is a measure to prevent the same few individuals from committing a crime in a protest, or to keep returning to the protest once removed. The courts will have the last say not the police." Keep telling yourself “nothing to see here” and go back and read the poem. The genesis of this bill was the knowledge in govt that civil unrest was getting increasingly likely, or inevitable, following a decade of austerity and knowing what lay ahead. Do not read UK Govt legislation in isolation (ie each Bill in and of itself). UK law is based on the collective and enables Govt to draw on obscure clauses that seemed innocuous when tucked away in another Bill. Taken as a whole it is clear this Govt are gradually seeding more power to the executive and eroding personal rights. It starts small and often just seems like common sense. Just like Hitler’s quote from Mein Kampf. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is not a conspiracy, it is a measure to prevent the same few individuals from committing a crime in a protest, or to keep returning to the protest once removed." If it was solely about 'the same few individuals' then it would not apply to proactively arresting people who have never committed a crime. Everything you are claiming it is for is already possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely? That's presumably why they want to slap injunctions on anyone who is *likely* to attend a protest that causes serious disruption. That's just chilling. The government know that the energy crisis, cost of living crisis, food crisis, climate crisis and further austerity measures mean that increased protests are very likely. As they should be. This is simply about proactively removing that likelihood. This is not a conspiracy, it is a measure to prevent the same few individuals from committing a crime in a protest, or to keep returning to the protest once removed. The courts will have the last say not the police. Keep telling yourself “nothing to see here” and go back and read the poem. The genesis of this bill was the knowledge in govt that civil unrest was getting increasingly likely, or inevitable, following a decade of austerity and knowing what lay ahead. Do not read UK Govt legislation in isolation (ie each Bill in and of itself). UK law is based on the collective and enables Govt to draw on obscure clauses that seemed innocuous when tucked away in another Bill. Taken as a whole it is clear this Govt are gradually seeding more power to the executive and eroding personal rights. It starts small and often just seems like common sense. Just like Hitler’s quote from Mein Kampf." It sounds again like a conspiracy theory, I'm failing to to see it any other way. I have said before I don't vote for a particular party, I sit in the middle but it is increasingly obvious to me on here, I sit more to the right on law and order. I would guess that is also where the tories pick up more votes from the undecideds. There is no changing of minds or views to be explored on this, I'm steadfast in my view that the new laws are needed, things such as lock on, and deterrents for persistent offenders. They undermine the efforts of protests and the messages that should be heard, with their destructive behaviour. Throwing open the doors for people to commit crime without fear of prosecution, because you feel it is their right to protest is flawed in my opinion. The end on this subject from me  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely? That's presumably why they want to slap injunctions on anyone who is *likely* to attend a protest that causes serious disruption. That's just chilling. The government know that the energy crisis, cost of living crisis, food crisis, climate crisis and further austerity measures mean that increased protests are very likely. As they should be. This is simply about proactively removing that likelihood. This is not a conspiracy, it is a measure to prevent the same few individuals from committing a crime in a protest, or to keep returning to the protest once removed. The courts will have the last say not the police. Keep telling yourself “nothing to see here” and go back and read the poem. The genesis of this bill was the knowledge in govt that civil unrest was getting increasingly likely, or inevitable, following a decade of austerity and knowing what lay ahead. Do not read UK Govt legislation in isolation (ie each Bill in and of itself). UK law is based on the collective and enables Govt to draw on obscure clauses that seemed innocuous when tucked away in another Bill. Taken as a whole it is clear this Govt are gradually seeding more power to the executive and eroding personal rights. It starts small and often just seems like common sense. Just like Hitler’s quote from Mein Kampf. It sounds again like a conspiracy theory, I'm failing to to see it any other way. I have said before I don't vote for a particular party, I sit in the middle but it is increasingly obvious to me on here, I sit more to the right on law and order. I would guess that is also where the tories pick up more votes from the undecideds. There is no changing of minds or views to be explored on this, I'm steadfast in my view that the new laws are needed, things such as lock on, and deterrents for persistent offenders. They undermine the efforts of protests and the messages that should be heard, with their destructive behaviour. Throwing open the doors for people to commit crime without fear of prosecution, because you feel it is their right to protest is flawed in my opinion. The end on this subject from me "Not trying to change your mind. Your views are obvious and you are entitled to them. I agree that the behaviour of a minority of protestors is deplorable. However, this bill goes too far and is not needed. The powers already exist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone has the right to protest in a responsible manner, but when you start blocking bridges and motorways then either 2 things will happen. 1 traffic comes to a stand still, people may die, miss hospital appointments and funerals etc 2 the public will take matters in their own hands, leading to g.b.h and possibly more You can blame government for new legislation but imho its the police responsibility to remove and arrest them ... old fashioned I know " And they already have all the powers and laws they need to do it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone has the right to protest in a responsible manner, but when you start blocking bridges and motorways then either 2 things will happen. 1 traffic comes to a stand still, people may die, miss hospital appointments and funerals etc 2 the public will take matters in their own hands, leading to g.b.h and possibly more You can blame government for new legislation but imho its the police responsibility to remove and arrest them ... old fashioned I know And they already have all the powers and laws they need to do it!" I quite agree, police policy is changed since I was a kid, coppers were normally over 6ft rugby players and had common sense. Now they are just unofficial tax collectors on motorists imho of cause | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone has the right to protest in a responsible manner, but when you start blocking bridges and motorways then either 2 things will happen. 1 traffic comes to a stand still, people may die, miss hospital appointments and funerals etc 2 the public will take matters in their own hands, leading to g.b.h and possibly more You can blame government for new legislation but imho its the police responsibility to remove and arrest them ... old fashioned I know And they already have all the powers and laws they need to do it!" I said it was the last from me, however curious to understand if the nuances of existing laws really exist to prosecute and deter actions of criminals today and if so, why lock on needs to be introduced, as one example. So can you explain why they are not using those laws to remove the protestors that SKS also said should be arrested, today? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can blame government for new legislation but imho its the police responsibility to remove and arrest them ... old fashioned I know " I can and I do blame government for new legislation. There's literally no one else to blame. And yet, at the same time, I agree that the Police should arrest those who *actually break the law.* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely? That's presumably why they want to slap injunctions on anyone who is *likely* to attend a protest that causes serious disruption. That's just chilling. The government know that the energy crisis, cost of living crisis, food crisis, climate crisis and further austerity measures mean that increased protests are very likely. As they should be. This is simply about proactively removing that likelihood. This is not a conspiracy, it is a measure to prevent the same few individuals from committing a crime in a protest, or to keep returning to the protest once removed. The courts will have the last say not the police. Keep telling yourself “nothing to see here” and go back and read the poem. The genesis of this bill was the knowledge in govt that civil unrest was getting increasingly likely, or inevitable, following a decade of austerity and knowing what lay ahead. Do not read UK Govt legislation in isolation (ie each Bill in and of itself). UK law is based on the collective and enables Govt to draw on obscure clauses that seemed innocuous when tucked away in another Bill. Taken as a whole it is clear this Govt are gradually seeding more power to the executive and eroding personal rights. It starts small and often just seems like common sense. Just like Hitler’s quote from Mein Kampf. It sounds again like a conspiracy theory, I'm failing to to see it any other way. I have said before I don't vote for a particular party, I sit in the middle but it is increasingly obvious to me on here, I sit more to the right on law and order. I would guess that is also where the tories pick up more votes from the undecideds. There is no changing of minds or views to be explored on this, I'm steadfast in my view that the new laws are needed, things such as lock on, and deterrents for persistent offenders. They undermine the efforts of protests and the messages that should be heard, with their destructive behaviour. Throwing open the doors for people to commit crime without fear of prosecution, because you feel it is their right to protest is flawed in my opinion. The end on this subject from me "You haven't read an analysis of the legislation or the legislation itself, have you? The bill allows blanket stop and search related to any point in the bill without "reasonable grounds". Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed without any criminal act being carried out. They can be imposed in anticipation of somebody possibly causing serious disruption or encouraging someone else to. That's thought crime. "Serious disruption" is not defined and can effect only two or more people. You don't think that this is significant? Why did the Lords throw it out so many times, do you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who needs democracy anyway? " There's also a move to reduce options for judicial review and, completely unnecessary, photo ID for voting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely? That's presumably why they want to slap injunctions on anyone who is *likely* to attend a protest that causes serious disruption. That's just chilling. The government know that the energy crisis, cost of living crisis, food crisis, climate crisis and further austerity measures mean that increased protests are very likely. As they should be. This is simply about proactively removing that likelihood. This is not a conspiracy, it is a measure to prevent the same few individuals from committing a crime in a protest, or to keep returning to the protest once removed. The courts will have the last say not the police. Keep telling yourself “nothing to see here” and go back and read the poem. The genesis of this bill was the knowledge in govt that civil unrest was getting increasingly likely, or inevitable, following a decade of austerity and knowing what lay ahead. Do not read UK Govt legislation in isolation (ie each Bill in and of itself). UK law is based on the collective and enables Govt to draw on obscure clauses that seemed innocuous when tucked away in another Bill. Taken as a whole it is clear this Govt are gradually seeding more power to the executive and eroding personal rights. It starts small and often just seems like common sense. Just like Hitler’s quote from Mein Kampf. It sounds again like a conspiracy theory, I'm failing to to see it any other way. I have said before I don't vote for a particular party, I sit in the middle but it is increasingly obvious to me on here, I sit more to the right on law and order. I would guess that is also where the tories pick up more votes from the undecideds. There is no changing of minds or views to be explored on this, I'm steadfast in my view that the new laws are needed, things such as lock on, and deterrents for persistent offenders. They undermine the efforts of protests and the messages that should be heard, with their destructive behaviour. Throwing open the doors for people to commit crime without fear of prosecution, because you feel it is their right to protest is flawed in my opinion. The end on this subject from me
You haven't read an analysis of the legislation or the legislation itself, have you?
The bill allows blanket stop and search related to any point in the bill without "reasonable grounds".
Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed without any criminal act being carried out. They can be imposed in anticipation of somebody possibly causing serious disruption or encouraging someone else to. That's thought crime.
"Serious disruption" is not defined and can effect only two or more people.
You don't think that this is significant?
Why did the Lords throw it out so many times, do you think?"You can be stopped in a motorcar without reasonable doubt  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many “illegal immigrants” causing unprecedented crime." I'm sorry, but I couldn't hear your point over the nonsense you were spouting. Could you try a little harder to stick to the point of the thread? Maybe your Faragesque rhetoric can have a thread of its own somewhere else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely? That's presumably why they want to slap injunctions on anyone who is *likely* to attend a protest that causes serious disruption. That's just chilling. The government know that the energy crisis, cost of living crisis, food crisis, climate crisis and further austerity measures mean that increased protests are very likely. As they should be. This is simply about proactively removing that likelihood. This is not a conspiracy, it is a measure to prevent the same few individuals from committing a crime in a protest, or to keep returning to the protest once removed. The courts will have the last say not the police. Keep telling yourself “nothing to see here” and go back and read the poem. The genesis of this bill was the knowledge in govt that civil unrest was getting increasingly likely, or inevitable, following a decade of austerity and knowing what lay ahead. Do not read UK Govt legislation in isolation (ie each Bill in and of itself). UK law is based on the collective and enables Govt to draw on obscure clauses that seemed innocuous when tucked away in another Bill. Taken as a whole it is clear this Govt are gradually seeding more power to the executive and eroding personal rights. It starts small and often just seems like common sense. Just like Hitler’s quote from Mein Kampf. It sounds again like a conspiracy theory, I'm failing to to see it any other way. I have said before I don't vote for a particular party, I sit in the middle but it is increasingly obvious to me on here, I sit more to the right on law and order. I would guess that is also where the tories pick up more votes from the undecideds. There is no changing of minds or views to be explored on this, I'm steadfast in my view that the new laws are needed, things such as lock on, and deterrents for persistent offenders. They undermine the efforts of protests and the messages that should be heard, with their destructive behaviour. Throwing open the doors for people to commit crime without fear of prosecution, because you feel it is their right to protest is flawed in my opinion. The end on this subject from me
You haven't read an analysis of the legislation or the legislation itself, have you?
The bill allows blanket stop and search related to any point in the bill without "reasonable grounds".
Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed without any criminal act being carried out. They can be imposed in anticipation of somebody possibly causing serious disruption or encouraging someone else to. That's thought crime.
"Serious disruption" is not defined and can effect only two or more people.
You don't think that this is significant?
Why did the Lords throw it out so many times, do you think?
