Jump to content


The Labour Party - Part 2

Recommended Posts

Labour should not be supporting the Met police using unnecessary violence. We can see that it was unnecessary by the way other forces policed their local vigils/protests. It's not as if it was organised by Class War, it was about as polite as protests go. I see that Starmer has agreed to oppose the forthcoming legislation that will give the police further control over our right to protest post-Covid - at least he is getting some things right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Delbow said:

Labour should not be supporting the Met police using unnecessary violence. We can see that it was unnecessary by the way other forces policed their local vigils/protests. It's not as if it was organised by Class War, it was about as polite as protests go. I see that Starmer has agreed to oppose the forthcoming legislation that will give the police further control over our right to protest post-Covid - at least he is getting some things right.

You think so? Personally I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him...

 

Our rights to protest have been severely curtailed over recent years, and the new legislation is so badly written (woolly) it means that our right to protest will be all but finished.

 

A person's right to protest is an essential part of democracy which goes back centuries and has played a crucial part in bringing about change. We need it today as much as we ever did but never has it been so much under threat. Democracy is flawed as are all political systems. Putting a tick in a box for a pre-selected candidate once every 5 years (who is then free to ignore the voters who got him there) is not enough. The right to protest is a vital element.   

 

One of the 'conspiracy theories' about the pandemic is that it would be used to curtail this fundamental right. Let's see if all the measures put in place during the pandemic are revoked when it is over, or once again the theorists will have been proved right.

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Anna B said:

You think so? Personally I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him...

 

Our rights to protest have been severely curtailed over recent years, and the new legislation is so badly written (woolly) it means that our right to protest will be all but finished.

 

A person's right to protest is an essential part of democracy which goes back centuries and has played a crucial part in bringing about change. We need it today as much as we ever did but never has it been so much under threat. 

If you read what is proposed in the bill then you will see that it hardly affects anyons right to peacefully protest so that right is still there. In fact by Labour voting against the bill now instead of abstaining is in itself is a u-turn from them as they had already agreed that a lot of the new reforms were necessary.

 

Quote

Democracy is flawed as are all political systems. Putting a tick in a box for a pre-selected candidate once every 5 years (who is then free to ignore the voters who got him there) is not enough. The right to protest is a vital element.   

If you voted in the last election or in the referendum then you have automatically accepted our democratic political system. As stated, even if this bill passes through the right to protest peacefully is still part of that.

 

Quote

One of the 'conspiracy theories' about the pandemic is that it would be used to curtail this fundamental right. Let's see if all the measures put in place during the pandemic are revoked when it is over, or once again the theorists will have been proved right.

Labour put draconian measures in place because of terrorism fears at the time. Most of that legislation was subsequently repealed later after the panic was over and I can't see it being any different here. Parliament are the ones who pass the laws and if enough people show they are against them then a Labour government can be in at the next election who can then repeal them. 

 

Just to add. Labour have had several chances to reform the political system and have included the need for a PR system in their election manifestos of the past. For some reason when in power they happily ignored that bit.

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, apelike said:

If you read what is proposed in the bill then you will see that it hardly affects anyons right to peacefully protest so that right is still there. In fact by Labour voting against the bill now instead of abstaining is in itself is a u-turn from them as they had already agreed that a lot of the new reforms were necessary.

 

If you voted in the last election or in the referendum then you have automatically accepted our democratic political system. As stated, even if this bill passes through the right to protest peacefully is still part of that.

 

Labour put draconian measures in place because of terrorism fears at the time. Most of that legislation was subsequently repealed later after the panic was over and I can't see it being any different here. Parliament are the ones who pass the laws and if enough people show they are against them then a Labour government can be in at the next election who can then repeal them. 

