Pro Democracy Riot Bristol

[apelike]

35 minutes ago, Delbow said:

I can't work out if some people are just defending their chosen political party because that's what they always do, or if they're just too dense to see the problem.

But that is exactly what you are doing and you are also using emotive language to justify your position. It's a bit like the brexit debate trying to make out that those who didn't agree with them and voted for brexit were thick uneducated racists.

[tinfoilhat]

4 minutes ago, apelike said:

But that is exactly what you are doing and you are also using emotive language to justify your position. It's a bit like the brexit debate trying to make out that those who didn't agree with them and voted for brexit were thick uneducated racists.

"We need to stop violent protests"

"We already can"

"Then we need a bill to stop protests we don't like" 

[Delbow]

12 minutes ago, apelike said:

But that is exactly what you are doing and you are also using emotive language to justify your position. It's a bit like the brexit debate trying to make out that those who didn't agree with them and voted for brexit were thick uneducated racists.

I don't have a chosen political party. And I gave a well-reasoned argument with reference to the Bill, as you requested, which you then just ignored because it suited you to do so. I think it's your turn to be set a task:

 

Scenario: the UK government declares war on another country in the first six months of a new parliament, so people can't vote them out for about another 5 years. About 80% people in the UK oppose the war, and a protest is organised in central London. It looks like it is going to be big. The government don't want the protest to go ahead, because they want to be able to do what they want and not what the majority of the population want. Several members of the government stand to personally gain hugely financially if the war goes ahead. The Home Secretary declares that the protest is likely to cause serious disruption and therefore uses this legislation to outlaw the protest. Some people turn up anyway and are fined thousands of pounds for doing so. 

 

What in the Bill as it is now would prevent this scenario from happening?

[apelike]

It's a hypothetical scenario just like the hypothetical scenario about the new bill and what the Home Secretary could do and nothing more. So no, I won't bite. 

[Delbow]

2 minutes ago, apelike said:

It's a hypothetical scenario just like the hypothetical scenario about the new bill and what the Home Secretary could do and nothing more. So no, I won't bite. 

That is a cowardly response.

[apelike]

Already mentioned this before but read article 15 on Derogation.

 

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

 

At times of war a country can basically do as it likes including suspending many of your human rights, so bill or no bill makes no difference.

[Delbow]

2 minutes ago, apelike said:

Already mentioned this before but read article 15 on Derogation.

 

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

 

At times of war a country can basically do as it likes including suspending many of your human rights, so bill or no bill makes no difference.

Weird that you would want to stick so literally to a hypothetical. Ok, the protest is not about a war, it's about restricting voting rights - they want to set the mimimum age for voting to 42.

[apelike]

You still don't get it. In a hypothetical situation there is no right or wrong answer so the outcomes become limitless.

[Delbow]

So there would be nothing to stop the government making that protest unlawful by using the Bill as it's currently written. Which we all know anyway.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Delbow

[AKAMD]

In 2003 there were huge demonstrations when the Labour Government took us to war in Iraq; not hypothetical.  Had such a law been on the statute book then what do you think the outcome would have been?  I suggest more rioting and violent clashes between protesters and police!