You can be stopped in a motorcar without reasonable doubt "You can be stopped, you cannot be searched without a reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can be stopped, you cannot be searched without a reason." And if you are stopped and searched, we all know that statistically you're probably not white. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many “illegal immigrants” causing unprecedented crime. I'm sorry, but I couldn't hear your point over the nonsense you were spouting. Could you try a little harder to stick to the point of the thread? Maybe your Faragesque rhetoric can have a thread of its own somewhere else. " Re-read that post. It was sarcasm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely? That's presumably why they want to slap injunctions on anyone who is *likely* to attend a protest that causes serious disruption. That's just chilling. The government know that the energy crisis, cost of living crisis, food crisis, climate crisis and further austerity measures mean that increased protests are very likely. As they should be. This is simply about proactively removing that likelihood. This is not a conspiracy, it is a measure to prevent the same few individuals from committing a crime in a protest, or to keep returning to the protest once removed. The courts will have the last say not the police. Keep telling yourself “nothing to see here” and go back and read the poem. The genesis of this bill was the knowledge in govt that civil unrest was getting increasingly likely, or inevitable, following a decade of austerity and knowing what lay ahead. Do not read UK Govt legislation in isolation (ie each Bill in and of itself). UK law is based on the collective and enables Govt to draw on obscure clauses that seemed innocuous when tucked away in another Bill. Taken as a whole it is clear this Govt are gradually seeding more power to the executive and eroding personal rights. It starts small and often just seems like common sense. Just like Hitler’s quote from Mein Kampf. It sounds again like a conspiracy theory, I'm failing to to see it any other way. I have said before I don't vote for a particular party, I sit in the middle but it is increasingly obvious to me on here, I sit more to the right on law and order. I would guess that is also where the tories pick up more votes from the undecideds. There is no changing of minds or views to be explored on this, I'm steadfast in my view that the new laws are needed, things such as lock on, and deterrents for persistent offenders. They undermine the efforts of protests and the messages that should be heard, with their destructive behaviour. Throwing open the doors for people to commit crime without fear of prosecution, because you feel it is their right to protest is flawed in my opinion. The end on this subject from me " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely? That's presumably why they want to slap injunctions on anyone who is *likely* to attend a protest that causes serious disruption. That's just chilling. The government know that the energy crisis, cost of living crisis, food crisis, climate crisis and further austerity measures mean that increased protests are very likely. As they should be. This is simply about proactively removing that likelihood. This is not a conspiracy, it is a measure to prevent the same few individuals from committing a crime in a protest, or to keep returning to the protest once removed. The courts will have the last say not the police. Keep telling yourself “nothing to see here” and go back and read the poem. The genesis of this bill was the knowledge in govt that civil unrest was getting increasingly likely, or inevitable, following a decade of austerity and knowing what lay ahead. Do not read UK Govt legislation in isolation (ie each Bill in and of itself). UK law is based on the collective and enables Govt to draw on obscure clauses that seemed innocuous when tucked away in another Bill. Taken as a whole it is clear this Govt are gradually seeding more power to the executive and eroding personal rights. It starts small and often just seems like common sense. Just like Hitler’s quote from Mein Kampf. It sounds again like a conspiracy theory, I'm failing to to see it any other way. I have said before I don't vote for a particular party, I sit in the middle but it is increasingly obvious to me on here, I sit more to the right on law and order. I would guess that is also where the tories pick up more votes from the undecideds. There is no changing of minds or views to be explored on this, I'm steadfast in my view that the new laws are needed, things such as lock on, and deterrents for persistent offenders. They undermine the efforts of protests and the messages that should be heard, with their destructive behaviour. Throwing open the doors for people to commit crime without fear of prosecution, because you feel it is their right to protest is flawed in my opinion. The end on this subject from me
You haven't read an analysis of the legislation or the legislation itself, have you?
The bill allows blanket stop and search related to any point in the bill without "reasonable grounds".
Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed without any criminal act being carried out. They can be imposed in anticipation of somebody possibly causing serious disruption or encouraging someone else to. That's thought crime.
"Serious disruption" is not defined and can effect only two or more people.
You don't think that this is significant?
Why did the Lords throw it out so many times, do you think?"Giving the police powers to stop people they suspect will commit a crime, you say? Whatever next! The prevention of serious disruption might effect 2 or more people, now that can't be right can it? It takes more than 2 to climb a bridge and bring the M25 to a standstill, surely. Oh and it really does take more than 2 people to throw human excrement over a statue. Yours and others views are simply you don't trust the police, you would rather a criminal or a person hell bent on bringing our infrastructure to its knees is given an open door to vandalise and commit crime with impunity, than trusting the police with the job they are asked to do. Look out it could be you tomorrow is nonsense, it is pure twaddle, I've heard it from the messiah of sensationalism Russell Brand and it feed through to his followers. Why is it nonsense? Because if it is me causing the criminal damage and disruption that these protesting activists are doing, stop me and arrest me, I deserve it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many “illegal immigrants” causing unprecedented crime. I'm sorry, but I couldn't hear your point over the nonsense you were spouting. Could you try a little harder to stick to the point of the thread? Maybe your Faragesque rhetoric can have a thread of its own somewhere else. "  Could you read it again please? I think you missed my tongue in cheek point. Maybe my tongue was too deep so my apologies . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because if it is me causing the criminal damage and disruption that these protesting activists are doing, stop me and arrest me, I deserve it. " You don't seem to be very good at considering an argument from the other side, or even really considering another perspective. But you appear very keen on straw man arguments. As for the part I've quoted, what if you weren't causing crininal damage? What if you were merelynin the area and had a bike lock in your bag? What if you had a friend in Anonymous and Police therefore considered you a threat? What if you had encouraged someone to attend a protest that you did not realise was going to turn nasty? The fact you would reference Russell Brand just shows that you have not really looked into this. There are serious, balanced and cross-party groups expressing grave concerns about the bill. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could you read it again please? I think you missed my tongue in cheek point. Maybe my tongue was too deep so my apologies . "Sorry about that!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because if it is me causing the criminal damage and disruption that these protesting activists are doing, stop me and arrest me, I deserve it. You don't seem to be very good at considering an argument from the other side, or even really considering another perspective. But you appear very keen on straw man arguments. As for the part I've quoted, what if you weren't causing crininal damage? What if you were merelynin the area and had a bike lock in your bag? What if you had a friend in Anonymous and Police therefore considered you a threat? What if you had encouraged someone to attend a protest that you did not realise was going to turn nasty? The fact you would reference Russell Brand just shows that you have not really looked into this. There are serious, balanced and cross-party groups expressing grave concerns about the bill." These powers exist today for the police to execute should they believe a person is going equipped to steal. They will take into account all necessary factors and make a decision, that is what we pay and want them to do to protect our society, and I'm glad people who are willing to allow mindless vandalism and other crimes go unpunished are a tiny minority in this country. The reason this bill is needed (and I did supply you a fact sheet link further up, did you read it), is the fact that the goalposts have moved by those carrying out disruptive crime and a new more prescriptive wording needs to be introduced to cover those new acts of vandalism and crimes being committed, it is moving with the times. It easily argued and can't be denied that those committing these criminal acts have brought this bill in to play. Maybe go talk to them and ask them why their criminal acts are now going to potentially impact all those "innocent people being harassed by the police"... You wont, of course, as it is easier to draw up an argument why everybody else is wrong and gives you the feeling of giving it the man. And the "what ifs" you mention, we can go around that circle all day long.. Referencing Brand, has nothing to do with what I know or don't know, it was merely an example of the type of sensationalism that is being thrown out to a certain type of individual that laps up the idea of big brother and conspiracies, it does however line the pockets of people like him. If this bill is not needed tell me your plan to stop the criminal acts that are being carried out by groups such as just stop oil. Or do you condone them climbing the QE2 bridge bringing the M25 to a halt, or throwing paint over shop doors and windows, throwing human excrement over statues? What is it to be, you tell me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because if it is me causing the criminal damage and disruption that these protesting activists are doing, stop me and arrest me, I deserve it. You don't seem to be very good at considering an argument from the other side, or even really considering another perspective. But you appear very keen on straw man arguments. As for the part I've quoted, what if you weren't causing crininal damage? What if you were merelynin the area and had a bike lock in your bag? What if you had a friend in Anonymous and Police therefore considered you a threat? What if you had encouraged someone to attend a protest that you did not realise was going to turn nasty? The fact you would reference Russell Brand just shows that you have not really looked into this. There are serious, balanced and cross-party groups expressing grave concerns about the bill." Indeed. As I said above, but was ignored, it is standard in the UK to include clauses in disparate pieces of legislation that in and of themselves are innocuous or of little consequence, until they are taken as a collective. The sum of the whole is greater than the parts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I did supply you a fact sheet link further up, did you read it" I had already read it, thanks. Did you read any analyses of the bill? Or do you still think that anyone opposed to it is either planning crime, or thinks it shouldn't go unpunished. The fact you think the goalposts have moved makes me think you are not too aware of protests in this country. There is nothing new taking place. "If this bill is not needed tell me your plan to stop the criminal acts that are being carried out by groups such as just stop oil." Enforcing the laws that are already in place. "Or do you condone them climbing the QE2 bridge bringing the M25 to a halt, or throwing paint over shop doors and windows, throwing human excrement over statues?" I won't answer the straw man arguments. You need to stop painting yourself as the only one here who believes in the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because if it is me causing the criminal damage and disruption that these protesting activists are doing, stop me and arrest me, I deserve it. You don't seem to be very good at considering an argument from the other side, or even really considering another perspective. But you appear very keen on straw man arguments. As for the part I've quoted, what if you weren't causing crininal damage? What if you were merelynin the area and had a bike lock in your bag? What if you had a friend in Anonymous and Police therefore considered you a threat? What if you had encouraged someone to attend a protest that you did not realise was going to turn nasty? The fact you would reference Russell Brand just shows that you have not really looked into this. There are serious, balanced and cross-party groups expressing grave concerns about the bill. These powers exist today for the police to execute should they believe a person is going equipped to steal. They will take into account all necessary factors and make a decision, that is what we pay and want them to do to protect our society, and I'm glad people who are willing to allow mindless vandalism and other crimes go unpunished are a tiny minority in this country. The reason this bill is needed (and I did supply you a fact sheet link further up, did you read it), is the fact that the goalposts have moved by those carrying out disruptive crime and a new more prescriptive wording needs to be introduced to cover those new acts of vandalism and crimes being committed, it is moving with the times. It easily argued and can't be denied that those committing these criminal acts have brought this bill in to play. Maybe go talk to them and ask them why their criminal acts are now going to potentially impact all those "innocent people being harassed by the police"... You wont, of course, as it is easier to draw up an argument why everybody else is wrong and gives you the feeling of giving it the man. And the "what ifs" you mention, we can go around that circle all day long.. Referencing Brand, has nothing to do with what I know or don't know, it was merely an example of the type of sensationalism that is being thrown out to a certain type of individual that laps up the idea of big brother and conspiracies, it does however line the pockets of people like him. If this bill is not needed tell me your plan to stop the criminal acts that are being carried out by groups such as just stop oil. Or do you condone them climbing the QE2 bridge bringing the M25 to a halt, or throwing paint over shop doors and windows, throwing human excrement over statues? What is it to be, you tell me" The powers already exist. You can amend existing legislation to reflect changes in language and situation. You do not need a whole new bill. Stop relying on a factsheet and go read to bill (you won’t) and ask why the House of Lords and cross party groups have concerns. It isn’t just the crusties that are concerned! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I did supply you a fact sheet link further up, did you read it I had already read it, thanks. Did you read any analyses of the bill? Or do you still think that anyone opposed to it is either planning crime, or thinks it shouldn't go unpunished. The fact you think the goalposts have moved makes me think you are not too aware of protests in this country. There is nothing new taking place. If this bill is not needed tell me your plan to stop the criminal acts that are being carried out by groups such as just stop oil. Enforcing the laws that are already in place. Or do you condone them climbing the QE2 bridge bringing the M25 to a halt, or throwing paint over shop doors and windows, throwing human excrement over statues? I won't answer the straw man arguments. You need to stop painting yourself as the only one here who believes in the law." We have come to a natural end in this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because if it is me causing the criminal damage and disruption that these protesting activists are doing, stop me and arrest me, I deserve it. You don't seem to be very good at considering an argument from the other side, or even really considering another perspective. But you appear very keen on straw man arguments. As for the part I've quoted, what if you weren't causing crininal damage? What if you were merelynin the area and had a bike lock in your bag? What if you had a friend in Anonymous and Police therefore considered you a threat? What if you had encouraged someone to attend a protest that you did not realise was going to turn nasty? The fact you would reference Russell Brand just shows that you have not really looked into this. There are serious, balanced and cross-party groups expressing grave concerns about the bill. These powers exist today for the police to execute should they believe a person is going equipped to steal. They will take into account all necessary factors and make a decision, that is what we pay and want them to do to protect our society, and I'm glad people who are willing to allow mindless vandalism and other crimes go unpunished are a tiny minority in this country. The reason this bill is needed (and I did supply you a fact sheet link further up, did you read it), is the fact that the goalposts have moved by those carrying out disruptive crime and a new more prescriptive wording needs to be introduced to cover those new acts of vandalism and crimes being committed, it is moving with the times. It easily argued and can't be denied that those committing these criminal acts have brought this bill in to play. Maybe go talk to them and ask them why their criminal acts are now going to potentially impact all those "innocent people being harassed by the police"... You wont, of course, as it is easier to draw up an argument why everybody else is wrong and gives you the feeling of giving it the man. And the "what ifs" you mention, we can go around that circle all day long.. Referencing Brand, has nothing to do with what I know or don't know, it was merely an example of the type of sensationalism that is being thrown out to a certain type of individual that laps up the idea of big brother and conspiracies, it does however line the pockets of people like him. If this bill is not needed tell me your plan to stop the criminal acts that are being carried out by groups such as just stop oil. Or do you condone them climbing the QE2 bridge bringing the M25 to a halt, or throwing paint over shop doors and windows, throwing human excrement over statues? What is it to be, you tell me The powers already exist. You can amend existing legislation to reflect changes in language and situation. You do not need a whole new bill. Stop relying on a factsheet and go read to bill (you won’t) and ask why the House of Lords and cross party groups have concerns. It isn’t just the crusties that are concerned!" We are going to disagree to the cows come home, you know my view and I know yours | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because if it is me causing the criminal damage and disruption that these protesting activists are doing, stop me and arrest me, I deserve it. You don't seem to be very good at considering an argument from the other side, or even really considering another perspective. But you appear very keen on straw man arguments. As for the part I've quoted, what if you weren't causing crininal damage? What if you were merelynin the area and had a bike lock in your bag? What if you had a friend in Anonymous and Police therefore considered you a threat? What if you had encouraged someone to attend a protest that you did not realise was going to turn nasty? The fact you would reference Russell Brand just shows that you have not really looked into this. There are serious, balanced and cross-party groups expressing grave concerns about the bill. These powers exist today for the police to execute should they believe a person is going equipped to steal. They will take into account all necessary factors and make a decision, that is what we pay and want them to do to protect our society, and I'm glad people who are willing to allow mindless vandalism and other crimes go unpunished are a tiny minority in this country. The reason this bill is needed (and I did supply you a fact sheet link further up, did you read it), is the fact that the goalposts have moved by those carrying out disruptive crime and a new more prescriptive wording needs to be introduced to cover those new acts of vandalism and crimes being committed, it is moving with the times. It easily argued and can't be denied that those committing these criminal acts have brought this bill in to play. Maybe go talk to them and ask them why their criminal acts are now going to potentially impact all those "innocent people being harassed by the police"... You wont, of course, as it is easier to draw up an argument why everybody else is wrong and gives you the feeling of giving it the man. And the "what ifs" you mention, we can go around that circle all day long.. Referencing Brand, has nothing to do with what I know or don't know, it was merely an example of the type of sensationalism that is being thrown out to a certain type of individual that laps up the idea of big brother and conspiracies, it does however line the pockets of people like him. If this bill is not needed tell me your plan to stop the criminal acts that are being carried out by groups such as just stop oil. Or do you condone them climbing the QE2 bridge bringing the M25 to a halt, or throwing paint over shop doors and windows, throwing human excrement over statues? What is it to be, you tell me The powers already exist. You can amend existing legislation to reflect changes in language and situation. You do not need a whole new bill. Stop relying on a factsheet and go read to bill (you won’t) and ask why the House of Lords and cross party groups have concerns. It isn’t just the crusties that are concerned! We are going to disagree to the cows come home, you know my view and I know yours "Yep but you keep posting despite saying it is your final word? On this topic I think you are being strangely blinkered and naive, which is rarely the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely? That's presumably why they want to slap injunctions on anyone who is *likely* to attend a protest that causes serious disruption. That's just chilling. The government know that the energy crisis, cost of living crisis, food crisis, climate crisis and further austerity measures mean that increased protests are very likely. As they should be. This is simply about proactively removing that likelihood. This is not a conspiracy, it is a measure to prevent the same few individuals from committing a crime in a protest, or to keep returning to the protest once removed. The courts will have the last say not the police. Keep telling yourself “nothing to see here” and go back and read the poem. The genesis of this bill was the knowledge in govt that civil unrest was getting increasingly likely, or inevitable, following a decade of austerity and knowing what lay ahead. Do not read UK Govt legislation in isolation (ie each Bill in and of itself). UK law is based on the collective and enables Govt to draw on obscure clauses that seemed innocuous when tucked away in another Bill. Taken as a whole it is clear this Govt are gradually seeding more power to the executive and eroding personal rights. It starts small and often just seems like common sense. Just like Hitler’s quote from Mein Kampf. It sounds again like a conspiracy theory, I'm failing to to see it any other way. I have said before I don't vote for a particular party, I sit in the middle but it is increasingly obvious to me on here, I sit more to the right on law and order. I would guess that is also where the tories pick up more votes from the undecideds. There is no changing of minds or views to be explored on this, I'm steadfast in my view that the new laws are needed, things such as lock on, and deterrents for persistent offenders. They undermine the efforts of protests and the messages that should be heard, with their destructive behaviour. Throwing open the doors for people to commit crime without fear of prosecution, because you feel it is their right to protest is flawed in my opinion. The end on this subject from me
You haven't read an analysis of the legislation or the legislation itself, have you?
