Jump to content


Pro Democracy Riot Bristol

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by banjodeano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

....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

The upside is that if enough people vote Labour at the next GE and Labour get in then they could then repeal that law. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, apelike said:

The upside is that if enough people vote Labour at the next GE and Labour get in then they could then repeal that law. :)

See the pigs, @apelike?🤣

Edited by RollingJ

Share this post


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

The upside is that if enough people vote Labour at the next GE and Labour get in then they could then repeal that law. :)

If  indeed labour get in ....then very  little will change, Starmer is now part of the club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it politicians fail to learn from history?  This legislation, if successful, will have the opposite effect of its intensions.  It will engender more protests, demonstrations and inevitably more riots.  They really should learn a bit more about the history of the country they are trying to govern, especially in Bristol, which saw the worst rioting of the 19th century in 1831.  Protest is, and always has been, the last resort to effect change.  What we do need urgently is a change of Government but that ain't going to happen any time soon.

 

I was listening to Radio Sheffield the other day when Toby Foster was interviewing an elderly lady tree protester who was arrested for tooting a horn.  She was cleared of any wrong-doing but it does highlight the potential of this bill in giving the police too much power.  The notion of 'policing by consent' will be sorely tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst thing about all this is the hand wringing from MPs being interviewed with the way their opening statement is

 

"the best way to democratically protest is at the ballot box"

 

Yeah, right, like that's gonna work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the fact that arrests were made again yesterday in Bristol justify why the authorities  need more powers to prevent or breakup these protests?  It wasn't right that the save the planet mob were allowed to cause chaos in London for weeks or the EDL mob were allowed to make Rotherham town centre a no go area for several Saturdays a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Doesn't the fact that arrests were made again yesterday in Bristol justify why the authorities  need more powers to prevent or breakup these protests?  It wasn't right that the save the planet mob were allowed to cause chaos in London for weeks or the EDL mob were allowed to make Rotherham town centre a no go area for several Saturdays a few years ago.

The laws are already there to shift and arrest violent protests. Sadly the numbers of police aren't as the Tories cut them back by 20k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

The laws are already there to shift and arrest violent protests. Sadly the numbers of police aren't as the Tories cut them back by 20k.

Surely it's better to have news laws to prevent violence on the streets rather than having more numbers of police to arrest those doing the violence. Your logic is the same as increasing the size of the fire service rather than having safety legislation to reduce the number of fires caused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Surely it's better to have news laws to prevent violence on the streets rather than having more numbers of police to arrest those doing the violence. Your logic is the same as increasing the size of the fire service rather than having safety legislation to reduce the number of fires caused.

I think youre making things up now. These laws prevent protest, not violence. You have had plenty of big, noisy, peaceful demonstrations - across the political spectrum. They can now be stopped because the home Secretary or police commander on the ground doesn't like it. 

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.