Reply to: Snooker loopy!

[SueEllen]

Yeah but wasn't there also another judge, or was it the solicitors that refused to prosecute them as they were doing it for a cause as well? Dangerous ground that.

Barristers.

[d000hg]

We should ban all protesting, because it upsets people too much.

Hyperbolic much? Damage to private property in a private venue is not legitimate protest, which is entirely to be protected. Neither is any other law-breaking activity.

[vetran]

Luckily this specific clown has vowed not to pollute the earth by having offspring so let us encourage this trend.

[northernladuk]

There was a piece in PE the other week. One Judge is fed up of these 'protesters' using his court to grandstand their views to the Jury before sentencing. He's banned them (I think 105 of them) from mentioning their 'cause' in the witness box, under contempt of court rules. Sounds sensible to me, so is unlikely to last.

Yeah but wasn't there also another judge, or was it the solicitors that refused to prosecute them as they were doing it for a cause as well? Dangerous ground that.

[NigelJK]

There was a piece in PE the other week. One Judge is fed up of these 'protesters' using his court to grandstand their views to the Jury before sentencing. He's banned them (I think 105 of them) from mentioning their 'cause' in the witness box, under contempt of court rules. Sounds sensible to me, so is unlikely to last.

[northernladuk]

Unfortunately the PSCS Act of 2022 kinda infringes on the right to protest, such as if they make a bit of noise in a public space, or if a person involved in a protest might have broken a condition of the protest that they were not aware existed, or if someone reports them for being a nuisance.

The Human Rights Act Article 11 covers the right to protest

Article 11Freedom of assembly and association


1Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

Unfortunately (or not depending on what side you are on) there are limitations on those rights, just like any other rights. It's a right, not carte blanche to do what you want.

The right to protest and freedom of association can be limited in certain circumstances.

Any limitation must:

• be covered by law
• be necessary and proportionate
• pursue one or more of these aims:
  • the interests of national security or public safety
  • the prevention of disorder or crime
  • the protection of health or morals
  • the protection of others’ rights and freedoms.

So I'd say no the PSCS Act of 2022 doesn't actually infringe on those rights, the right has to fit the limitations on it. It just keeps those rights in line with the law and the like. Right to protest does not mean right to break the law and do what you want. You can protest within the current laws. Granted some of those laws may need looking at and are evolving but still, every right has limitations.

Bit like freedom of speech has limitations. It's not a free for all, you have that right but still have a duty to behave responsibly and within the law. It also doesn't mean you have the right to say what you want and not get punched in the face for it. Yes the law will deal with teh attacker but your right isn't an impenatrable shield.

[WTFH]

They've absolutely got the right to protest whatever the topic... Right to protest, of course.

Unfortunately the PSCS Act of 2022 kinda infringes on the right to protest, such as if they make a bit of noise in a public space, or if a person involved in a protest might have broken a condition of the protest that they were not aware existed, or if someone reports them for being a nuisance.

[northernladuk]

We should ban all protesting, because it upsets people too much.

Is that the solution?

Do we lock up the lunatics that are going mental over a Welsh name being used?
What about the ones that protest outside asylum centres?

Nope. They've absolutely got the right to protest whatever the topic. There is a grey area about disruption and inconvenience but there is a very clear line about crossing in to illegality. They can do what they want but they have to be held to the same laws everyone else does. Right to protest, of course. Criminal damage, absolutely not.

[vetran]

We should ban all protesting, because it upsets people too much.

Is that the solution?

Do we lock up the lunatics that are going mental over a Welsh name being used?
What about the ones that protest outside asylum centres?

No but we should punish those who cause criminal damage and prevent it happening again. That is what the law exists for.

If they dressed up as flames or extinct animals and danced across Trafalgar square they would get enough column inches.

[WTFH]

We should ban all protesting, because it upsets people too much.

Is that the solution?

Do we lock up the lunatics that are going mental over a Welsh name being used?
What about the ones that protest outside asylum centres?

[vetran]

Should be an absolute no brainer to charge them for repairs. Whatever their cause, noble or not, you simply cannot go around damaging stuff and not being responsible. Costs of interruptions to the event, tickets etc is questionable (well not really IMO) but direct cost or repairs, cleaning up etc has got to sit with the protester. It blows my mind that these people can turn up, cause damage and then just walk away from it. They keep getting let off whatever they do but this is criminal damage plain and simple.

They can do what they want, but they've got to bear the cost surely. Madness.

agree completely. Follow it up with house arrest on tag where they turn off all the utilities let them experience caveman living.

[northernladuk]

Complete Tw@ts and he should be made to pay for a new table as well as whatever penalties can be applied

Should be an absolute no brainer to charge them for repairs. Whatever their cause, noble or not, you simply cannot go around damaging stuff and not being responsible. Costs of interruptions to the event, tickets etc is questionable (well not really IMO) but direct cost or repairs, cleaning up etc has got to sit with the protester. It blows my mind that these people can turn up, cause damage and then just walk away from it. They keep getting let off whatever they do but this is criminal damage plain and simple.

They can do what they want, but they've got to bear the cost surely. Madness.

[NotAllThere]

Was the paint oil based?

[Paralytic]

"and for those of you who are watching in black and white, the pink is next to the orange"

[d000hg]

One went for the other table but was tackled by the ref - well done that man.

They didn't show it live but the compere (in full immaculate 3-piece suit) was frantically hoovering the paint off the table in an attempt to get play resumed which is quite nice.

The headline really should be "something exciting happens at world snooker championships"