Removal of protest rights
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
ChrisJC
Well-known member
Badlad said: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.
Surely it is the duty of the police to allow people to go about their lawful business. Whether that be printing scurrilous rags, or the Guardian, as long as it is lawful, the ability to do so should be upheld.
And so whether it is one person preventing that, or an angry mob whipped up by ignorance, doesn't matter.
I guess the Police think they have sufficient powers for a few people, but for a large scale disruptive demonstration, presumably not.
I will have to read up on these proposals I think to see if they are over-reaching. Mind you, we have the 'Uman Rights' legislation as a counterpoint, which I think allows peaceful demonstrations.
So all that will really happen is that the Government will waste a lot of money on lawyers when there is a test case.
Chris.
ttxela2
Active member
I wonder how many totally peaceful non-disruptive protests really acheive anything?
It's perhaps not necessary to torch a police car and put a few windows in and this is the level of disruption that should be controlled - but there's always a slight degree of inconvenience caused by a protest even if it's just a couple of minutes delay getting to the office because of a crowd. Stopping even noise seems to tip the balance too far.
Even governments when they want to protest about another government set out to cause some sort of disruption, whether it's expelling diplomats or imposing sanctions etc.
It's perhaps not necessary to torch a police car and put a few windows in and this is the level of disruption that should be controlled - but there's always a slight degree of inconvenience caused by a protest even if it's just a couple of minutes delay getting to the office because of a crowd. Stopping even noise seems to tip the balance too far.
Even governments when they want to protest about another government set out to cause some sort of disruption, whether it's expelling diplomats or imposing sanctions etc.
royfellows
Well-known member
Just springing off what Alex has said, I have had many a trip to Wales inconvenienced because I could not get to the M54 due to jams caused by a regular car boot sale.
Of course, the organisers and attendees have not done that deliberately, and their stewards have attempted to minimise inconvenience to through traffic.
This is rather different to deliberately causing maximum disruption.
However, it is valid point of view is that historically objectives such as the women's right to vote have only been achieved by disruptive means, so its all a very mootable.
The thread title "Removal of protest rights" inferrers that what is being considered is the removal of the democratic right to hold demonstrations and protests, this is in itself incorrect and misleading.
Of course, the organisers and attendees have not done that deliberately, and their stewards have attempted to minimise inconvenience to through traffic.
This is rather different to deliberately causing maximum disruption.
However, it is valid point of view is that historically objectives such as the women's right to vote have only been achieved by disruptive means, so its all a very mootable.
The thread title "Removal of protest rights" inferrers that what is being considered is the removal of the democratic right to hold demonstrations and protests, this is in itself incorrect and misleading.
sinker
New member
Fishes said:
Criminal Damage?! That is pre-meditated. So something of mine of value around ?4500, my van or motorbike or my new oak front door gets totally wrecked and the perpetrator gets 3 months? I don't see that as proportionate! It's not just the value of the damage but the grief and stress and consequential loss should be factored in too. I'm a great believer in rehabilitation but the punishment message needs to be shouted loud and clear at the same time.
pwhole
Well-known member
The police are largely being asked to perform contradictory duties by essentially the same group of people, with too little funding and too few staff. The social context of these issues is so complex that trying to resolve them via a pop-up protest (or another web-based self-promotional rant to Victoria Derbyshire) is pretty much impossible. The demographic situation in London is also so different to the rest of the country that it is very difficult to create a countrywide solution to a problem that's largely weighted to quite specific social groupings within the Metropolis. They're far younger, far singler, have more money and have far more to do with their money than most people in provincial cities could ever dream of. They also have the most unfriendly and hostile environment to poor people and strangers - everyone's a potential threat until proven otherwise.
The solution posited this morning, of adding 20,000 beat police to protect women's safety, is precisely the opposite of what many of the same people normally want (less police). Obviously I'm generalising, but trying to guess what twelve million people all want simultaneously is equally challenging for the police, especially when you're being told to implement 'something' by corrupt losers who can just fire you when they get embarrassed. Their solutions always keep themselves in place.
