Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

United Kingdom VII: Taking Pride in Your Success

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Each statue will be protected by one nuclear warhead.

    Comment


      If a woman thinks she is being pursued by a sexual predator, they just need to keep perfectly still.

      It's not because the predator's eyesight is movement-based like a t-rex, it's because statues have more rights and protection than women.

      Comment


        Alternatively, any threatened ladies could call their CommunitySilo local hub (open 9am-5pm Monday to Friday) and give their GPS co-ordinates for a tactical nuclear strike.

        CommunitySilo: A joint initiative by the Home Office and G4S. Making communities safer, one launch at a time.

        Comment


          I think I used to have a voice,
          Now I never make a sound,
          I just do what I've been told...

          Comment


            Taking away the right to protest makes me want to protest.

            Comment


              Originally posted by QualityChimp View Post
              Taking away the right to protest makes me want to protest.
              Is this actually true?

              Comment


                Originally posted by fishbowlhead View Post
                Is this actually true?
                You can get up to 10 years for causing a "Serious annoyance", which is kind of the point of a protest.

                I never understand why people are confused when other people's strikes inconveniences most, to maximise awareness of their cause.
                "Can't the baggage handlers strike around September, rather during the school holidays?"
                "Maybe the truckers could block the country route between the B7342 and that dirt path?"

                Comment


                  This Brexit thing is putting me at risk of serious inconvenience if I want to move to the Alps. Can I put Nigel Farage in prison for ten years please?

                  Comment


                    But seriously, the wording there is worrying. What is a serious annoyance / inconvenience? And it's not even actually causing whatever those are. It's just putting someone at risk of those.

                    Comment


                      They're saying amplification equipment is too loud.

                      Dan Walker - "Ed Davey is concerned that you're taking the right away to peacefully protest?"


                      Kit Malthouse - "We're just doing some mild streamlining... as amplification technology has become much more widespread.. & can cause serious damage to health & well-being"




                      To be fair, though, if the police can arrest women at a peaceful vigil about a woman murdered by a police officer with current laws, imagine what they can do if they can arrest and imprison someone if they suspect they're about to cause a "nuisance".

                      Comment


                        You only have to prove you had a "reasonable excuse" for causing the annoyance though and you're off Scott free!

                        What excuse do you have Mr Smith?
                        I was trying to cause a serious annoyance your honour.
                        Sounds reasonable, case dismissed!
                        Last edited by Brad; 17-03-2021, 09:54.

                        Comment


                          I think there is a good chance the Lords will kick this around and send it back. I don't think they'll reject it as a law, but the wording isnt 'Lords' friendly.

                          Comment


                            Summary here:


                            The police, crime, sentencing and courts bill has come under scrutiny in the wake of the handling of the Sarah Everard vigils. What are the bill’s provisions and why is it generating so much controversy?

                            What is the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill?
                            The government says the bill, introduced in the Commons last Tuesday, will give the police powers to protect themselves and the public, introduce tougher sentencing and improve the efficiency of the court and tribunal system.

                            What does the bill say about protests?
                            The police will be able to impose conditions such as start and finish times on static protests, powers which officers already have in relation to marches. Additionally, senior officers will be able to impose maximum noise limits on protests, with powers to intervene when the noise is disrupting the “activities of an organisation” or has a “relevant impact on persons in the vicinity”.

                            The bill also has a specific section on one-person protests, which can also be subject to restrictions by police, based on the noise level, route, disruption etc. It gives the home secretary, Priti Patel, powers to create laws, without parliamentary approval, to define “serious disruption” to communities and organisations, which police can then rely on to impose conditions on protests.

                            If passed, the legislation will have the effect of curtailing protests near to parliament through provisions that state access for vehicles must not be obstructed.

                            Why is the government changing the law on protesting now?
                            Ministers say existing public order legislation was passed in 1986 and is no longer fit for managing modern protests, such as those by Extinction Rebellion (XR). Patel has been highly critical of XR and Black Lives Matter (BLM). She described XR as “so-called eco-crusaders turned criminals” and called the BLM protests “dreadful”.

                            What are critics saying?
                            Organisations such as Liberty and the police monitoring group Netpol were quick to criticise the bill as a clampdown on the right to protest, handing too many discretionary powers to the home secretary and police.

                            Opposition has increased in the wake of widespread anger at the handling of the Sarah Everard vigils – both the attempts to prevent the events going ahead and the police response when they did.

                            Since then, Labour has said it will oppose the bill, with the shadow justice minister, David Lammy, saying it was “no time to be rushing through poorly thought-out measures to impose disproportionate controls on free expression”. More than 150 groups, including human rights charities, unions and faith communities, warned it would have a hugely detrimental effect on civil liberties.

                            The government has been accused of taking advantage of conditions created by the pandemic, which necessitated temporary restrictions on demonstrations, to permanently erode the right of protest.

                            Critics have also pointed out that the 10-year maximum jail term introduced under the bill for people who criminally damage a statue is more than many men get for sexually assualting or raping a woman.

                            What does the government say?
                            It claims the measures in the bill do not undermine freedom of expression but “balance the rights of protesters with the rights of others to go about their business unhindered”. It points out that the Metropolitan police’s cost for policing XR’s 2019 “April Uprising” in London was more than £16m.

                            Comment


                              "balance the rights of protesters with the rights of others to go about their business unhindered"

                              Erm, that's impossible. You'd have to take away almost all the rights of protestors. A man shouting a protest in the street is a hinderance to me getting a coffee from Pret. Banned. Basically you have to protest quietly at home; previously known as "grumbling".

                              Comment


                                Tuesday, 17 March, 2020
                                The Chancellor announces a £350bn package of loans and grants to help businesses and mortgage holidays for home-buyers.


                                Sir Patrick Vallance tells MPs that 20,000 deaths would be “a good outcome”.


                                Johnson asks industry to produce 30,000 ventilators within two weeks in a conference call in which he jokes the drive could be called “Operation last gasp”.


                                Hospitals are told to suspend non-urgent operations for at least three months and to “urgently discharge all inpatients who are medically fit to leave”. This includes some who would go to care homes.


                                Doctors are told they do not need to wear full protective equipment when caring for Covid patients.


                                Covid deaths: 34; total: 115

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X