Here is something our wonderful Priti Petel is trying to sneak through, basically our rights to protest post pandemic. This is important, we need to stop this.

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/03/11/silencing-black-lives-matter-priti-patels-anti-protest-law/?fbclid=IwAR2vhN5oobOGHT809MveAFbeNGLBVv9b4i-v2uXcQJJ4fqJU8kazJVYExRg&cmpconsent&cmpnoniab&cmpreprompthash&cmpredirect

Basically it will be illegal to make a noise while protesting, making the whole idea pointless. She really does want a police state. I bet she will try and bring it in while we can't actually protest against this new law due to the pandemic rules too.

Pragmatically, it's going to be very difficult for the police to intervene effectively in a big, noisy, 'peaceful' protest without triggering a worse confrontation. I predict that after the first riot this causes, there will be a huge outcry. The police and home office will come in for severe criticism for being heavy-handed and, whether due to a change in the law or tacit agreement, we'll return more-or-less to where we are now. 

However, the principle is worrying and small protests may be vulnerable. I haven't read the draft bill and it would be interesting to get a legal opinion on its likely effects. If it is as bad as you suggest, it should be resisted.

Speleofish said:

Pragmatically, it's going to be very difficult for the police to intervene effectively in a big, noisy, 'peaceful' protest without triggering a worse confrontation. I predict that after the first riot this causes, there will be a huge outcry. The police and home office will come in for severe criticism for being heavy-handed and, whether due to a change in the law or tacit agreement, we'll return more-or-less to where we are now. ...

Click to expand...

Or, on the other hand, if attempts to silence protesters give rise to a riot, that will be seen as a justification for even more sever restrictions on expressions of dissent.


.

The bias in that article is unfortunate.
" It is cancel culture on a statutory footing, directed against the left. "
I see nothing specific about the left after that, but I am now dubious about the veracity of the article.

Neverthess, the House of Lords are there to scrutinise Bills like this and ensure that they do not over-reach. Which is one benefit of them.

Chris.

In reply to Graigwen, I think if a peaceful protest turns into a riot following police intervention, the media will probably side with the protesters, not the police. On the other hand, if a bit-of-a-riot escalates, the media are likely to side with the police.

It does have the ring of one of those rather bizarre proposals that never makes it very far through the process, it seems to check out in terms of the basics though as it's reported elsewhere.

I spend much of my time thinking how silly conspiracy theorists are and those who worry about The Great Reset, the New World Order, Bill Gates, 5g etc. etc.

Then along comes something like this and you just slightly wonder.......

It's not without form from the Tories. Theresa May had some pretty bizarre ideas when she was Home Secretary too, which tainted her a lot for me.

Chris.

ChrisJC said:

The bias in that article is unfortunate.

Neverthess, the House of Lords are there to scrutinise Bills like this and ensure that they do not over-reach. Which is one benefit of them.

Chris.

Click to expand...

Tagging 'Black Lives Matter' in the top line is also unfortunate. Not to mention sensationalist.

Its such a sensitive subject that everyone pricks up their ears and has their lawyer on speed-dial.

A lot of people will read that and think "They are trying to silence BLM" and then glaze over before they read the whole article.

It did get me thinking though, how sinister you could make a completely silent protest........

Also, realistically, for a 'police state' to exist you need a lot of police - which we don't have. The only time I see the police in my street is when they stop to pick up a kebab, miraculously missing all the obvious minor crimes going on all around them. They either don't have time or can't be bothered. Even countries that do have police states are now finding out that it doesn't work quite as well when the whole world is watching, to quote a popular phrase. Their oh-so-brave leaders hide in bunkers all day long, they're so tough. I wouldn't worry too much. Name one cabinet minister you're actually afraid of, or even respect - 90% of them are totally talentless losers.

After the last couple of weeks of hysteria, it's clear no-one's thinking straight, in much of the public, the media, the government or the police, and everyone's so desperate to be seen to be 'right on' to their particular interest group (or promote themselves as a 'brand') that logic is going out of the window in many discussions. In many ways I'm thoroughly enjoying the latest outbursts of dysfunction, not least as it shows our 'leaders' to be largely followers, and that we do have it in our hands to substantially improve society ourselves. But getting all shrill and preachy just pisses everyone off, so a modicum of cool is also required - sadly lacking from most public commentary at the moment.

Neverthess, the House of Lords are there to scrutinise Bills like this and ensure that they do not over-reach. Which is one benefit of them.

Click to expand...

Only as seen in the past, the government is completely free to ignore them.

" It is cancel culture on a statutory footing, directed against the left. "
I see nothing specific about the left after that, but I am now dubious about the veracity of the article.

Neverthess, the House of Lords are there to scrutinise Bills like this and ensure that they do not over-reach. Which is one benefit of them.

Click to expand...

Let me dig out another one then...

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/mar/11/civil-liberties-groups-call-police-plans-for-demos-an-assault-on-right-to-protest

Unfortunately it seems the left are the only ones who are concerned about civil rights...

pwhole said:

Name one cabinet minister you're actually afraid of, or even respect - 90% of them are totally talentless losers.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, well, fear in the sense that they might go totally rogue and declare war because someone looked at their pint funny or something*, probably none of them to be fair. Fear that they might do something rather misguided that has a very negative effect immediately, perhaps one or two, Ms Patel being among them. Fear that they may do something ill advised that over a longer period has a negative effect perhaps a few more. Fear that through inaction or self-interest they may neglect to do something positive that may delay improvements for society - probably most of them......

*Yes, I know individual ministers can't declare war but, ya know......

Another article here

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/mar/11/civil-liberties-groups-call-police-plans-for-demos-an-assault-on-right-to-protest

I do think this is quite frankly ridiculous, police already abuse their powers far too much and don't need any more excuses to do so.

The only super significant protest movements we've had recently have been the climate strikes and Black Lives Matter, both of which were advocating for crucial human rights such as racial justice, climate justice, etc. So I view this really as an effort to uphold the status quo and quench those trying to resist oppression.

Not everyone will agree and that's fine of course, but this is my view on it anyway

Bills like this are always presented as more Draconian than the proposer actually expects to get passed, unfortunately you do have to watch out as occasionally they get through unscathed...

I've given this quite a bit of thought and I'm actually more concerned now than when I first heard about it.

I would like to think that the police mishandling of the Sarah Everard vigil might have some influence on it, but we have a government with many right wingers and a hefty majority that can push unpopular policies through.

The well known poem by Martin Niem?ller should never be forgotten.

Up to 10 years for damaging a statue! That's what you'd expect in China or Russia.

When you consider that a rapist will typically serve only 5 years (if the case even goes to court) it hardly seems proportionate. Those fantasists who still think the British Empire was a great thing clearly think this is much more serious though.

I wonder how much recourse Avon and Somerset Police have already put into finding those "guilty of criminal damage" for the toppling of Edwards Coulson's statue.

Criminal damage (other than by fire) value not exceeding ?5,000 has a maximum sentence of 3 months custody, the 10 years is a maximum dependant on much greater value than that. Rape is a maximum of life - not remotely comparable.

It seems to me that the police are being set up to become much more the protectors of the state, rather than protectors of the people.  Ten years of cuts reducing the engagements with the communities and now this sort of thing.  According to Pritti Patel in the commons yesterday one of the main reasons for these measures is because protesters stopped the production of the Murdoch press newspapers for a day.  I know a lot of people who would consider that a good thing.