But my lived experience in Sheffield on a day-to-day basis is almost totally removed from what it was working in London last year, and what my friends who live there experience every day - it may as well be a different country in terms of policy.
The solution posited this morning, of adding 20,000 beat police to protect women's safety, is precisely the opposite of what many of the same people normally want (less police). Obviously I'm generalising, but trying to guess what twelve million people all want simultaneously is equally challenging for the police, especially when you're being told to implement 'something' by corrupt losers who can just fire you when they get embarrassed. Their solutions always keep themselves in place.
But my lived experience in Sheffield on a day-to-day basis is almost totally removed from what it was working in London last year, and what my friends who live there experience every day - it may as well be a different country in terms of policy.
pwhole
Well-known member
And, as if by magic:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/16/project-vigilant-what-are-the-measures-boris-johnson-announced
Plainclothes police officers could patrol bars and nightclubs around England and Wales, as part of plans to protect women from predatory offenders, it has been announced, after peers forced the prime minister?s arm.
I do hope that someone (other than me) will remind them that many people (including women), specifically go to nightclubs to, erm, meet other people, dance with them and, erm, possibly have sex with them later. Even I've done it. So a plainclothes police officer (man or woman?) now has to determine whether a guy is feeling a woman's tits because she asked him to, or because he's taking advantage of her being pissed. Possibly both. At 140 bpm and 110dB, with strobes.
Good luck with that one
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/16/project-vigilant-what-are-the-measures-boris-johnson-announced
Plainclothes police officers could patrol bars and nightclubs around England and Wales, as part of plans to protect women from predatory offenders, it has been announced, after peers forced the prime minister?s arm.
I do hope that someone (other than me) will remind them that many people (including women), specifically go to nightclubs to, erm, meet other people, dance with them and, erm, possibly have sex with them later. Even I've done it. So a plainclothes police officer (man or woman?) now has to determine whether a guy is feeling a woman's tits because she asked him to, or because he's taking advantage of her being pissed. Possibly both. At 140 bpm and 110dB, with strobes.
Good luck with that one
ttxela2 said:
Er, the keepers had sticks and were waiting as were the police. Here's an account.
"Once they reached William Clough, two piercing whistles from the trespassers sounded. By now, the skyline was riddled with a large number of gamekeepers, many armed with large sticks. Following a third whistle, the trespassers began running up the hill towards those protecting private property. Brief but violent scuffles ensued between the ramblers and gamekeepers, in which the trespassers emerged victorious; running through prohibited land together, singing ?The Red Flag? and ?The Internationale,? they met fellow ramblers from Sheffield on the ?other side? who had succeeded in reaching the plateau.
Rothman described in later life the sense of liberation experienced by the ramblers. On the ?holiest of holies ? the forbidden territory of Kinder,? hundreds of working people had asserted their right to explore their beautiful country at will.
However, this feeling was to be all too short-lived. In the scuffles, a keeper had been injured, and the huge police presence at Hayfield was still there, waiting to arrest ramblers. The trespassers agreed that they would march back to Hayfield together ?with their heads held high.? As Rothman was to write later, they refused to feel ashamed ? the trespass was ?a demonstration for the rights of ordinary people to walk on land stolen from them in earlier times.?
Of those arrested ? Tona Gillett, Julius Clyne, John Anderson, Harry Mendel, David Nussbaum, and Benny Rothman ? none were over the age of twenty-three. The fact that the majority of the defendants were Jews clearly irritated the jury, and that one defendant was arrested with a copy of a Lenin text also provoked outrage.
?We ramblers,? Benny Rothman declared to the prosecution, ?after a hard week?s work, [living] in smoky towns and cities, go out rambling on weekends for relaxation, for a breath of fresh air, and for a little sunshine. And we find, when we go out, that the finest rambling country is closed to us. Because certain individuals wish to shoot for about ten days per annum, we are forced to walk on muddy crowded paths, and denied the pleasure of enjoying, to the utmost, the countryside.?