The bill allows blanket stop and search related to any point in the bill without "reasonable grounds".
Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed without any criminal act being carried out. They can be imposed in anticipation of somebody possibly causing serious disruption or encouraging someone else to. That's thought crime.
"Serious disruption" is not defined and can effect only two or more people.
You don't think that this is significant?
Why did the Lords throw it out so many times, do you think?
Giving the police powers to stop people they suspect will commit a crime, you say?
Whatever next! The prevention of serious disruption might effect 2 or more people, now that can't be right can it? It takes more than 2 to climb a bridge and bring the M25 to a standstill, surely. Oh and it really does take more than 2 people to throw human excrement over a statue.
Yours and others views are simply you don't trust the police, you would rather a criminal or a person hell bent on bringing our infrastructure to its knees is given an open door to vandalise and commit crime with impunity, than trusting the police with the job they are asked to do.
Look out it could be you tomorrow is nonsense, it is pure twaddle, I've heard it from the messiah of sensationalism Russell Brand and it feed through to his followers. Why is it nonsense? Because if it is me causing the criminal damage and disruption that these protesting activists are doing, stop me and arrest me, I deserve it. "I don't think that you read what I wrote. You read what you already believe to be the case. The legislation is worded such that a Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed because unspecified disruption MIGHT be created directly or indirectly by you. There is no definition of the level of evidence required to make this interpretation. Only two or more people HAVE TO SUFFER FROM disruption for it to be considered as "serious". That is a very low bar The number of people causing disruption is, quite rightly, not defined. I would thank you not to make assumptions about my view of the underfunded and understaffed Police. I would also suggest that you try to understand that reducing the scale and severity of disruption is not the main problem, although that requires a better definition. It is the overreach and lack of constraints that allow for state abuses. You did not answer why you thought that the Lord's have thrown this out so many times before. Is it because they are so heavily influenced by Russell Brand? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have come to a natural end in this "You literally haven't engaged with a single counter-argument. I would recommend listening to the human rights organisations and cross-party groups that have expressed concerns. Or do you presume they also want to throw poo over statues and let criminals get away with it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You did not answer why you thought that the Lord's have thrown this out so many times before." Perhaps he didn't answer out of politeness, since the Lord's haven't yet finished reading the bill, let alone commented on it. Here's the link from parliament showing that the bill is still in second reading stage at the Lords. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3153 Yes, I'm quite aware that the Lords have commented on other similar legislation, but they've not yet commented on the bill we're talking about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You did not answer why you thought that the Lord's have thrown this out so many times before. Perhaps he didn't answer out of politeness, since the Lord's haven't yet finished reading the bill, let alone commented on it. Here's the link from parliament showing that the bill is still in second reading stage at the Lords. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3153 Yes, I'm quite aware that the Lords have commented on other similar legislation, but they've not yet commented on the bill we're talking about." It's good that you are aware that the these elements were all removed from the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act after being thrown out by the Lord's on multiple occasions. These failed elements of legislation have been repackaged and brought back under the Public Order Bill with no substantive changes having been made. So not yet having commented on this specific Bill does not change the fact that the previous act had to exclude all of these elements to pass because they were all thrown out by the Lords on multiple occasions before. So that question still stands. Why were all of the elements in this Bill thrown out by the Lords on multiple occasions before? Why do you think that they were? Is it Russell Brand related? I will now leave you to your ongoing pedantry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely? That's presumably why they want to slap injunctions on anyone who is *likely* to attend a protest that causes serious disruption. That's just chilling. The government know that the energy crisis, cost of living crisis, food crisis, climate crisis and further austerity measures mean that increased protests are very likely. As they should be. This is simply about proactively removing that likelihood. This is not a conspiracy, it is a measure to prevent the same few individuals from committing a crime in a protest, or to keep returning to the protest once removed. The courts will have the last say not the police. Keep telling yourself “nothing to see here” and go back and read the poem. The genesis of this bill was the knowledge in govt that civil unrest was getting increasingly likely, or inevitable, following a decade of austerity and knowing what lay ahead. Do not read UK Govt legislation in isolation (ie each Bill in and of itself). UK law is based on the collective and enables Govt to draw on obscure clauses that seemed innocuous when tucked away in another Bill. Taken as a whole it is clear this Govt are gradually seeding more power to the executive and eroding personal rights. It starts small and often just seems like common sense. Just like Hitler’s quote from Mein Kampf. It sounds again like a conspiracy theory, I'm failing to to see it any other way. I have said before I don't vote for a particular party, I sit in the middle but it is increasingly obvious to me on here, I sit more to the right on law and order. I would guess that is also where the tories pick up more votes from the undecideds. There is no changing of minds or views to be explored on this, I'm steadfast in my view that the new laws are needed, things such as lock on, and deterrents for persistent offenders. They undermine the efforts of protests and the messages that should be heard, with their destructive behaviour. Throwing open the doors for people to commit crime without fear of prosecution, because you feel it is their right to protest is flawed in my opinion. The end on this subject from me
You haven't read an analysis of the legislation or the legislation itself, have you?
The bill allows blanket stop and search related to any point in the bill without "reasonable grounds".
Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed without any criminal act being carried out. They can be imposed in anticipation of somebody possibly causing serious disruption or encouraging someone else to. That's thought crime.
"Serious disruption" is not defined and can effect only two or more people.
You don't think that this is significant?
Why did the Lords throw it out so many times, do you think?
Giving the police powers to stop people they suspect will commit a crime, you say?
Whatever next! The prevention of serious disruption might effect 2 or more people, now that can't be right can it? It takes more than 2 to climb a bridge and bring the M25 to a standstill, surely. Oh and it really does take more than 2 people to throw human excrement over a statue.
Yours and others views are simply you don't trust the police, you would rather a criminal or a person hell bent on bringing our infrastructure to its knees is given an open door to vandalise and commit crime with impunity, than trusting the police with the job they are asked to do.
Look out it could be you tomorrow is nonsense, it is pure twaddle, I've heard it from the messiah of sensationalism Russell Brand and it feed through to his followers. Why is it nonsense? Because if it is me causing the criminal damage and disruption that these protesting activists are doing, stop me and arrest me, I deserve it.
I don't think that you read what I wrote. You read what you already believe to be the case.
The legislation is worded such that a Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed because unspecified disruption MIGHT be created directly or indirectly by you. There is no definition of the level of evidence required to make this interpretation.
Only two or more people HAVE TO SUFFER FROM disruption for it to be considered as "serious". That is a very low bar The number of people causing disruption is, quite rightly, not defined.
I would thank you not to make assumptions about my view of the underfunded and understaffed Police.
I would also suggest that you try to understand that reducing the scale and severity of disruption is not the main problem, although that requires a better definition. It is the overreach and lack of constraints that allow for state abuses.
You did not answer why you thought that the Lord's have thrown this out so many times before.
Is it because they are so heavily influenced by Russell Brand?"So many assumptions that I have not read the Bill. Happy to build my knowledge on this, so please do educate me on 2 people being disrupted and it being classed as serious disruption, in context would be great
The others quoting this, please feel free to tell me all about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Happy to build my knowledge on this, so please do educate me on 2 people being disrupted and it being classed as serious disruption, in context would be great" They are talking about section 20(2)(a) parts (iii) and (v), which read: (iii) carried out 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, (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. People seem to think that simply attending a protest will be sufficient grounds for a judge to rule that they carried out activities that resulted in serious disruption. They also seem to overlook section 20(2) parts (a) and (b) which say that the person must have done this twice, at separate protests. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But we wouldn't know until it is too late, surely? That's presumably why they want to slap injunctions on anyone who is *likely* to attend a protest that causes serious disruption. That's just chilling. The government know that the energy crisis, cost of living crisis, food crisis, climate crisis and further austerity measures mean that increased protests are very likely. As they should be. This is simply about proactively removing that likelihood. This is not a conspiracy, it is a measure to prevent the same few individuals from committing a crime in a protest, or to keep returning to the protest once removed. The courts will have the last say not the police. Keep telling yourself “nothing to see here” and go back and read the poem. The genesis of this bill was the knowledge in govt that civil unrest was getting increasingly likely, or inevitable, following a decade of austerity and knowing what lay ahead. Do not read UK Govt legislation in isolation (ie each Bill in and of itself). UK law is based on the collective and enables Govt to draw on obscure clauses that seemed innocuous when tucked away in another Bill. Taken as a whole it is clear this Govt are gradually seeding more power to the executive and eroding personal rights. It starts small and often just seems like common sense. Just like Hitler’s quote from Mein Kampf. It sounds again like a conspiracy theory, I'm failing to to see it any other way. I have said before I don't vote for a particular party, I sit in the middle but it is increasingly obvious to me on here, I sit more to the right on law and order. I would guess that is also where the tories pick up more votes from the undecideds. There is no changing of minds or views to be explored on this, I'm steadfast in my view that the new laws are needed, things such as lock on, and deterrents for persistent offenders. They undermine the efforts of protests and the messages that should be heard, with their destructive behaviour. Throwing open the doors for people to commit crime without fear of prosecution, because you feel it is their right to protest is flawed in my opinion. The end on this subject from me
You haven't read an analysis of the legislation or the legislation itself, have you?
The bill allows blanket stop and search related to any point in the bill without "reasonable grounds".
Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed without any criminal act being carried out. They can be imposed in anticipation of somebody possibly causing serious disruption or encouraging someone else to. That's thought crime.
"Serious disruption" is not defined and can effect only two or more people.
You don't think that this is significant?
Why did the Lords throw it out so many times, do you think?
Giving the police powers to stop people they suspect will commit a crime, you say?
Whatever next! The prevention of serious disruption might effect 2 or more people, now that can't be right can it? It takes more than 2 to climb a bridge and bring the M25 to a standstill, surely. Oh and it really does take more than 2 people to throw human excrement over a statue.
Yours and others views are simply you don't trust the police, you would rather a criminal or a person hell bent on bringing our infrastructure to its knees is given an open door to vandalise and commit crime with impunity, than trusting the police with the job they are asked to do.
Look out it could be you tomorrow is nonsense, it is pure twaddle, I've heard it from the messiah of sensationalism Russell Brand and it feed through to his followers. Why is it nonsense? Because if it is me causing the criminal damage and disruption that these protesting activists are doing, stop me and arrest me, I deserve it.
I don't think that you read what I wrote. You read what you already believe to be the case.
