Bad Dick

[SueEllen]

And that's how it should be. The new law covers the other sort.

Interesting (or perhaps innerestingly) an acquaintance is a vocal anti-abortion campaigner, working for one of the larger charities championing this cause. He is concerned about this bill, that it might mean police can shut down their outreach work for being "offensive". I don't personally think that's likely.

If they are handing leaflets out to women and protesting outside abortion clinics, even if it is a silent protest, then there are already laws that can be used to stop them. But yes this law could be used to shut them down.


It's the same if black cab drivers block a road in centre London and honk their horns as they have done before.

[d000hg]

I have been on protests. Most protests are peaceful.

And that's how it should be. The new law covers the other sort.

Interesting (or perhaps innerestingly) an acquaintance is a vocal anti-abortion campaigner, working for one of the larger charities championing this cause. He is concerned about this bill, that it might mean police can shut down their outreach work for being "offensive". I don't personally think that's likely.

[SueEllen]

What a funny you made there. And no you are still free to protest. Not that you ever would of course?

I have been on protests. Most protests are peaceful.

[d000hg]

Anyway doesn't matter as Priti Awful's bill means you can't protest anyway if your protest distresses people.

What a funny you made there. And no you are still free to protest. Not that you ever would of course?

[malvolio]

It was obvious at the time when other police forces around the country didn't end up making news headlines as they let them quietly go ahead.

Anyway doesn't matter as Priti Awful's bill means you can't protest anyway if your protest distresses people.

Rubbish. The bill is about preventing disruptive or criminal protests or those that may lead to damage to property (and police-led intelligence is smart enough to know about that in advance...). The Sarah Everard vigil would not qualify.

The Met leadership is everything that is wrong with modern policing.

[SueEllen]

It was obvious at the time when other police forces around the country didn't end up making news headlines as they let them quietly go ahead.

Anyway doesn't matter as Priti Awful's bill means you can't protest anyway if your protest distresses people.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60707646


The Met Police breached the rights of the organisers of a planned vigil for Sarah Everard, two judges have ruled.

The group had to cancel the event after the Met said it would be illegal to stage it under lockdown restrictions.

However, hundreds of people attended an unofficial gathering on Clapham Common in south London to pay their respects to Ms Everard, who was murdered by a serving Met officer, Wayne Couzens.

The vigil, on 13 March, saw clashes between police and some of those there.

At a two-day hearing at the High Court in January, Jessica Leigh, Anna Birley, Henna Shah and Jamie Klingler argued that decisions made by the force in advance of the planned vigil amounted to a breach of their right to freedom of speech and assembly.

In a statement after the ruling, the women's solicitor Theodora Middleton said: "Today's judgment is a victory for women.

"Last March, women's voices were silenced. Today's judgment conclusively shows that the police were wrong to silence us.

"The decisions and actions by the Met Police in the run-up to the planned vigil for Sarah Everard last year were unlawful and the judgment sets a powerful precedent for protest rights.

"We came together one year and one day ago to organise a vigil on Clapham Common because Sarah Everard went missing from our neighbourhood. We felt sad and afraid.

"We were angry that women still weren't safe and we were tired of the burden to stay safe always weighing on our shoulders."