How not to treat...

[northernladuk]

It sounds like a bit of a slippery slope to me.

I'd agree. No large scale demonstration has ever gone well enough to please everyone so no rules or regulations will help. It is what it is so just try do the best before hand and shoulder the fall out after and get on with it.

That said with everyone there have been a small minority hell bent of making trouble and I can't believe this one is any different. I don't believe for one minute the police are ever 100% at fault here and mob rule distorts the story but as I say, it has always been so as long as it's properly looked at and more lessons learned and improvements made then we just wait till the next one protest about whatever and rinse and repeat.

[SueEllen]

I've been protesting in one way or another for around 30 years. And I absolutely refuse to listen to Liberty's views on anything. You will note in their piece they fail to explain how protests are to be limited, for example, nor what the effects are, merely rolling out the same old left wing polemic.

HTH. BIDI.

That was the first piece I dug up.

There are other sources on the bill.

[d000hg]

and this is why you are part of the problem.

We're all applauding how tremendously brave you are to stand up for women on an internet forum with some trendy stock phrases.

[malvolio]

That was the first piece I dug up.

There are other sources on the bill.

OK, so let's try an official summation of the controversial provisions in the new bill. Which bits do you have a problem with?

[SueEllen]

OK, so let's try an official summation of the controversial provisions in the new bill. Which bits do you have a problem with?

All these -

-Clauses 54 to 56 and 60 would amend police powers in the Public Order Act 1986 so police can impose conditions on protests that are noisy enough to cause “intimidation or harassment” or “serious unease, alarm or distress” to bystanders.

-Clause 59 would abolish the common law offence of public nuisance and replace it with a new statutory offence of “intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”.

-create a new offence of “residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle”.

-amend the existing police powers associated with unauthorised encampments in the CJPOA to lower the threshold at which they can be used, allow the police to remove unauthorised encampments on (or partly on) highways and prohibit unauthorised encampments moved from a site from returning within twelve months.



While they are aimed at ER protests it means that other protests, demonstrations and vigils can fall under them. For example the Far Right protests regularly. I find them intimidating like a lot of people. This law means that every single one of their protests would be banned under Clauses 54 to 56 and 60 if someone in the local area galvanises enough people to complain.

University students have a history of doing sit-ins. All of them will now be criminalised.

[malvolio]

All these -

-Clauses 54 to 56 and 60 would amend police powers in the Public Order Act 1986 so police can impose conditions on protests that are noisy enough to cause “intimidation or harassment” or “serious unease, alarm or distress” to bystanders.

-Clause 59 would abolish the common law offence of public nuisance and replace it with a new statutory offence of “intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”.

-create a new offence of “residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle”.

-amend the existing police powers associated with unauthorised encampments in the CJPOA to lower the threshold at which they can be used, allow the police to remove unauthorised encampments on (or partly on) highways and prohibit unauthorised encampments moved from a site from returning within twelve months.



While they are aimed at ER protests it means that other protests, demonstrations and vigils can fall under them. For example the Far Right protests regularly. I find them intimidating like a lot of people. This law means that every single one of their protests would be banned under Clauses 54 to 56 and 60 if someone in the local area galvanises enough people to complain.

University students have a history of doing sit-ins. All of them will now be criminalised.

Nonsense. A protest is a gathering of like minded people to demonstrate a given concern is held by as many people as can turn up and be heard. It is not intended to distress people who aren't involved, to block roads, to leave people in fear of a riot or any other hindrance to their enjoyment of a peaceful life. Students doing a sit in are only inconveniencing themselves and other students, not the public at large.

It's perfectly simple. Protest sensibly and you won't be disturbed. Which is rather what happened on Clapham Common.

[SueEllen]

Nonsense. A protest is a gathering of like minded people to demonstrate a given concern is held by as many people as can turn up and be heard. It is not intended to distress people who aren't involved, to block roads, to leave people in fear of a riot or any other hindrance to their enjoyment of a peaceful life.

So says a man to a woman....

[Zigenare]

So says a man to a woman....

That didn't take long, did it? You lost the argument so played the "sex" card. How novel.

[SueEllen]

That didn't take long, did it? You lost the argument so played the "sex" card. How novel.

I was actually going to give a longer argument but that was the simplest.

The point about terms like "serious unease" is they are subjective. So in the case of a Far Right protest I could galvanise loads of Muslim women to say they felt threatened. Then if I needed to take my case further I would make sure those speaking up are all short and hijab wearing.

[d000hg]

That didn't take long, did it? You lost the argument so played the "sex" card. How novel.

I hear some of the more liberal colleges are having real problems with male lecturers 'mansplaining' to female students.