The legislation is worded such that a Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed because unspecified disruption MIGHT be created directly or indirectly by you. There is no definition of the level of evidence required to make this interpretation.
Only two or more people HAVE TO SUFFER FROM disruption for it to be considered as "serious". That is a very low bar The number of people causing disruption is, quite rightly, not defined.
I would thank you not to make assumptions about my view of the underfunded and understaffed Police.
I would also suggest that you try to understand that reducing the scale and severity of disruption is not the main problem, although that requires a better definition. It is the overreach and lack of constraints that allow for state abuses.
You did not answer why you thought that the Lord's have thrown this out so many times before.
Is it because they are so heavily influenced by Russell Brand?
So many assumptions that I have not read the Bill.
Happy to build my knowledge on this, so please do educate me on 2 people being disrupted and it being classed as serious disruption, in context would be great
The others quoting this, please feel free to tell me all about it."You once again are not responding to what I wrote, but what you thought that I wrote. I did not imply that you had not read the Bill, only that you did not read my post thoroughly before responding to it. Search the actual phrase from the Bill: "carried out 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" You will find a number of commentaries on the topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Happy to build my knowledge on this, so please do educate me on 2 people being disrupted and it being classed as serious disruption, in context would be great They are talking about section 20(2)(a) parts (iii) and (v), which read: (iii) carried out 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, (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. People seem to think that simply attending a protest will be sufficient grounds for a judge to rule that they carried out activities that resulted in serious disruption. They also seem to overlook section 20(2) parts (a) and (b) which say that the person must have done this twice, at separate protests." For them to know a person has done this twice before at separate protests then they will need to have been arrested and their personal details taken on both previous times right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Happy to build my knowledge on this, so please do educate me on 2 people being disrupted and it being classed as serious disruption, in context would be great They are talking about section 20(2)(a) parts (iii) and (v), which read: (iii) carried out 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, (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. People seem to think that simply attending a protest will be sufficient grounds for a judge to rule that they carried out activities that resulted in serious disruption. They also seem to overlook section 20(2) parts (a) and (b) which say that the person must have done this twice, at separate protests." You made the same incorrect point last time. Although the wording is identical, and therefore thrown out by the Lords before, it is now the Public Order Bill, so a different section. The pertinent response to your point is that you do not have to be convicted of an offence twice. It is only necessary to "be likely" to have or have been about to carry out or contribute to certain offences. They do not have to have been convicted of any crime or offence. Section 55. If you did your research properly I wouldn't need to write this tedium in the thread. I won't respond to the minutiae of your own interpretation as you aren't a lawyer so there's not much point... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Happy to build my knowledge on this, so please do educate me on 2 people being disrupted and it being classed as serious disruption, in context would be great They are talking about section 20(2)(a) parts (iii) and (v), which read: (iii) carried out 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, (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. People seem to think that simply attending a protest will be sufficient grounds for a judge to rule that they carried out activities that resulted in serious disruption. They also seem to overlook section 20(2) parts (a) and (b) which say that the person must have done this twice, at separate protests. For them to know a person has done this twice before at separate protests then they will need to have been arrested and their personal details taken on both previous times right? " Nope. See my post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ... Why is the bill necessary? " To buy votes from the hang 'em flog 'em lock'em up brigade. Not a percentage to be sneezed at. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ... Why is the bill necessary? " Another rule for the governed to follow and be punished by not following. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is another post about the right to disruptive protest is it not. I personally don't know why the police move protesters. I'd close the road seal it of not let any one in. set up a division for traffic. And leave them there. Might hope it rains and a strong North wind.." I think that there is a discussion to be had about the extent of protest and the level of disruption visited on parties not involved. As stated by many, legislation does exist to cover most of the issues. It is the, deliberate, overreach of the new legislation that is the issue using the recent events as a pretext. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The legislation is worded such that a Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed because unspecified disruption MIGHT be created directly or indirectly by you. There is no definition of the level of evidence required to make this interpretation. Only two or more people HAVE TO SUFFER FROM disruption for it to be considered as "serious". That is a very low bar The number of people causing disruption is, quite rightly, not defined. I would thank you not to make assumptions about my view of the underfunded and understaffed Police. I would also suggest that you try to understand that reducing the scale and severity of disruption is not the main problem, although that requires a better definition. It is the overreach and lack of constraints that allow for state abuses. You did not answer why you thought that the Lord's have thrown this out so many times before. Is it because they are so heavily influenced by Russell Brand? So many assumptions that I have not read the Bill. Happy to build my knowledge on this, so please do educate me on 2 people being disrupted and it being classed as serious disruption, in context would be great
The others quoting this, please feel free to tell me all about it.
You once again are not responding to what I wrote, but what you thought that I wrote.
I did not imply that you had not read the Bill, only that you did not read my post thoroughly before responding to it.
Search the actual phrase from the Bill:
"carried out 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"
You will find a number of commentaries on the topic."Okay, let's put I didn't answer or you didn't etc to one side and talk about this properly. The Bill outlines the offences: Locking on Tunnelling major transport works interference to abortion services It moves on to powers to stop and search Processions assemblies and one person protests. The first mention of disruption to 2 or more people appears here in Tunnelling: Offence of causing serious disruption by being present in a tunnel (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) they are present in a tunnel having entered it after the coming into force of this section, (b) their presence in the tunnel causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption to— (i) two or more individuals, or (ii) an organisation, in a place other than a dwelling, and (c) they intend their presence in the tunnel to have a consequence 35 mentioned in paragraph (b) or are reckless as to whether their presence there will have such a consequence. (2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their presence in the tunnel. (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a person (“P”) is to be 40 treated as having a reasonable excuse for the purposes of that subsection if Public Order Bill 3 Part 1—Public order P’s presence in the tunnel was authorised by a person with an interest in land which entitled them to authorise P’s presence there. What is your objection or objections to this wording? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The legislation is worded such that a Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed because unspecified disruption MIGHT be created directly or indirectly by you. There is no definition of the level of evidence required to make this interpretation. Only two or more people HAVE TO SUFFER FROM disruption for it to be considered as "serious". That is a very low bar The number of people causing disruption is, quite rightly, not defined. I would thank you not to make assumptions about my view of the underfunded and understaffed Police. I would also suggest that you try to understand that reducing the scale and severity of disruption is not the main problem, although that requires a better definition. It is the overreach and lack of constraints that allow for state abuses. You did not answer why you thought that the Lord's have thrown this out so many times before. Is it because they are so heavily influenced by Russell Brand? So many assumptions that I have not read the Bill. Happy to build my knowledge on this, so please do educate me on 2 people being disrupted and it being classed as serious disruption, in context would be great
The others quoting this, please feel free to tell me all about it.
You once again are not responding to what I wrote, but what you thought that I wrote.
I did not imply that you had not read the Bill, only that you did not read my post thoroughly before responding to it.
Search the actual phrase from the Bill:
"carried out 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"
You will find a number of commentaries on the topic.
Okay, let's put I didn't answer or you didn't etc to one side and talk about this properly.
The Bill outlines the offences:
Locking on
Tunnelling
major transport works
interference to abortion services
It moves on to powers to stop and search
Processions assemblies and one person protests.
The first mention of disruption to 2 or more people appears here in Tunnelling:
Offence of causing serious disruption by being present in a tunnel
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) they are present in a tunnel having entered it after the coming into
force of this section,
(b) their presence in the tunnel causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption to—
(i) two or more individuals, or
(ii) an organisation,
in a place other than a dwelling, and
(c) they intend their presence in the tunnel to have a consequence 35
mentioned in paragraph (b) or are reckless as to whether their presence
there will have such a consequence.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to
prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their presence in the tunnel.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a person (“P”) is to be 40
treated as having a reasonable excuse for the purposes of that subsection if
Public Order Bill 3
Part 1—Public order
P’s presence in the tunnel was authorised by a person with an interest in
land which entitled them to authorise P’s presence there.
What is your objection or objections to this wording?"It seems if this law is to get passed it will take some time and possibly heavily amended. Given that we are less than 2years from the next GE it won't last as the new Labour government can overturn it. Then everyone is happy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
".The pertinent response to your point is that you do not have to be convicted of an offence twice." Perhaps you should re-read my post. I didn't mention convictions. I was quoting section 20, which is the non-conviction passage. "Section 55. If you did your research properly I wouldn't need to write this tedium in the thread." There is no section 55. Here's the link again so you can check for yourself. https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/48041/documents/2333 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The legislation is worded such that a Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed because unspecified disruption MIGHT be created directly or indirectly by you. There is no definition of the level of evidence required to make this interpretation. Only two or more people HAVE TO SUFFER FROM disruption for it to be considered as "serious". That is a very low bar The number of people causing disruption is, quite rightly, not defined. I would thank you not to make assumptions about my view of the underfunded and understaffed Police. I would also suggest that you try to understand that reducing the scale and severity of disruption is not the main problem, although that requires a better definition. It is the overreach and lack of constraints that allow for state abuses. You did not answer why you thought that the Lord's have thrown this out so many times before. Is it because they are so heavily influenced by Russell Brand? So many assumptions that I have not read the Bill. Happy to build my knowledge on this, so please do educate me on 2 people being disrupted and it being classed as serious disruption, in context would be great
The others quoting this, please feel free to tell me all about it.
You once again are not responding to what I wrote, but what you thought that I wrote.
I did not imply that you had not read the Bill, only that you did not read my post thoroughly before responding to it.
Search the actual phrase from the Bill:
"carried out 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"
You will find a number of commentaries on the topic.
Okay, let's put I didn't answer or you didn't etc to one side and talk about this properly.
The Bill outlines the offences:
Locking on
Tunnelling
major transport works
interference to abortion services
It moves on to powers to stop and search
Processions assemblies and one person protests.
The first mention of disruption to 2 or more people appears here in Tunnelling:
Offence of causing serious disruption by being present in a tunnel
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) they are present in a tunnel having entered it after the coming into
force of this section,
(b) their presence in the tunnel causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption to—
(i) two or more individuals, or
(ii) an organisation,
in a place other than a dwelling, and
(c) they intend their presence in the tunnel to have a consequence 35
mentioned in paragraph (b) or are reckless as to whether their presence
there will have such a consequence.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to
prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their presence in the tunnel.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a person (“P”) is to be 40
treated as having a reasonable excuse for the purposes of that subsection if
Public Order Bill 3
Part 1—Public order
P’s presence in the tunnel was authorised by a person with an interest in
land which entitled them to authorise P’s presence there.
What is your objection or objections to this wording?"What's the point that you are making? There is more to the Bill. Don't you think it's a bit strange to pick the first mention of a phrase and demand to know why it's so awful? I quoted the full phrase so that you could find it in context rather than searching for a few words and then stopping. I have explained my objections and they are not to the particular clause. I quoted the problem. That someone could be prosecuted and have their freedoms constrained for doing something that is "likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation" "Serious disruption" is mentioned 132 times in the Bill and not defined. So it's interpretation is arbitrary. Only two or more people have to have been "seriously disrupted". That is a staggeringly low bar. You only have to be "likely to" cause "serious disruption" So there only has to be a possibility that you might do an undefined act that could effect two of more people. You didn't seem to like my answer the first time, so I can't imagine how rephrasing it will have any effect. Again, I have no objection to preventing disruption to the wider public that goes beyond protest and make a strong point. You could put a time limit on protests that block key infrastructure or access to private property. That's reasonable. It can already be prosecuted if it causes damage or danger or financial loss. I also do not see how it is appropriate for the state to prevent someone from continuing to protest against something that they disagree with if it is within the law. Will this include strike action? "Serious disruption" is not defined. Train strikes cause "serious disruption". So will many strikes by public services. Will this include Trade Union leaders? We can throw in a new stop and search option without cause too. Do you understand the nature of the objection? Let's go back to the original challenge to you as neither of us are lawyers. Why do you think that the House of Lords challenged this legislation so strongly that this had to be deleted in its entirety for the original Bill to pass? Why do you think the majority of the members of the House of Lords thought that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
".The pertinent response to your point is that you do not have to be convicted of an offence twice. Perhaps you should re-read my post. I didn't mention convictions. I was quoting section 20, which is the non-conviction passage. Section 55. If you did your research properly I wouldn't need to write this tedium in the thread. There is no section 55. Here's the link again so you can check for yourself. https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/48041/documents/2333" You are correct and I foolishly criticised you for not checking your facts correctly. I looked at the "Public Order Bill: European Convention on Human Rights memorandum" updated 28 October 2023 where the Government explains how the Bill is intended to function. It's the Government's own commentary. It, regardless, underlines the point that I have made before that there is no definition of what "serious disorder" is or why disrupting two people may be considered serious or why being "likely" to do something that does not cause danger should result in constraining freedom. As stated before there is legislation that prevents danger or damage or financial loss. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a load of rubbish. If you don't break the law. " Thankfully, no one's ever been falsely arrested and charged. And thank the gods that no specific groups are ever the victims of systemic racism, as long as they don't break the law. I mean, can you even imagine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a load of rubbish. If you don't break the law. Commit a crime. Etc, etc, etc, then you have nothing to fear. This act will not involve the vast majority of goid golf in this country. Just the mindless morons who have to go a step further in breaking the law to justify what ever it is they are moaning about. I have no problem with peaceful protests etc. It's the minority who take their aims to far. " They are creating a law that does not exist for them to break. It is so badly defined that it could extend to things that you agree protesting. If you decide to stop two people from digging up an oak tree in a park is that causing "serious disruption" to them? If you send an email to a friend to say that you are planning to do that, should you be given a Serious Disruption Order? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So many assumptions that I have not read the Bill. Happy to build my knowledge on this, so please do educate me on 2 people being disrupted and it being classed as serious disruption, in context would be great
The others quoting this, please feel free to tell me all about it."Oh, you're back! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wish alot of states here would enact a law like this." Of course you do
The best way to exercise your freedom is to legislate to not allow protest  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The legislation is worded such that a Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed because unspecified disruption MIGHT be created directly or indirectly by you. There is no definition of the level of evidence required to make this interpretation. Only two or more people HAVE TO SUFFER FROM disruption for it to be considered as "serious". That is a very low bar The number of people causing disruption is, quite rightly, not defined. I would thank you not to make assumptions about my view of the underfunded and understaffed Police. I would also suggest that you try to understand that reducing the scale and severity of disruption is not the main problem, although that requires a better definition. It is the overreach and lack of constraints that allow for state abuses. You did not answer why you thought that the Lord's have thrown this out so many times before. Is it because they are so heavily influenced by Russell Brand? So many assumptions that I have not read the Bill. Happy to build my knowledge on this, so please do educate me on 2 people being disrupted and it being classed as serious disruption, in context would be great
The others quoting this, please feel free to tell me all about it.