This just isn't true. The stated purpose of the legislation is to allow the police to 'manage', i.e use force to disperse, protests like those that XR have held - which were peaceful. It also gives power to the Home Secretary, currently a known bully who is on record as saying she disagrees with all protest, to unilaterally decide whether a protest can go ahead. It will be the easiest thing in the world for Patel to decide, based on no evidence, that a proposed protest will be "seriously disruptive" and therefore decide whether it can go ahead. If a future government didn't repeal it, a more left wing government could use it to curtail the rights of its opponents to protest, which would be just as bad. These people are known liars, I don't know why you would take them at their word 

Edited by Delbow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Delbow said:

This just isn't true. The stated purpose of the legislation is to allow the police to 'manage', i.e use force to disperse, protests like those that XR have held - which were peaceful. It also gives power to the Home Secretary, currently a known bully who is on record as saying she disagrees with all protest, to unilaterally decide whether a protest can go ahead. It will be the easiest thing in the world for Patel to decide, based on no evidence, that a proposed protest will be "seriously disruptive" and therefore decide whether it can go ahead. If a future government didn't repeal it, a more left wing government could use it to curtail the rights of its opponents to protest, which would be just as bad. These people are known liars, I don't know why you would take them at their word 

Perhaps you should read what is proposed instead of what the media say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've read the Bill itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Delbow said:

This just isn't true. The stated purpose of the legislation is to allow the police to 'manage', i.e use force to disperse, protests like those that XR have held - which were peaceful. It also gives power to the Home Secretary, currently a known bully who is on record as saying she disagrees with all protest, to unilaterally decide whether a protest can go ahead. It will be the easiest thing in the world for Patel to decide, based on no evidence, that a proposed protest will be "seriously disruptive" and therefore decide whether it can go ahead. If a future government didn't repeal it, a more left wing government could use it to curtail the rights of its opponents to protest, which would be just as bad. These people are known liars, I don't know why you would take them at their word 

I fully agree.

It should also be pointed out that the gathering was NOT a protest but a vigil, to show respect for the poor victim.

It was a peaceful vigil until the Mets came along with their heavy handed tactics.

They don't need any more powers as they have plenty already, as they showed when they can disrupt a peaceful vigil.

They will not be happy until they are running this country like the Gestapo did in Germany.

 

Edited by Organgrinder
double text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Delbow - ALL politicians,  whatever the colour of their ties, are by definition extremely 'economical with the truth',  and assume the public have short memories. Sadly for them, some of us have a slightly longer attention span

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the government's own fact sheet:

  • Strengthen police powers to tackle non violent protests that have a significant disruptive effect on the public or on access to Parliament.  

 

 

Remember the anti-Iraq war protests? They were significantly disruptive = outlawed.

Edited by Delbow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Delbow said:

You've read the Bill itself?

No, and I did say read what has been proposed.

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9158/

 

Has lots of links to follow up.

 

And this may help as well.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-protest-powers-factsheet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just quoted from that fact sheet where it specifically states the legislation targets non-violent protest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, apelike said:

If you read what is proposed in the bill then you will see that it hardly affects anyons right to peacefully protest so that right is still there. In fact by Labour voting against the bill now instead of abstaining is in itself is a u-turn from them as they had already agreed that a lot of the new reforms were necessary.

 

If you voted in the last election or in the referendum then you have automatically accepted our democratic political system. As stated, even if this bill passes through the right to protest peacefully is still part of that.

 

Labour put draconian measures in place because of terrorism fears at the time. Most of that legislation was subsequently repealed later after the panic was over and I can't see it being any different here. Parliament are the ones who pass the laws and if enough people show they are against them then a Labour government can be in at the next election who can then repeal them. 

 

Just to add. Labour have had several chances to reform the political system and have included the need for a PR system in their election manifestos of the past. For some reason when in power they happily ignored that bit.

If it hardly affects anyone's rights then it obviously isn't needed so why do they want to pass the bill.

If it is passed, then it WILL affect peoples rights as soon as it is used.

You may believe our governments lies but there are many of us who don't.

If people are peaceful then no force should be allowed to be used

Labour should continue to oppose the bill until that clause is removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.