Pro Democracy Riot Bristol

[Delbow 699]

9 hours ago, apelike said:

So far no one has proved that what I have linked to or stated is not true though so it's basically just hearsay. I also didn't state the bill only targets non peaceful protests.

 

1980girl stated; "Peaceful (by which I mean non violent) protest will in some forms certainly be unlawful" and I am challenging that.

 

As seen in Bristol recently and in the past elsewhere some seem to go out of their way to cause problems so we are left with having laws to try and stop that sort of behaviour. The right of peaceful protests is fine but just like any right, acting responsibility is also part of it. Maybe someone can show details of just how how the right to peaceful protests has suddenly been stopped and which ones will be unlawful as repeating it doesn't make it true either. So far no one has done that and not doing so is even more dishonest as it should easily be proven.

 

Maybe you could have a go.

It's Part 3 of the Bill that's particularly troubling. It amends section 12 of the Public Order Act. Section 12 gives the police wide powers to limit protests - they can determine the start and end times, routes of marches, allows them to kettle protesters, etc. What section 12 doesn't currently do is give police the power to shut down a protest because it's noisy. Para 54 (2) (a) of the Bill states "in the case of a procession in England and Wales, the noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out on or in the vicinity of the procession", giving the police the power to shut down a protest in such an instance. Also if the noise generated by people taking part 'may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession, and that impact may be significant' - my bold, they don't even have to show that it does, just that it may. And in many areas of law, 'significant' is defined simply as 'not insignificant'.

 

So basically, the senior police officer can decide that it's a bit noisy, that it may have a not insignificant impact on 2 people nearby, and on that basis shut a protest down. There is more on the noise side in para 54.

 

Equally disturbing is para 54 (4) which states "The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the meaning for the purposes of this section of - a) serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on the vicinity of a public procession, b) serious disruption to the life of the community" and "Regulations under section 12 are to be made by statutory instrument". What that means in plain terms is that the Home Secretary gets to define, by themselves, what the definition of 'serious disruption' is. The relevance of the use of statutory instrument is that SIs do not require a vote in Parliament. So if Pritti Patel wants to define serious disruption as 'one person is unable to cross the road', then that will be the legal definition of serious disruption for the purposes of policing protests. And that will then allow the police to use violence against people on the protest if they refuse to stop protesting. Same for static protests as well as marches. In other words, it will be completely at the discretion of the police and Home Secretary whether a protest can go ahead, and if it goes ahead whether it can continue.

 

Remember when we got Brexit and people declared "we're free!" This government is a greater threat to our freedoms than the EU ever was.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Delbow

[petemcewan 27]

AKAMD,

 

I got caught up in the Tottenham  riots of 2011 (Conditional.Not on purpose but by circumstances-going home from  friends).

It was very,very scary.

However, I agree with you.

  

 

[apelike 10]

Thanks Delbow for post #28.

 

I shan't quote all of it as most is just you interpretation but here are two important bits.

 

Part 3 amends section 12 to give the police wider powers quote: "they can determine the start and end times, routes of marches, allows them to kettle protesters, etc" which is something they can already do. I think it took around 10 years for the courts to decide whether coralling or kettling protests by police was legal in law and they eventually agreed it was. But.. the amendments now give them extra powers to shut down a protest because it is noisy or causes serious disruption etc. Noisy and peaceful are opposites so again that does not stop any planned peaceful protests from going ahead.

 

Para 54 (4) allows the secretary of state to "by regulations make provision about the meaning for the purposes of this section of"... etc. I agree that it does but this bit, quote: "And that will then allow the police to use violence against people on the protest if they refuse to stop protesting" is the wrong interpretation of it.

 

Its already on statute that the police can use reasonable force when threatened and if they do otherwise it can then be challenged by a court.

 

So far what you have written only confirms that the new bill does not make any peaceful protests unlawful only that in some cases conditions can be put on them.

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 minute ago, apelike said:

Thanks Delbow for post #28.

 

I shan't quote all of it as most is just you interpretation but here are two important bits.

 

Part 3 amends section 12 to give the police wider powers quote: "they can determine the start and end times, routes of marches, allows them to kettle protesters, etc" which is something they can already do. I think it took around 10 years for the courts to decide whether coralling or kettling protests by police was legal in law and they eventually agreed it was. But.. the amendments now give them extra powers to shut down a protest because it is noisy or causes serious disruption etc. Noisy and peaceful are opposites so again that does not stop any planned peaceful protests from going ahead.

 

Para 54 (4) allows the secretary of state to "by regulations make provision about the meaning for the purposes of this section of"... etc. I agree that it does but this bit, quote: "And that will then allow the police to use violence against people on the protest if they refuse to stop protesting" is the wrong interpretation of it.

 

Its already on statute that the police can use reasonable force when threatened and if they do otherwise it can then be challenged by a court.

 

So far what you have written only confirms that the new bill does not make any peaceful protests unlawful only that in some cases conditions can be put on them.

Those conditions are tenuous at best and can effectively be rolled at the whim of the police on the ground or the home Secretary.

[apelike 10]

2 hours ago, petemcewan said:

AKAMD,

 

I got caught up in the Tottenham  riots of 2011 (Conditional.Not on purpose but by circumstances-going home from  friends).