You once again are not responding to what I wrote, but what you thought that I wrote.
I did not imply that you had not read the Bill, only that you did not read my post thoroughly before responding to it.
Search the actual phrase from the Bill:
"carried out 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"
You will find a number of commentaries on the topic.
Okay, let's put I didn't answer or you didn't etc to one side and talk about this properly.
The Bill outlines the offences:
Locking on
Tunnelling
major transport works
interference to abortion services
It moves on to powers to stop and search
Processions assemblies and one person protests.
The first mention of disruption to 2 or more people appears here in Tunnelling:
Offence of causing serious disruption by being present in a tunnel
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) they are present in a tunnel having entered it after the coming into
force of this section,
(b) their presence in the tunnel causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption to—
(i) two or more individuals, or
(ii) an organisation,
in a place other than a dwelling, and
(c) they intend their presence in the tunnel to have a consequence 35
mentioned in paragraph (b) or are reckless as to whether their presence
there will have such a consequence.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to
prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their presence in the tunnel.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a person (“P”) is to be 40
treated as having a reasonable excuse for the purposes of that subsection if
Public Order Bill 3
Part 1—Public order
P’s presence in the tunnel was authorised by a person with an interest in
land which entitled them to authorise P’s presence there.
What is your objection or objections to this wording?
What's the point that you are making?
There is more to the Bill.
Don't you think it's a bit strange to pick the first mention of a phrase and demand to know why it's so awful?
I quoted the full phrase so that you could find it in context rather than searching for a few words and then stopping.
I have explained my objections and they are not to the particular clause.
I quoted the problem. That someone could be prosecuted and have their freedoms constrained for doing something that is
"likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more
individuals, or to an organisation"
"Serious disruption" is mentioned 132 times in the Bill and not defined. So it's interpretation is arbitrary.
Only two or more people have to have been "seriously disrupted". That is a staggeringly low bar.
You only have to be "likely to" cause "serious disruption"
So there only has to be a possibility that you might do an undefined act that could effect two of more people.
You didn't seem to like my answer the first time, so I can't imagine how rephrasing it will have any effect.
Again, I have no objection to preventing disruption to the wider public that goes beyond protest and make a strong point.
You could put a time limit on protests that block key infrastructure or access to private property. That's reasonable.
It can already be prosecuted if it causes damage or danger or financial loss.
I also do not see how it is appropriate for the state to prevent someone from continuing to protest against something that they disagree with if it is within the law.
Will this include strike action? "Serious disruption" is not defined. Train strikes cause "serious disruption". So will many strikes by public services. Will this include Trade Union leaders?
We can throw in a new stop and search option without cause too.
Do you understand the nature of the objection?
Let's go back to the original challenge to you as neither of us are lawyers.
Why do you think that the House of Lords challenged this legislation so strongly that this had to be deleted in its entirety for the original Bill to pass?
Why do you think the majority of the members of the House of Lords thought that?"Fair challenge is expected and drives more definition to the law, the Lords doing their role now and as expected. But for you, what is missing, the definitions are outlined as acts of disruption, the punishment and the defence. Let's look at time limits you mention, how would they be policed? How would it be ended? Is it okay to block the M25 for 10 minutes or 10 hours? how would those sliding scales of disruption be measured against actual disruption? Going onto your point of serious disruption and train strikes, reading the Bill, it is clear that an organised strike does not fall into scope. What does this mean "Again, I have no objection to preventing disruption to the wider public that goes beyond protest and make a strong point" where is your line drawn? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wish alot of states here would enact a law like this. Of course you do
The best way to exercise your freedom is to legislate to not allow protest "Yet you all for burning down people's lively hood . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wish alot of states here would enact a law like this. Of course you do
The best way to exercise your freedom is to legislate to not allow protest Yet you all for burning down people's lively hood . "Seems to me the average hard working citizen providing for their families and employees mean nothing to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The legislation is worded such that a Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed because unspecified disruption MIGHT be created directly or indirectly by you. There is no definition of the level of evidence required to make this interpretation. Only two or more people HAVE TO SUFFER FROM disruption for it to be considered as "serious". That is a very low bar The number of people causing disruption is, quite rightly, not defined. I would thank you not to make assumptions about my view of the underfunded and understaffed Police. I would also suggest that you try to understand that reducing the scale and severity of disruption is not the main problem, although that requires a better definition. It is the overreach and lack of constraints that allow for state abuses. You did not answer why you thought that the Lord's have thrown this out so many times before. Is it because they are so heavily influenced by Russell Brand? So many assumptions that I have not read the Bill. Happy to build my knowledge on this, so please do educate me on 2 people being disrupted and it being classed as serious disruption, in context would be great
The others quoting this, please feel free to tell me all about it.
You once again are not responding to what I wrote, but what you thought that I wrote.
I did not imply that you had not read the Bill, only that you did not read my post thoroughly before responding to it.
Search the actual phrase from the Bill:
"carried out 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"
You will find a number of commentaries on the topic.
Okay, let's put I didn't answer or you didn't etc to one side and talk about this properly.
The Bill outlines the offences:
Locking on
Tunnelling
major transport works
interference to abortion services
It moves on to powers to stop and search
Processions assemblies and one person protests.
The first mention of disruption to 2 or more people appears here in Tunnelling:
Offence of causing serious disruption by being present in a tunnel
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) they are present in a tunnel having entered it after the coming into
force of this section,
(b) their presence in the tunnel causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption to—
(i) two or more individuals, or
(ii) an organisation,
in a place other than a dwelling, and
(c) they intend their presence in the tunnel to have a consequence 35
mentioned in paragraph (b) or are reckless as to whether their presence
there will have such a consequence.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to
prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their presence in the tunnel.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a person (“P”) is to be 40
treated as having a reasonable excuse for the purposes of that subsection if
Public Order Bill 3
Part 1—Public order
P’s presence in the tunnel was authorised by a person with an interest in
land which entitled them to authorise P’s presence there.
What is your objection or objections to this wording?
What's the point that you are making?
There is more to the Bill.
Don't you think it's a bit strange to pick the first mention of a phrase and demand to know why it's so awful?
I quoted the full phrase so that you could find it in context rather than searching for a few words and then stopping.
I have explained my objections and they are not to the particular clause.
I quoted the problem. That someone could be prosecuted and have their freedoms constrained for doing something that is
"likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more
individuals, or to an organisation"
"Serious disruption" is mentioned 132 times in the Bill and not defined. So it's interpretation is arbitrary.
Only two or more people have to have been "seriously disrupted". That is a staggeringly low bar.
You only have to be "likely to" cause "serious disruption"
So there only has to be a possibility that you might do an undefined act that could effect two of more people.
You didn't seem to like my answer the first time, so I can't imagine how rephrasing it will have any effect.
Again, I have no objection to preventing disruption to the wider public that goes beyond protest and make a strong point.
You could put a time limit on protests that block key infrastructure or access to private property. That's reasonable.
It can already be prosecuted if it causes damage or danger or financial loss.
I also do not see how it is appropriate for the state to prevent someone from continuing to protest against something that they disagree with if it is within the law.
Will this include strike action? "Serious disruption" is not defined. Train strikes cause "serious disruption". So will many strikes by public services. Will this include Trade Union leaders?
We can throw in a new stop and search option without cause too.
Do you understand the nature of the objection?
Let's go back to the original challenge to you as neither of us are lawyers.
Why do you think that the House of Lords challenged this legislation so strongly that this had to be deleted in its entirety for the original Bill to pass?
Why do you think the majority of the members of the House of Lords thought that?
Fair challenge is expected and drives more definition to the law, the Lords doing their role now and as expected.
But for you, what is missing, the definitions are outlined as acts of disruption, the punishment and the defence.
Let's look at time limits you mention, how would they be policed? How would it be ended? Is it okay to block the M25 for 10 minutes or 10 hours? how would those sliding scales of disruption be measured against actual disruption?
Going onto your point of serious disruption and train strikes, reading the Bill, it is clear that an organised strike does not fall into scope.
What does this mean "Again, I have no objection to preventing disruption to the wider public that goes beyond protest and make a strong point"
where is your line drawn?
"I don't understand what this means: "But for you, what is missing, the definitions are outlined as acts of disruption, the punishment and the defence." I just mentioned the time limit as a potential option but you've made my point for me. How long would "too long" be? What is "serious disruption" with respect to the prevention order? What is the line that effects the public excessively? I don't know. Haven't thought about it very hard as I'm not drafting a law that will effect an entire country. Legislation is supposed to define what the offence is. Does the Bill do that? Is it OK to have your rights curtailed for being "likely" to do something that causes no actual harm? It is not "clear" at all that strike action is excluded. Does a train strike cause "serious disruption"? Is there a justification for stop and search without a reason? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wish alot of states here would enact a law like this. Of course you do
The best way to exercise your freedom is to legislate to not allow protest Yet you all for burning down people's lively hood . "Er, no. That's a bit if a leap, don't you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wish alot of states here would enact a law like this. Of course you do
The best way to exercise your freedom is to legislate to not allow protest Yet you all for burning down people's lively hood .
Er, no. That's a bit if a leap, don't you think?"no did it happen here ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wish alot of states here would enact a law like this. Of course you do
The best way to exercise your freedom is to legislate to not allow protest Yet you all for burning down people's lively hood . Seems to me the average hard working citizen providing for their families and employees mean nothing to you. "Again, wrong. Rather the opposite. I don't want them arbitrarily stopped and searched or prevented from protesting something they feel strongly about. Perhaps arbitrarily preventing you from wanting to keep a gun handy? There are already laws against burning places in the UK. Is that not the case in the US? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your own government is trying to prevent the carnage we experienced. Yet they are wrong. " Again, no. There are already laws for that. They are trying to prevent protest that causes widespread disruption but overreaching. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wish alot of states here would enact a law like this. Of course you do
The best way to exercise your freedom is to legislate to not allow protest Yet you all for burning down people's lively hood . Seems to me the average hard working citizen providing for their families and employees mean nothing to you.
Again, wrong. Rather the opposite.
I don't want them arbitrarily stopped and searched or prevented from protesting something they feel strongly about.
Perhaps arbitrarily preventing you from wanting to keep a gun handy?
There are already laws against burning places in the UK. Is that not the case in the US?"being stopped and searched is a good thing . Imagine if they did that for the Boston bombers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wish alot of states here would enact a law like this. Of course you do
The best way to exercise your freedom is to legislate to not allow protest Yet you all for burning down people's lively hood . Seems to me the average hard working citizen providing for their families and employees mean nothing to you.
Again, wrong. Rather the opposite.
I don't want them arbitrarily stopped and searched or prevented from protesting something they feel strongly about.
Perhaps arbitrarily preventing you from wanting to keep a gun handy?
There are already laws against burning places in the UK. Is that not the case in the US? being stopped and searched is a good thing . Imagine if they did that for the Boston bombers."it's a search just because it hurts your precious feelings it's a search for public safety. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wish alot of states here would enact a law like this. Of course you do
The best way to exercise your freedom is to legislate to not allow protest Yet you all for burning down people's lively hood . Seems to me the average hard working citizen providing for their families and employees mean nothing to you.
Again, wrong. Rather the opposite.
I don't want them arbitrarily stopped and searched or prevented from protesting something they feel strongly about.
Perhaps arbitrarily preventing you from wanting to keep a gun handy?
