Pro Democracy Riot Bristol

[apelike]

1 hour ago, Delbow said:

To state once that the proposed bill only targets non-peaceful protests is excusable, if you genuinely don't know. To repeat it after it's been pointed out to you already that it's not true is incredibly dishonest. 

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.

Edited March 22, 2021 by apelike

[Anna B]

10 hours ago, AKAMD said:

Be careful what you wish for!  No right-minded person would support the rioting seen at Bristol but neither would they want an authoritarian regime like China, Russia, etc.  The bill that the protest was about is exactly about that issue.  The government are introducing Draconian policies on the back of other issues that we all support.  Need to look at the small print before signing up for it.  Do you really want water cannons on the streets?  Armed police or soldiers on every street corner?  Ten years for being involved in a legitimate protest?  Not I!

I agree.

[banjodeano]

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

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by banjodeano

[L00b]

2 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

 

You will eventually find out, rest assured.
 

Johnson’s government of authoritarian kleptocrats is clearly emulating a working and proven precedent and you have 4 more years of it coming.
 

(the averred ties between both regimes must be purely coincidental, of course)

[Delbow]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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.