The Labour Party - Part 2

[apelike 10]

9 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

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

And there you have it.

[Delbow 704]

2 minutes ago, apelike said:

And there you have it.

You could just acknowledge that it's not correct that this legislation doesn't affect peaceful protest.

[apelike 10]

5 minutes ago, Delbow said:

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

But took it out of context and failed to acknowledge this bit... "that have a significant disruptive effect on the public or on access to Parliament."

Edited March 15, 2021 by apelike

[Delbow 704]

1 minute ago, apelike said:

But took it out of context and failed to acknowledge this bit... "that have a significant disruptive effect on the public or on access to Parliament."

I specifically referenced that in post #687!

[Organgrinder 1,946]

43 minutes ago, apelike said:

But took it out of context and failed to acknowledge this bit... "that have a significant disruptive effect on the public or on access to Parliament."

That is an example of one of the reasons they will quote when they want to stop something which is bringing them bad publicity.

I repeat, If a gathering is peaceful then it should be illegal to use force to stop it.

Carry on like this and we end up like, China, North Korea, Myanmarr.

Our Government already has more powers than it has had throughout history and has more than enough to deal legally with protests.

It should need none at all to deal with a vigil, as was proved everywhere in the country except London.

Let them get tough with the drug dealers, knife gangs and illegal firearms carriers instead of frightened and helpless women.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Organgrinder
spelling mistake

[apelike 10]

10 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

That is an example of one of the reasons they will quote when they want to stop something which is bringing them bad publicity.

I repeat, If a gathering is peaceful then it should be illegal to use force to stop it.

I agree, unless it causes significant disruption to the public at large or closing down access to parliament as what this proposed law is stating.

 

Quote

Carry on like this and we end up like, China, North Korea, Myanmarr.

Our Government already has more powers than it has had throughout history and has more than enough to deal legally with protests.

there seems to be a number of paranoid people around here just lately.

 

Quote

It should need none at all to deal with a vigil, as was proved everywhere in the country except London.

I agree again but this was a failure in policing and not the law.

 

Quote

Let them get tough with the drug dealers, knife gangs and illegal firearms carriers instead of frightened and helpless women.

You have been played with by the media.

Edited March 15, 2021 by apelike

[Organgrinder 1,946]

11 minutes ago, apelike said:

I agree, unless it causes significant disruption to the public at large or closing down access to parliament as what this proposed law is stating.

 

there seems to be a number of paranoid people around here just lately.

 

I agree again but this was a failure in policing and not the law.

 

You have been played with by the media.

Was the peaceful vigil causing significant disruption to the public.

The other problems can be tackled by laws we already have. We seem to have manged for thousands of years.

 

Better to be paranoid than fooled by  power hungry governments.

 

Will their be no failings of policing when they have their new powers which allow them to be even more brutal against us?

 

Don't worry about the media.  I have enough savvy to know what I'm talking about without their prattle or that from  forums from people who don't know when they are being conned.

[apelike 10]

I shan't respond anymore to this subject on this thread as it is starting to get wide of the mark as it is a Labour thread.

 

If you wish to continue and want a response then do so on the Conservative thread as it is them that have put up this bill.

[Organgrinder 1,946]

This subject was being discussed on the Labour thread before I joined in.

This would be because Labour were intending to vote against this bill because of the section we have been discussing.

I added my thoughts to it because I thought that Labour were quite correct and this should not be made into law.

Most people agree that if this were taken out, the bill should be passed.

[Anna B 1,414]

2 hours ago, apelike said:

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

A Conservative politician was being interviewed about the bill on TV this morning. He was putting forward the best outcomes but it was so obvious that the way they have been written us wide open to anybody's interpretation, and partcularly the police. What does 'manage' actually mean in a court of law for example? The MP really struggled to reassure the interviewer, even he could see the pitfalls,

 

Judging  a) how badly the woolly covid legislation has been, and b) how often the police have got it wrong, and gone in heavy handed when it wasn't necessary, (eg. was it really necessary to wrestle a 54 year old woman to the ground and handcuff her hands behind her back because she objected to a £200 fine;  jogging 2 miles from home is deemed too far and not local enough apparently, but who knows as no distance has been stated and it's OK for Boris to travel miles on his bike.) I see trouble ahead.  IMO the agenda is to stop all public dissent.

 

 

[tinfoilhat 11]

2 hours ago, apelike said:

But took it out of context and failed to acknowledge this bit... "that have a significant disruptive effect on the public or on access to Parliament."

Who defines "significant"?

[Anna B 1,414]

50 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Who defines "significant"?

The politicians, the police, and the courts of course. The public won't have a say.

And also remember the law courts are now well outside the pockets of the ordinary working man. He can no longer afford Justice. 

 

Margaret Thatcher crushed the unions with many and varied pieces of legislation. Union membership dropped like a rock to the point that some workers don't even know what they are, or what they are for. 

Now after years without Unions fighting your corner, we now have 'gig' economies, low pay, 0 hour contracts, insecure, short term work, Firms claiming employees are self employed (when they clearly are not) and therefore not entitled to holiday pay, or sick pay, and many more abuses of employees rights, 

 

This is the sort of thing that happens when there is no body supporting you, and all the power is in the hands of the masters. The same thing will happen if we begin to lose our inalienable rights to protest.

 

Those rights have been hard fought for and hard won.

We should be protecting them at all costs,

or yes, we will end up like China, Russia, Myanmar etc. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Anna B