There are already laws against burning places in the UK. Is that not the case in the US? being stopped and searched is a good thing . Imagine if they did that for the Boston bombers. it's a search just because it hurts your precious feelings it's a search for public safety."But yet you disagree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"being stopped and searched is a good thing . Imagine if they did that for the Boston bombers." Guessing you're white? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"being stopped and searched is a good thing . Imagine if they did that for the Boston bombers. Guessing you're white?" Guess I am I just human. You fine with people dying because of police being suspicious? Color don't matter to me. If you say otherwise who is the offending one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You fine with people dying because of police being suspicious?" Did I say that? Did anyone here say that? You fine with people of colour being disproportionately stopped and searched by police? Oh, please tell me you were aware of the disparity?! You fine with police stopping anyone that they are suspicious with, based on no evidence whatsoever? How would you feel after that had happened to you 9 times, for no other reason than that you were black. Thanks for confirming you're white, btw.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My opinion. Your feelings do not negate public safety. The public has families that rely on them . Not you." Can you please point to any "public safety" this new bill protects that was not previously protected? Just one will do. Literally, just one. And when you can't, what other reason do you give for supporting the bill? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You fine with people dying because of police being suspicious? Did I say that? Did anyone here say that? You fine with people of colour being disproportionately stopped and searched by police? Oh, please tell me you were aware of the disparity?! You fine with police stopping anyone that they are suspicious with, based on no evidence whatsoever? How would you feel after that had happened to you 9 times, for no other reason than that you were black. Thanks for confirming you're white, btw. "what does race have to do with police suspicion for intent ? Ask a plethora of people that says otherwise.Yes I carry my pistol in certain neighborhoods. Is that racist?no it's my general safety . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You fine with people dying because of police being suspicious? Did I say that? Did anyone here say that? You fine with people of colour being disproportionately stopped and searched by police? Oh, please tell me you were aware of the disparity?! You fine with police stopping anyone that they are suspicious with, based on no evidence whatsoever? How would you feel after that had happened to you 9 times, for no other reason than that you were black. Thanks for confirming you're white, btw. "I am white I carry I comply i have been pulled over . Imagine my jeep with Ruger colt stickers on it. I been pulled over in Philly under suspicion . So how does that fit into a racial narrative? I comply and carry on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You fine with people dying because of police being suspicious? Did I say that? Did anyone here say that? You fine with people of colour being disproportionately stopped and searched by police? Oh, please tell me you were aware of the disparity?! You fine with police stopping anyone that they are suspicious with, based on no evidence whatsoever? How would you feel after that had happened to you 9 times, for no other reason than that you were black. Thanks for confirming you're white, btw. I am white I carry I comply i have been pulled over . Imagine my jeep with Ruger colt stickers on it. I been pulled over in Philly under suspicion . So how does that fit into a racial narrative? I comply and carry on."is it racial or is it public safety . I literally have gun stickers on my jeep. Shall I be offended because I am white? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"is it racial or is it public safety . I literally have gun stickers on my jeep. Shall I be offended because I am white? " Be offended if you want. You are talking about your situation in the States to answer a question regarding a specific bill in the UK. I haven't got a fucking clue what your 'stickers on my jeep' comment means. We don't tend to do that. Would you like to comment on this specific bill in this specific context? Or are you posting for the sake of it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"is it racial or is it public safety . I literally have gun stickers on my jeep. Shall I be offended because I am white? Be offended if you want. You are talking about your situation in the States to answer a question regarding a specific bill in the UK. I haven't got a fucking clue what your 'stickers on my jeep' comment means. We don't tend to do that. Would you like to comment on this specific bill in this specific context? Or are you posting for the sake of it? " it can be the same scenarios. So I ask who is right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what does race have to do with police suspicion for intent ?"
Nothing. As you were. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it can be the same scenarios. So I ask who is right? " I don't understand what you're talking about. Do you know what this thread is about? It's not the same scenario. It's very very different. You ask 'who is right' about what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"is it racial or is it public safety . I literally have gun stickers on my jeep. Shall I be offended because I am white? Be offended if you want. You are talking about your situation in the States to answer a question regarding a specific bill in the UK. I haven't got a fucking clue what your 'stickers on my jeep' comment means. We don't tend to do that. Would you like to comment on this specific bill in this specific context? Or are you posting for the sake of it? it can be the same scenarios. So I ask who is right? " seriously one does not out weigh the other now does it. Like I said I get pulled over for being a white girl in a alk black neighborhood I philly late at night.dobi think it's a racist attitude for the black policeman or do I accept his assumption that he assumed I can be a victim? Easy target being white late at night in a a hostile neighborhood. Is he wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"is it racial or is it public safety . I literally have gun stickers on my jeep. Shall I be offended because I am white? Be offended if you want. You are talking about your situation in the States to answer a question regarding a specific bill in the UK. I haven't got a fucking clue what your 'stickers on my jeep' comment means. We don't tend to do that. Would you like to comment on this specific bill in this specific context? Or are you posting for the sake of it? it can be the same scenarios. So I ask who is right? seriously one does not out weigh the other now does it. Like I said I get pulled over for being a white girl in a alk black neighborhood I philly late at night.dobi think it's a racist attitude for the black policeman or do I accept his assumption that he assumed I can be a victim? Easy target being white late at night in a a hostile neighborhood. Is he wrong?" The realization that evil has no racial equality. The better we all shall be. Quit using that evil as a crutch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Easy target being white late at night in a a hostile neighborhood. Is he wrong?" Aside from your own individual experience - which is never the best way to make a national policy - what do you think of your country's statistics regarding stop and search? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Quit using that evil as a crutch." What evil? What crutch? Wtf are you talking about? Do you see the title of this thread? Would you like to comment on THAT? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Easy target being white late at night in a a hostile neighborhood. Is he wrong? Aside from your own individual experience - which is never the best way to make a national policy - what do you think of your country's statistics regarding stop and search?" lifters jeep gun stickers on it. In the middle of Philly . Is it racist to pull my redneck ass over yes or no to aquire why I am there and my general well being? You don't see my presence in Philadelphia. Is it racist because I am white with a certain perception? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it racist to pull my redneck ass over yes or no to aquire why I am there and my general well being? You don't see my presence in Philadelphia. Is it racist because I am white with a certain perception? " I feel like I'm having a brain aneurysm. Would you like to comment on the Bill currently being debated in the UK parliament? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it racist to pull my redneck ass over yes or no to aquire why I am there and my general well being? You don't see my presence in Philadelphia. Is it racist because I am white with a certain perception? I feel like I'm having a brain aneurysm. Would you like to comment on the Bill currently being debated in the UK parliament? " you are the bill applies to searching. Nothing wrong with protecting public safety even if it involves police making a assumption. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you are the bill applies to searching. Nothing wrong with protecting public safety even if it involves police making a assumption." It applies to far more than that. But I wouldn't expect you to know that because you live in another country on another continent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you are the bill applies to searching. Nothing wrong with protecting public safety even if it involves police making a assumption. It applies to far more than that. But I wouldn't expect you to know that because you live in another country on another continent." Yet it still applies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yet it still applies." It applies to far more than that. But I wouldn't expect you to know that because you live in another country on another continent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yet it still applies. It applies to far more than that. But I wouldn't expect you to know that because you live in another country on another continent" protesting protections. Police assumption on what is considered dangerous to the welfare of others including yourself. What did I miss on the bill for general public safety during a protest? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Police assumption on what is considered dangerous to the welfare of others including yourself. What did I miss on the bill for general public safety during a protest?" It's literally not my job to educate you on another country's government's bill that you are commenting on. Maybe learn about the other country's bill FIRST and then comment?
Are you just bored? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can you please point to any "public safety" this new bill protects that was not previously protected? Just one will do. Literally, just one." Well, there was that case where some protestors glued themselves to a motorway slip road, blocking the path of an ambulance carrying an elderly woman, who subsequently died before she could be got to a hospital. Does that count as endangering the safety of a member of the public? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thankfully, no one's ever been falsely arrested and charged." The police are very good at inventing reasons to arrest people they don't like, and ignoring exculpatory evidence to help get a charge. But thankfully the courts are the ones deciding on convictions, not the police. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The legislation is worded such that a Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can be imposed because unspecified disruption MIGHT be created directly or indirectly by you. There is no definition of the level of evidence required to make this interpretation. Only two or more people HAVE TO SUFFER FROM disruption for it to be considered as "serious". That is a very low bar The number of people causing disruption is, quite rightly, not defined. I would thank you not to make assumptions about my view of the underfunded and understaffed Police. I would also suggest that you try to understand that reducing the scale and severity of disruption is not the main problem, although that requires a better definition. It is the overreach and lack of constraints that allow for state abuses. You did not answer why you thought that the Lord's have thrown this out so many times before. Is it because they are so heavily influenced by Russell Brand? So many assumptions that I have not read the Bill. Happy to build my knowledge on this, so please do educate me on 2 people being disrupted and it being classed as serious disruption, in context would be great
The others quoting this, please feel free to tell me all about it.
You once again are not responding to what I wrote, but what you thought that I wrote.
I did not imply that you had not read the Bill, only that you did not read my post thoroughly before responding to it.
Search the actual phrase from the Bill:
"carried out 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"
You will find a number of commentaries on the topic.
Okay, let's put I didn't answer or you didn't etc to one side and talk about this properly.
The Bill outlines the offences:
Locking on
Tunnelling
major transport works
interference to abortion services
It moves on to powers to stop and search
Processions assemblies and one person protests.
The first mention of disruption to 2 or more people appears here in Tunnelling:
Offence of causing serious disruption by being present in a tunnel
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) they are present in a tunnel having entered it after the coming into
force of this section,
(b) their presence in the tunnel causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption to—
(i) two or more individuals, or
(ii) an organisation,
in a place other than a dwelling, and
(c) they intend their presence in the tunnel to have a consequence 35
mentioned in paragraph (b) or are reckless as to whether their presence
there will have such a consequence.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to
prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their presence in the tunnel.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a person (“P”) is to be 40
treated as having a reasonable excuse for the purposes of that subsection if
Public Order Bill 3
Part 1—Public order
P’s presence in the tunnel was authorised by a person with an interest in
land which entitled them to authorise P’s presence there.
What is your objection or objections to this wording?
What's the point that you are making?
There is more to the Bill.
Don't you think it's a bit strange to pick the first mention of a phrase and demand to know why it's so awful?
I quoted the full phrase so that you could find it in context rather than searching for a few words and then stopping.
I have explained my objections and they are not to the particular clause.
I quoted the problem. That someone could be prosecuted and have their freedoms constrained for doing something that is
"likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more
individuals, or to an organisation"
"Serious disruption" is mentioned 132 times in the Bill and not defined. So it's interpretation is arbitrary.
Only two or more people have to have been "seriously disrupted". That is a staggeringly low bar.
You only have to be "likely to" cause "serious disruption"
So there only has to be a possibility that you might do an undefined act that could effect two of more people.
You didn't seem to like my answer the first time, so I can't imagine how rephrasing it will have any effect.
Again, I have no objection to preventing disruption to the wider public that goes beyond protest and make a strong point.
You could put a time limit on protests that block key infrastructure or access to private property. That's reasonable.
It can already be prosecuted if it causes damage or danger or financial loss.
I also do not see how it is appropriate for the state to prevent someone from continuing to protest against something that they disagree with if it is within the law.
Will this include strike action? "Serious disruption" is not defined. Train strikes cause "serious disruption". So will many strikes by public services. Will this include Trade Union leaders?
We can throw in a new stop and search option without cause too.
Do you understand the nature of the objection?
Let's go back to the original challenge to you as neither of us are lawyers.
Why do you think that the House of Lords challenged this legislation so strongly that this had to be deleted in its entirety for the original Bill to pass?
Why do you think the majority of the members of the House of Lords thought that?
Fair challenge is expected and drives more definition to the law, the Lords doing their role now and as expected.
But for you, what is missing, the definitions are outlined as acts of disruption, the punishment and the defence.
Let's look at time limits you mention, how would they be policed? How would it be ended? Is it okay to block the M25 for 10 minutes or 10 hours? how would those sliding scales of disruption be measured against actual disruption?
Going onto your point of serious disruption and train strikes, reading the Bill, it is clear that an organised strike does not fall into scope.
What does this mean "Again, I have no objection to preventing disruption to the wider public that goes beyond protest and make a strong point"
where is your line drawn?
I don't understand what this means: "But for you, what is missing, the definitions are outlined as acts of disruption, the punishment and the defence."
I just mentioned the time limit as a potential option but you've made my point for me. How long would "too long" be?
What is "serious disruption" with respect to the prevention order?
What is the line that effects the public excessively? I don't know. Haven't thought about it very hard as I'm not drafting a law that will effect an entire country.
Legislation is supposed to define what the offence is.
Does the Bill do that?
Is it OK to have your rights curtailed for being "likely" to do something that causes no actual harm?
It is not "clear" at all that strike action is excluded. Does a train strike cause "serious disruption"?