It was very,very scary.

However, I agree with you.

 

It's worth remembering though that the above all started off from a peaceful protest and escalated into major riots by opportunists who took advantage of the situation.

 

4 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Those conditions are tenuous at best and can effectively be rolled at the whim of the police on the ground or the home Secretary.

But as pointed out most of those conditions were on the statute books already before this upgrade.

Edited March 23, 2021 by apelike

[Delbow 699]

@apelike

 

When you conflate noisy with violent then you really are done. You seem to think the citizens of England and Wales should only be allowed to meekly and quietly ask the powers that be very very nicely if they wouldn't mind awfully changing their minds. It's anti democratic and you know it, you're just working overtime trying not to admit it.

[tinfoilhat 11]

26 minutes ago, apelike said:

It's worth remembering though that the above all started off from a peaceful protest and escalated into major riots by opportunists who took advantage of the situation.

 

But as pointed out most of those conditions were on the statute books already before this upgrade.

So the noise thing is needed? Silent protests are the way to go?

[apelike 10]

38 minutes ago, Delbow said:

@apelike

 

When you conflate noisy with violent then you really are done.

Where did I do that?

 

38 minutes ago, Delbow said:

You seem to think the citizens of England and Wales should only be allowed to meekly and quietly ask the powers that be very very nicely if they wouldn't mind awfully changing their minds. It's anti democratic and you know it, you're just working overtime trying not to admit it.

But so far you have not proven that the right to peaceful protests will be outlawed as you and other have been trying to make out in previous posts, so who is now being dishonest.

 

I refer to post #14, 19 by 1980girl and also mine #24.  I have asked previously for you to show that that is the case and you have failed.

 

You have an opinion which I accept but that does not make it true. As for anti democratic... what are you talking about?

[Delbow 699]

2 minutes ago, apelike said:

Where did I do that?

 

But so far you have not proven that the right to peaceful protests will be outlawed as you and other have been trying to make out in previous posts, so who is now being dishonest.

 

I refer to post #14, 19 by 1980girl and also mine #24.  I have asked previously for you to show that that is the case and you have failed.

 

You have an opinion which I accept but that does not make it true. As for anti democratic... what are you talking about?

I haven't said that all peaceful protests will be outlawed, I've pointed out that the Bill as it stands allows two people - the Home Secretary and the relevant police chief - to use very subjective and malleable definitions to decide which protests are lawful and which are not, and thereby dictate to us when we can and when we can't protest, and that it would be mad to trust that they wouldn't abuse that. You said "noisy and peaceful are opposites" - I think you must be the only person in Britain who thinks there's no such thing as a noisy but peaceful protest. In terms of protest, the distinction is between peaceful and violent - there is already legislation that makes violent protest illegal, this Bill by the government's own admission aims to give them more powers over non-violent protests.

[Anna B 1,412]

13 hours ago, banjodeano said:

correct me if i am wrong, and i may well be, but didnt i read a snippet somewhere that if any protest adversely effects the wealth of our country then it can be deemed illegal? so i assume that if there are peaceful demonstrations' week in week out, the government can declare it illegal because of the cost of policing

 

That wouldn't surprise me. And it's these little bits slipped in under the carpet that worry me. There are probably a lot more that only come to light when the document is examined with a fine tooth comb - or when somebody falls foul of them, then it will be too late. 

It's much easier to get things on the statute book than taken off.

[AKAMD 0]

Here's what Liberty say in their briefing paper: – the Bill drastically limits the right to protest. Specifically, it limits the areas in which they may take place, increases criminal penalties for people who fall foul of police-imposed conditions and establishes new offences and criminal penalties altogether. The cumulative effect of these measures – which target the tools that make protest rights meaningful – constitute an attack on a fundamental building block of our democracy.

[banjodeano 31]

44 minutes ago, AKAMD said:

Here's what Liberty say in their briefing paper: – the Bill drastically limits the right to protest. Specifically, it limits the areas in which they may take place, increases criminal penalties for people who fall foul of police-imposed conditions and establishes new offences and criminal penalties altogether. The cumulative effect of these measures – which target the tools that make protest rights meaningful – constitute an attack on a fundamental building block of our democracy.

Politics.co.uk  state

The bill gives police the power to impose severe restrictions on protests if they suspect they “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” or could cause “serious unease, alarm or distress” to a passer-by. This applies to every single protest outside parliament and indeed to any protest anywhere. There has never been a protest which you could prove would not alarm someone. They make noise. That is what they do. The bill puts the power as to whether a protest can be held entirely in the hands of the police.

And yet even this benchmark was considered too high. So the bill also gave the home secretary the power to change the legal meaning of the term “serious disruption” by statutory instrument – effectively sidestepping parliament. In future, if Priti Patel or one of her successors decides that a protest was legal but they still wanted rid of it, they could simply unilaterally change the law.

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/03/16/anti-protest-bill-freedom-dies-in-silence/?cmpredirect

 

well that looks like strikes could become illegal, its a good job Corbyn didnt get elected, we would have probably become another China or Russia

Edited March 23, 2021 by banjodeano