He claimed that his demand, for working-class people to be granted ?access to all peaks and uncultivated moorland,? was ?not unreasonable.? However, a grand jury of two brigadier generals, three colonels, two majors, three captains, two aldermen, and eleven aristocrats did not agree. The trial was a foregone conclusion, and all of the men were charged with various charges relating to riotous assembly and assault and jailed for upwards of six months. "
sinker said:
Yes I still think that's proportionate. Even a short prison sentence can have a massive effect on someone's life, often leading to the loss of the offenders job or home. For repeat offenders it could actually mean a lot more time inside as they are potentially already on parole.
royfellows
Well-known member
As more comment
In a democratic society all are equal, (or should be) and everyone has rights, (or should have)
In this context, "equal" means exactly what it says on the tin, not "equal" as in the famous George Orwell quote from "Animal Farm".
"Rights" again must spring off equality, and apply to all, even for the Wayne Couzens of the world.
Problem is that its impossible to enforce the rights of some, without taking away some of the rights of others. So in this situation the principle of democracy must prevail in attempting to strike a balance.
In a democratic society all are equal, (or should be) and everyone has rights, (or should have)
In this context, "equal" means exactly what it says on the tin, not "equal" as in the famous George Orwell quote from "Animal Farm".
"Rights" again must spring off equality, and apply to all, even for the Wayne Couzens of the world.
Problem is that its impossible to enforce the rights of some, without taking away some of the rights of others. So in this situation the principle of democracy must prevail in attempting to strike a balance.
ttxela2
Active member
Badlad said:
Indeed, and I'm not taking a stance against the trespassers, it seems comparable to current issues, the police were assisting the authorities in attempting to prevent a protest, they acted in a way that was heavy handed but judged to be legal and so the protest turned violent, an argument could be made that violence was necessary to the success of the protest. If once faced with the keepers and police the trespassers had stood down and dispersed it would probably have been a bit of a non-event and been forgotten.....
It's an uncomfortable argument and I'm not advocating violence but the current proposals are talking about noise, perhaps best regarded as a more palatable alternative to violence.
If I was looking to protest about a marginal cause that was struggling to get attention and this became law I'd make sure I was the first to arrange a noisy but otherwise peaceful protest. The inevitable heavy handed response by authorities keen to try out their new powers would be very easy to make look ridiculous.
ttxela2
Active member
royfellows said:
Absolutely
But I'd argue that although people should have equal rights, not all rights should have equal weighting. The right to protest against a social injustice may outweigh the right of Malcolm from accounts in a nearby 3rd floor office to not be slightly distracted from his spreadsheet.
JoshW
Well-known member
pwhole said:And, as if by magic:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/16/project-vigilant-what-are-the-measures-boris-johnson-announced
Plainclothes police officers could patrol bars and nightclubs around England and Wales, as part of plans to protect women from predatory offenders, it has been announced, after peers forced the prime minister?s arm.
I do hope that someone (other than me) will remind them that many people (including women), specifically go to nightclubs to, erm, meet other people, dance with them and, erm, possibly have sex with them later. Even I've done it. So a plainclothes police officer (man or woman?) now has to determine whether a guy is feeling a woman's tits because she asked him to, or because he's taking advantage of her being pissed. Possibly both. At 140 bpm and 110dB, with strobes.
Good luck with that one
Also won't be long into this that there are allegations that one of these plain-clothes officers was doing the groping themselves, and the met will be forced to come out and defend it...
sinker
New member
pwhole said:
I heard about this on the radio on the way in to work this morning....I couldn't believe my ears.
How many plainclothes officers do they think they will need to have any effect? One in every bar and club and house party in the country?
Whoever made that suggestion was probably sat in a winged leather armchair in front of a roaring fire in a conservative club somewhere; never seen a groping since 1957.
ttxela2
Active member
sinker said:Whoever made that suggestion was probably sat in a winged leather armchair in front of a roaring fire in a conservative club somewhere; never seen a groping since 1957.
"How did you deduce that fellow was about to commit a hideous indiscretion Sherlock?"
"Elementary Watson, he had the over elaborate moustache that denotes the cad and the bounder but it was confirmed by the gold buttons on his blazer"