Is there a justification for stop and search without a reason?"Just to add... I made the point above that the powers Government and Police exercise are not contained in single bills/legislation but spread across multiples. Anyone interested, have a read about what Govt are trying to do to undermine the power of strike action. As I said it is the collective and they will without doubt have strike breaking capability as it will be disruptive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yet it still applies. It applies to far more than that. But I wouldn't expect you to know that because you live in another country on another continent protesting protections. Police assumption on what is considered dangerous to the welfare of others including yourself. What did I miss on the bill for general public safety during a protest?" Fuck me but you do like hijacking threads! We are not talking about that batshit crazy USA we are talking about the UK! The level of danger is magnitudes higher in the states cos you’all have so many guns. You had nutters storming the Capitol with assault rifles for God’s sake. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can you please point to any "public safety" this new bill protects that was not previously protected? Just one will do. Literally, just one. Well, there was that case where some protestors glued themselves to a motorway slip road, blocking the path of an ambulance carrying an elderly woman, who subsequently died before she could be got to a hospital. Does that count as endangering the safety of a member of the public?" And current laws already exist to deal with this. Nobody is arguing these extreme protestors are doing things that are ok. They are saying this Bill goes to far and is open to too much subjective interpretation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can you please point to any "public safety" this new bill protects that was not previously protected? Just one will do. Literally, just one. Well, there was that case where some protestors glued themselves to a motorway slip road, blocking the path of an ambulance carrying an elderly woman, who subsequently died before she could be got to a hospital. Does that count as endangering the safety of a member of the public? And current laws already exist to deal with this. Nobody is arguing these extreme protestors are doing things that are ok. They are saying this Bill goes to far and is open to too much subjective interpretation." Just to add though... “Last October, when Insulate Britain protesters blocked the roads, footage emerged of a man being dragged out of the way by a paramedic. It led to the trope that environmental activists – the so-called ‘eco mob’ – were stopping ambulances from bringing ill patients to hospital. But this trope is a myth. A Freedom of Information request answered by London Ambulance Service stated that during the October 2021 protests, “there were no reports of any incidents noted under the category ‘Transport delays’…and there were also no delays noted with the Duty Incident Delivery Manager”. The reality is that ambulances are always diverted based on contingent road conditions, and if they do have to pass through a blockade there is abundant footage of protestors making way for them to do so. Now, the erroneous argument that protesters are preventing emergency services from doing their job, is being used to justify draconian measures in the Public Order Bill. This legislation seeks to introduce sentencing terms for environmental protestors higher than those for significant assault, as well as the introduction of electronic tagging for people who haven’t even been charged with a crime.“ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yet it still applies. It applies to far more than that. But I wouldn't expect you to know that because you live in another country on another continent protesting protections. Police assumption on what is considered dangerous to the welfare of others including yourself. What did I miss on the bill for general public safety during a protest?" Have you been forgetting to take your meds again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter" That's slightly inaccurate. It paid 30% Corporation Tax, plus the 10 extra tax that fossil fuel companies have to pay, and all the National Insurance contributions it has to make. What they didn't pay is any of the Windfall Tax, because they invested all the money in green technologies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok!" I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can you please point to any "public safety" this new bill protects that was not previously protected? Just one will do. Literally, just one. Well, there was that case where some protestors glued themselves to a motorway slip road, blocking the path of an ambulance carrying an elderly woman, who subsequently died before she could be got to a hospital. Does that count as endangering the safety of a member of the public?" You didn't read my question properly. Previous laws existed to sufficiently deal with that. Also, when did that actually happen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter That's slightly inaccurate. It paid 30% Corporation Tax, plus the 10 extra tax that fossil fuel companies have to pay, and all the National Insurance contributions it has to make. What they didn't pay is any of the Windfall Tax, because they invested all the money in green technologies." Really? Where did you get their corporation tax figures from? "Shell did not pay any tax on its UK North Sea operations in the third quarter, even as high oil and gas prices helped its global profits to more than double to $9.5 billion." https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/shell-plans-4bn-share-buyback-after-profits-double-sdxsbmgdn | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change?" Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter That's slightly inaccurate. It paid 30% Corporation Tax, plus the 10 extra tax that fossil fuel companies have to pay, and all the National Insurance contributions it has to make. What they didn't pay is any of the Windfall Tax, because they invested all the money in green technologies." Further to Easy’s point, the word Windfall is possibly missing (they haven’t paid anything despite Chancellor Sunak’s smoke and mirrors, which is even more galling when... “Shell paid no tax on its oil and gas production in the North Sea for the fourth year in a row despite soaring global energy prices and record company profits, new documents show. The oil giant instead received $121m (£92m) in tax refunds paid by the UK Treasury for the decommissioning of old oil platforms, its 2021 annual report revealed.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why?" Because it would be misleading nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense." Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter" "That's slightly inaccurate. It paid 30% Corporation Tax, plus the 10 extra tax that fossil fuel companies have to pay, and all the National Insurance contributions it has to make. What they didn't pay is any of the Windfall Tax, because they invested all the money in green technologies." "Really? Where did you get their corporation tax figures from?" For this particular story, from a BBC News report on TV. They had big flashy graphics to explain the 30% plus 10%, and they explained that this is double what other companies pay. The online report isn't so clear with it's explanation, but it does at least say "Windfall Tax" in the headline. It also says "A spokesperson at the Treasury said the Energy Profits Levy was expected to raise £17bn this year and next, and came on top of a headline rate of tax for the industry of 40%. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63409687 Clearly at least one of those news reports is inaccurate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense. Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true!" I’m a sceptic. And I have a good bullshit radar. What do you mean by ‘also now’? I’m cycling from Maldon to Sudbury. It’s lovely, just a tee shirt and a warm wind behind me. Don’t try telling me I couldn’t of done this 100 or even a thousand years ago. The weather I mean not my (green) mode of transport. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter That's slightly inaccurate. It paid 30% Corporation Tax, plus the 10 extra tax that fossil fuel companies have to pay, and all the National Insurance contributions it has to make. What they didn't pay is any of the Windfall Tax, because they invested all the money in green technologies. Really? Where did you get their corporation tax figures from? For this particular story, from a BBC News report on TV. They had big flashy graphics to explain the 30% plus 10%, and they explained that this is double what other companies pay. The online report isn't so clear with it's explanation, but it does at least say "Windfall Tax" in the headline. It also says "A spokesperson at the Treasury said the Energy Profits Levy was expected to raise £17bn this year and next, and came on top of a headline rate of tax for the industry of 40%. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63409687 Clearly at least one of those news reports is inaccurate. " HMT spokesperson can say whatever they like but if they do not actually charge Shell it amounts to nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense. Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true! I’m a sceptic. And I have a good bullshit radar. What do you mean by ‘also now’? I’m cycling from Maldon to Sudbury. It’s lovely, just a tee shirt and a warm wind behind me. Don’t try telling me I couldn’t of done this 100 or even a thousand years ago. The weather I mean not my (green) mode of transport." Ah a sceptic. Despite thousands of research studies and consensus amongst probably 99% of the scientific community (barring those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry). I mean what do experts know? Then again, you do tend to find a lot of scepticism in people of a certain age demographic. Maybe they simply don’t care as it won’t affect them? The “now” was a reference to some of your other opinions. There is an odd correlation (hence reference to venn diagram) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter That's slightly inaccurate. It paid 30% Corporation Tax, plus the 10 extra tax that fossil fuel companies have to pay, and all the National Insurance contributions it has to make. What they didn't pay is any of the Windfall Tax, because they invested all the money in green technologies. Really? Where did you get their corporation tax figures from? For this particular story, from a BBC News report on TV. They had big flashy graphics to explain the 30% plus 10%, and they explained that this is double what other companies pay. The online report isn't so clear with it's explanation, but it does at least say "Windfall Tax" in the headline. It also says "A spokesperson at the Treasury said the Energy Profits Levy was expected to raise £17bn this year and next, and came on top of a headline rate of tax for the industry of 40%. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63409687 Clearly at least one of those news reports is inaccurate. " The BBC article explains what the tax system is as far as payments are concerned, and partially rebates. It does not, actually, state that Shell has made any net tax payments. The Times article is about what tax has been paid. These are different things and not mutually exclusive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense. Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true! I’m a sceptic. And I have a good bullshit radar. What do you mean by ‘also now’? I’m cycling from Maldon to Sudbury. It’s lovely, just a tee shirt and a warm wind behind me. Don’t try telling me I couldn’t of done this 100 or even a thousand years ago. The weather I mean not my (green) mode of transport. Ah a sceptic. Despite thousands of research studies and consensus amongst probably 99% of the scientific community (barring those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry). I mean what do experts know? Then again, you do tend to find a lot of scepticism in people of a certain age demographic. Maybe they simply don’t care as it won’t affect them? The “now” was a reference to some of your other opinions. There is an odd correlation (hence reference to venn diagram) " The climate has always changed. Sea levels are very difficult to measure. There is no climate crisis. We need to change our ways of course. We can start by not consuming so much junk, then throwing the containers around the country. We can stop lazy buggers ordering food online then getting some poor sod on a moped or pushbike to deliver it. We could ban all forms of motorsport, what a pointless thing that is anyway. We can make it financially impossible for hard working families with kids to drive down to France or Spain for a well earned holiday. Let’s ban flying. Let’s wipe out the middle class. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense. Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true! I’m a sceptic. And I have a good bullshit radar. What do you mean by ‘also now’? I’m cycling from Maldon to Sudbury. It’s lovely, just a tee shirt and a warm wind behind me. Don’t try telling me I couldn’t of done this 100 or even a thousand years ago. The weather I mean not my (green) mode of transport. Ah a sceptic. Despite thousands of research studies and consensus amongst probably 99% of the scientific community (barring those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry). I mean what do experts know? Then again, you do tend to find a lot of scepticism in people of a certain age demographic. Maybe they simply don’t care as it won’t affect them? The “now” was a reference to some of your other opinions. There is an odd correlation (hence reference to venn diagram) " That’s an awful comment about the age demographic by the way. Shame on you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The climate has always changed. Sea levels are very difficult to measure. There is no climate crisis. " You're aware that this is entirely misleading, unscientific and not what's actually happening in the real world? I find it bizarre that you have a strong opinion on a subject, yet can't be arsed to even learn the basics about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The climate has always changed. Sea levels are very difficult to measure. There is no climate crisis. You're aware that this is entirely misleading, unscientific and not what's actually happening in the real world? I find it bizarre that you have a strong opinion on a subject, yet can't be arsed to even learn the basics about it. " Says a guy on a swingers website. The experts that said Australia faced permanent drought and they need to build desalination plants. At huge cost by the way. They didn’t build reservoirs or dams so can’t manage the rain that ‘miraculously’ returned. Same experts that said the Great Barrier Reef was dying. It’s bigger than ever! Yes we need to do better & be cleaner but there is no climate emergency. There is a population emergency. Did you check out the population growth of Pakistan? You don’t need an expert for that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The climate has always changed. Sea levels are very difficult to measure. There is no climate crisis. You're aware that this is entirely misleading, unscientific and not what's actually happening in the real world? I find it bizarre that you have a strong opinion on a subject, yet can't be arsed to even learn the basics about it. Says a guy on a swingers website. The experts that said Australia faced permanent drought and they need to build desalination plants. At huge cost by the way. They didn’t build reservoirs or dams so can’t manage the rain that ‘miraculously’ returned. Same experts that said the Great Barrier Reef was dying. It’s bigger than ever! Yes we need to do better & be cleaner but there is no climate emergency. There is a population emergency. Did you check out the population growth of Pakistan? You don’t need an expert for that." This is an excellent example. You should read past the headline about the great barrier reef to see what's really going on there. Education is key. Just to be crystal clear. Your lack of willingness to learn about climate change, is completely unrelated to the fact that human activity has vastly accelerated the rate at which the climate is changing, to the point of emergency. Also, if a single "expert" (by which I assume you mean scientist), gets one prediction wrong, it doesn't mean that all science is obsolete. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense. Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true! I’m a sceptic. And I have a good bullshit radar. What do you mean by ‘also now’? I’m cycling from Maldon to Sudbury. It’s lovely, just a tee shirt and a warm wind behind me. Don’t try telling me I couldn’t of done this 100 or even a thousand years ago. The weather I mean not my (green) mode of transport. Ah a sceptic. Despite thousands of research studies and consensus amongst probably 99% of the scientific community (barring those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry). I mean what do experts know? Then again, you do tend to find a lot of scepticism in people of a certain age demographic. Maybe they simply don’t care as it won’t affect them? The “now” was a reference to some of your other opinions. There is an odd correlation (hence reference to venn diagram) That’s an awful comment about the age demographic by the way. Shame on you." Raw nerve perhaps? I feel no shame as the evidence does point to increased scepticism in older age demographics. Not my opinion, facts based on a variety of polls. From your post above this one you are clearly more denier than sceptic. Personally I will put more trust in the scientists who have been studying this and collecting data for decades. As for your other comments, I agree with many of them. In particular I find it tiresome that “they” always take a punitive approach to change behaviour rather than a positive approach. Encourage positive behaviour through rewards and benefits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense. Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true! I’m a sceptic. And I have a good bullshit radar. What do you mean by ‘also now’? I’m cycling from Maldon to Sudbury. It’s lovely, just a tee shirt and a warm wind behind me. Don’t try telling me I couldn’t of done this 100 or even a thousand years ago. The weather I mean not my (green) mode of transport. Ah a sceptic. Despite thousands of research studies and consensus amongst probably 99% of the scientific community (barring those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry). I mean what do experts know? Then again, you do tend to find a lot of scepticism in people of a certain age demographic. Maybe they simply don’t care as it won’t affect them? The “now” was a reference to some of your other opinions. There is an odd correlation (hence reference to venn diagram) That’s an awful comment about the age demographic by the way. Shame on you. Raw nerve perhaps? I feel no shame as the evidence does point to increased scepticism in older age demographics. Not my opinion, facts based on a variety of polls. From your post above this one you are clearly more denier than sceptic. Personally I will put more trust in the scientists who have been studying this and collecting data for decades. As for your other comments, I agree with many of them. In particular I find it tiresome that “they” always take a punitive approach to change behaviour rather than a positive approach. Encourage positive behaviour through rewards and benefits. " Perhaps all the illegal immigrants that you are so fond of will have a healthier approach to the environment and climate than people that have lived here all their lives, people that have children & grandchildren here also. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The climate has always changed. Sea levels are very difficult to measure. There is no climate crisis. You're aware that this is entirely misleading, unscientific and not what's actually happening in the real world? I find it bizarre that you have a strong opinion on a subject, yet can't be arsed to even learn the basics about it. Says a guy on a swingers website. The experts that said Australia faced permanent drought and they need to build desalination plants. At huge cost by the way. They didn’t build reservoirs or dams so can’t manage the rain that ‘miraculously’ returned. Same experts that said the Great Barrier Reef was dying. It’s bigger than ever! Yes we need to do better & be cleaner but there is no climate emergency. There is a population emergency. Did you check out the population growth of Pakistan? You don’t need an expert for that. This is an excellent example. You should read past the headline about the great barrier reef to see what's really going on there. Education is key. Just to be crystal clear. Your lack of willingness to learn about climate change, is completely unrelated to the fact that human activity has vastly accelerated the rate at which the climate is changing, to the point of emergency. Also, if a single "expert" (by which I assume you mean scientist), gets one prediction wrong, it doesn't mean that all science is obsolete. " Population emergency? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense. Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true! I’m a sceptic. And I have a good bullshit radar. What do you mean by ‘also now’? I’m cycling from Maldon to Sudbury. It’s lovely, just a tee shirt and a warm wind behind me. Don’t try telling me I couldn’t of done this 100 or even a thousand years ago. The weather I mean not my (green) mode of transport. Ah a sceptic. Despite thousands of research studies and consensus amongst probably 99% of the scientific community (barring those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry). I mean what do experts know? Then again, you do tend to find a lot of scepticism in people of a certain age demographic. Maybe they simply don’t care as it won’t affect them? The “now” was a reference to some of your other opinions. There is an odd correlation (hence reference to venn diagram) That’s an awful comment about the age demographic by the way. Shame on you. Raw nerve perhaps? I feel no shame as the evidence does point to increased scepticism in older age demographics. Not my opinion, facts based on a variety of polls. From your post above this one you are clearly more denier than sceptic. Personally I will put more trust in the scientists who have been studying this and collecting data for decades. As for your other comments, I agree with many of them. In particular I find it tiresome that “they” always take a punitive approach to change behaviour rather than a positive approach. Encourage positive behaviour through rewards and benefits. " The beauty of science is that you don't have to trust or believe. You can learn and understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense. Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true! I’m a sceptic. And I have a good bullshit radar. What do you mean by ‘also now’? I’m cycling from Maldon to Sudbury. It’s lovely, just a tee shirt and a warm wind behind me. Don’t try telling me I couldn’t of done this 100 or even a thousand years ago. The weather I mean not my (green) mode of transport. Ah a sceptic. Despite thousands of research studies and consensus amongst probably 99% of the scientific community (barring those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry). I mean what do experts know? Then again, you do tend to find a lot of scepticism in people of a certain age demographic. Maybe they simply don’t care as it won’t affect them? The “now” was a reference to some of your other opinions. There is an odd correlation (hence reference to venn diagram) That’s an awful comment about the age demographic by the way. Shame on you. Raw nerve perhaps? I feel no shame as the evidence does point to increased scepticism in older age demographics. Not my opinion, facts based on a variety of polls. From your post above this one you are clearly more denier than sceptic. Personally I will put more trust in the scientists who have been studying this and collecting data for decades. As for your other comments, I agree with many of them. In particular I find it tiresome that “they” always take a punitive approach to change behaviour rather than a positive approach. Encourage positive behaviour through rewards and benefits. Perhaps all the illegal immigrants that you are so fond of will have a healthier approach to the environment and climate than people that have lived here all their lives, people that have children & grandchildren here also." Are we playing immigration bingo? Who said I am keen on illegal immigrants? What I am keen on is a humane approach that provides legal channels that are controlled and can put the criminal gangs out of business. As I said above, why do “they” always take a punitive approach? As it stands there are no legal channels so everyone is by default illegal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense. Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true! I’m a sceptic. And I have a good bullshit radar. What do you mean by ‘also now’? I’m cycling from Maldon to Sudbury. It’s lovely, just a tee shirt and a warm wind behind me. Don’t try telling me I couldn’t of done this 100 or even a thousand years ago. The weather I mean not my (green) mode of transport. Ah a sceptic. Despite thousands of research studies and consensus amongst probably 99% of the scientific community (barring those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry). I mean what do experts know? Then again, you do tend to find a lot of scepticism in people of a certain age demographic. Maybe they simply don’t care as it won’t affect them? The “now” was a reference to some of your other opinions. There is an odd correlation (hence reference to venn diagram) That’s an awful comment about the age demographic by the way. Shame on you. Raw nerve perhaps? I feel no shame as the evidence does point to increased scepticism in older age demographics. Not my opinion, facts based on a variety of polls. From your post above this one you are clearly more denier than sceptic. Personally I will put more trust in the scientists who have been studying this and collecting data for decades. As for your other comments, I agree with many of them. In particular I find it tiresome that “they” always take a punitive approach to change behaviour rather than a positive approach. Encourage positive behaviour through rewards and benefits. Perhaps all the illegal immigrants that you are so fond of will have a healthier approach to the environment and climate than people that have lived here all their lives, people that have children & grandchildren here also. Are we playing immigration bingo? Who said I am keen on illegal immigrants? What I am keen on is a humane approach that provides legal channels that are controlled and can put the criminal gangs out of business. As I said above, why do “they” always take a punitive approach? As it stands there are no legal channels so everyone is by default illegal." Of course there are legal channels. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense. Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true! I’m a sceptic. And I have a good bullshit radar. What do you mean by ‘also now’? I’m cycling from Maldon to Sudbury. It’s lovely, just a tee shirt and a warm wind behind me. Don’t try telling me I couldn’t of done this 100 or even a thousand years ago. The weather I mean not my (green) mode of transport. Ah a sceptic. Despite thousands of research studies and consensus amongst probably 99% of the scientific community (barring those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry). I mean what do experts know? Then again, you do tend to find a lot of scepticism in people of a certain age demographic. Maybe they simply don’t care as it won’t affect them? The “now” was a reference to some of your other opinions. There is an odd correlation (hence reference to venn diagram) That’s an awful comment about the age demographic by the way. Shame on you. Raw nerve perhaps? I feel no shame as the evidence does point to increased scepticism in older age demographics. Not my opinion, facts based on a variety of polls. From your post above this one you are clearly more denier than sceptic. Personally I will put more trust in the scientists who have been studying this and collecting data for decades. As for your other comments, I agree with many of them. In particular I find it tiresome that “they” always take a punitive approach to change behaviour rather than a positive approach. Encourage positive behaviour through rewards and benefits. Perhaps all the illegal immigrants that you are so fond of will have a healthier approach to the environment and climate than people that have lived here all their lives, people that have children & grandchildren here also. Are we playing immigration bingo? Who said I am keen on illegal immigrants? What I am keen on is a humane approach that provides legal channels that are controlled and can put the criminal gangs out of business. As I said above, why do “they” always take a punitive approach? As it stands there are no legal channels so everyone is by default illegal. Of course there are legal channels. " There aren’t. You clearly fo not actually know how this works. If you think you do then explain to me how someone from Afghanistan claims asylum in the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense. Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true! I’m a sceptic. And I have a good bullshit radar. What do you mean by ‘also now’? I’m cycling from Maldon to Sudbury. It’s lovely, just a tee shirt and a warm wind behind me. Don’t try telling me I couldn’t of done this 100 or even a thousand years ago. The weather I mean not my (green) mode of transport. Ah a sceptic. Despite thousands of research studies and consensus amongst probably 99% of the scientific community (barring those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry). I mean what do experts know? Then again, you do tend to find a lot of scepticism in people of a certain age demographic. Maybe they simply don’t care as it won’t affect them? The “now” was a reference to some of your other opinions. There is an odd correlation (hence reference to venn diagram) That’s an awful comment about the age demographic by the way. Shame on you. Raw nerve perhaps? I feel no shame as the evidence does point to increased scepticism in older age demographics. Not my opinion, facts based on a variety of polls. From your post above this one you are clearly more denier than sceptic. Personally I will put more trust in the scientists who have been studying this and collecting data for decades. As for your other comments, I agree with many of them. In particular I find it tiresome that “they” always take a punitive approach to change behaviour rather than a positive approach. Encourage positive behaviour through rewards and benefits. Perhaps all the illegal immigrants that you are so fond of will have a healthier approach to the environment and climate than people that have lived here all their lives, people that have children & grandchildren here also. Are we playing immigration bingo? Who said I am keen on illegal immigrants? What I am keen on is a humane approach that provides legal channels that are controlled and can put the criminal gangs out of business. As I said above, why do “they” always take a punitive approach? As it stands there are no legal channels so everyone is by default illegal. Of course there are legal channels. There aren’t. You clearly fo not actually know how this works. If you think you do then explain to me how someone from Afghanistan claims asylum in the UK?" But there are legal immigration channels. That may not suit people from Afghanistan but there are plenty of other options closer for them. Why would they want to come all the way here to a different continent, climate, culture? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense. Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true! I’m a sceptic. And I have a good bullshit radar. What do you mean by ‘also now’? I’m cycling from Maldon to Sudbury. It’s lovely, just a tee shirt and a warm wind behind me. Don’t try telling me I couldn’t of done this 100 or even a thousand years ago. The weather I mean not my (green) mode of transport. Ah a sceptic. Despite thousands of research studies and consensus amongst probably 99% of the scientific community (barring those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry). I mean what do experts know? Then again, you do tend to find a lot of scepticism in people of a certain age demographic. Maybe they simply don’t care as it won’t affect them? The “now” was a reference to some of your other opinions. There is an odd correlation (hence reference to venn diagram) That’s an awful comment about the age demographic by the way. Shame on you. Raw nerve perhaps? I feel no shame as the evidence does point to increased scepticism in older age demographics. Not my opinion, facts based on a variety of polls. From your post above this one you are clearly more denier than sceptic. Personally I will put more trust in the scientists who have been studying this and collecting data for decades. As for your other comments, I agree with many of them. In particular I find it tiresome that “they” always take a punitive approach to change behaviour rather than a positive approach. Encourage positive behaviour through rewards and benefits. Perhaps all the illegal immigrants that you are so fond of will have a healthier approach to the environment and climate than people that have lived here all their lives, people that have children & grandchildren here also. Are we playing immigration bingo? Who said I am keen on illegal immigrants? What I am keen on is a humane approach that provides legal channels that are controlled and can put the criminal gangs out of business. As I said above, why do “they” always take a punitive approach? As it stands there are no legal channels so everyone is by default illegal. Of course there are legal channels. There aren’t. You clearly fo not actually know how this works. If you think you do then explain to me how someone from Afghanistan claims asylum in the UK? But there are legal immigration channels. That may not suit people from Afghanistan but there are plenty of other options closer for them. Why would they want to come all the way here to a different continent, climate, culture? " clearly they do tho. It may be useful if HMG gathered information on why they come here. Not all asylum seekers have a legal route open to them. All I can think of is coming over on a tourist visa, and then claiming. Although I'm not 100pc sure that is 100pc legal. Are you entering under false pretenses ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense. Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true! I’m a sceptic. And I have a good bullshit radar. What do you mean by ‘also now’? I’m cycling from Maldon to Sudbury. It’s lovely, just a tee shirt and a warm wind behind me. Don’t try telling me I couldn’t of done this 100 or even a thousand years ago. The weather I mean not my (green) mode of transport. Ah a sceptic. Despite thousands of research studies and consensus amongst probably 99% of the scientific community (barring those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry). I mean what do experts know? Then again, you do tend to find a lot of scepticism in people of a certain age demographic. Maybe they simply don’t care as it won’t affect them? The “now” was a reference to some of your other opinions. There is an odd correlation (hence reference to venn diagram) That’s an awful comment about the age demographic by the way. Shame on you. Raw nerve perhaps? I feel no shame as the evidence does point to increased scepticism in older age demographics. Not my opinion, facts based on a variety of polls. From your post above this one you are clearly more denier than sceptic. Personally I will put more trust in the scientists who have been studying this and collecting data for decades. As for your other comments, I agree with many of them. In particular I find it tiresome that “they” always take a punitive approach to change behaviour rather than a positive approach. Encourage positive behaviour through rewards and benefits. Perhaps all the illegal immigrants that you are so fond of will have a healthier approach to the environment and climate than people that have lived here all their lives, people that have children & grandchildren here also. Are we playing immigration bingo? Who said I am keen on illegal immigrants? What I am keen on is a humane approach that provides legal channels that are controlled and can put the criminal gangs out of business. As I said above, why do “they” always take a punitive approach? As it stands there are no legal channels so everyone is by default illegal. Of course there are legal channels. There aren’t. You clearly fo not actually know how this works. If you think you do then explain to me how someone from Afghanistan claims asylum in the UK? But there are legal immigration channels. That may not suit people from Afghanistan but there are plenty of other options closer for them. Why would they want to come all the way here to a different continent, climate, culture? " Oh look, your discussing immigration, again, on a thread about the Public Order Bill. Luckily you aren't obsessed in any way
What does immigration have to do with Public Order Bill?
Also, as you have been obsessively discussing this on multiple threads, what legal routes are there for refugees to come to the UK?
Perhaps you could start your own thread dedicated to your favourite topic starting with this information? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just saw this which nicely sums up why people are getting angry... “My day so far 8am: It’s going to be 21C today 9am: I cycle past a heavily policed Just Stop Oil protest 10am: Shell confirms it paid no tax on North Sea oil this quarter 12pm: UN predicts 2.5C global heating & catastrophic extreme weather 4pm: Rishi Sunak will not attend COP27” Protestor disruption is the least of our worries really. We’re fucked! Well our grandchildren are so that’s ok! I hope that whoever posted about it being 21c is not putting it down to climate change? Why? Because it would be misleading nonsense. Aha! So the actual cause of that particular 21c yep no idea. But are you also now coming out as a climate change denier Seb? The venn diagram is proving itself true! I’m a sceptic. And I have a good bullshit radar. What do you mean by ‘also now’? I’m cycling from Maldon to Sudbury. It’s lovely, just a tee shirt and a warm wind behind me. Don’t try telling me I couldn’t of done this 100 or even a thousand years ago. The weather I mean not my (green) mode of transport. Ah a sceptic. Despite thousands of research studies and consensus amongst probably 99% of the scientific community (barring those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry). I mean what do experts know? Then again, you do tend to find a lot of scepticism in people of a certain age demographic. Maybe they simply don’t care as it won’t affect them? The “now” was a reference to some of your other opinions. There is an odd correlation (hence reference to venn diagram) The climate has always changed. Sea levels are very difficult to measure. There is no climate crisis. We need to change our ways of course. We can start by not consuming so much junk, then throwing the containers around the country. We can stop lazy buggers ordering food online then getting some poor sod on a moped or pushbike to deliver it. We could ban all forms of motorsport, what a pointless thing that is anyway. We can make it financially impossible for hard working families with kids to drive down to France or Spain for a well earned holiday. Let’s ban flying. Let’s wipe out the middle class. " What source of data brings you to the conclusion that "There is no climate crisis"? What is your trusted source of information that is more trustworthy than the scientific consensus of thousands of individuals, hundreds of organisations and millions of pieces of data? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
