O/T Which jab have you had?

[KerrAvon]

Pfizer - 27th February.

[ragingpup]

The decision on Grist's protest would be made by a 'senior police officer' (to save you asking me, look up what that means in section 12(2) of the Public Order Act 1986). Under the current legislation, if he or she reasonably believed that it would result in "serious public disorder", "serious damage to property" or "serious disruption to the life of the community" or was intended to intimdiate then they could impose conditions up to and including prohibiting it from taking place.

Under the proposed legislation the power to impose conditions or prohibit would be extended to situations where there was a reasonable belief that the proposed demonstration would be noisy enough to cause “intimidation or harassment” or “serious unease, alarm or distress”.

I took issue with your ommision of the word 'serious' because doing so compleletely misrepresents the bill. That seems quite important to me, but each to their own, I suppose.

'Serious' is an ordinary English word meaning 'severe in effect' in the first online dictionary that I pulled up. I am happy with the use of that word as it prevents intereference with demonstrations that eare unlikely to have a serious effect. What wording would you like?

You will note from my first paragraph that the expressions 'reasonable belief' and 'serious' are in use in the current legislation that has been around since 1986. Do you have any issues with how they have been interpreted? Any evidence that people don't understand the word 'serious'?

So you don't approve of serious disruption to people going about their activities, but simultaneoulsy oppose a bill that will make it easier for the police to prevent that from happening?? Cool. What are you going to do when the EDL turn up outside your college with their rock concert standard sound system? Appeal to their good nature?

Good points on distinction between serious and non serious terminology, fair enough.

What this boils down to, if I'm understanding the bill correctly, is that Patel or any future home secretary now has the power to outlaw any suggested protest that she feels may cause "serious annoyance" to the local community?

Are you in favour of that?

What planned protest, even a well organised peaceful one, that involves closing down streets and rerouting traffic, will not cause serious annoyance to the local community? We are Londoners, city people are city people, and that is part and parcel of what we accept as city living, it is where large scale protests are organised.

Is it a problem of trust: do we trust that this or future home secretaries will still permit the vast majority of planned protests such as BLM and counter BLMs last year and historically the poll tax and Iraq protests, or will these new powers be used to shut them down? Do you think that the home secretary should have these powers and will use them with goodwill, allowing mass protest to still go ahead?

Straw manning again, I didn't say I was against the bill and am open to how police can be empowered to shut down extremist agitators. But do we lose more than we gain with the bill in it's current form and current 'annoying' wording? And under this bill, would old Grist be allowed to join a mass protest against the cancellation of Brexit?

Out of interest, which parts of the bill do you not approve of?

[WanChaiMiller]

The treatment of Astra- Zenica has been shameful. Vaccines are not part of their usual business, but they were persuaded to work with Oxford University by the government. They have been rewarded for their efforts by being used as a smokescreen by European politicians who are trying to hide their failings and being bombarded with media scare stories (some of them driven by one of raging's favourites - Russia Today).

Yet, there are ever more countries, many outside the EU, suspending Astra Zeneca orders, Hong Kong the latest (although they have other reasons too). The UK will offer under 30s the option of an alternative.

Do you seriously think its through spitefulness, particularly from EU politician?* Maybe there are legitimate concerns. Johnson could simply have jumped the gun without proper scrutiny to cover over failings in his Covid response?

Of course you may just be spinning some anti EU rhetoric to get a bite? Ive bitten. Lol.

[WanChaiMiller]

I think this Bill lowers the threshold for police intervention.

Kerr highlights it* "where there was a reasonable belief that the proposed demonstration would be noisy enough to cause intimidation or harassment or serious unease, alarm or distress”

Reasonable belief will be based on the opinion of a Senior Police Officer. The officer could be open to Government pressure. And thereby lies my concern with the bill.

We were repeatedly lectured that Brexit was about returning our sovereignty.* Yet, within a few months of leaving, the Brexiteer in Chief has handed over a basic right of a western democracy, the right to protest, to the subjective judgement of an unelected body.

And Brexiteers dont even bat an eyelid.* GM is more concerned with an ECHR ruling, when his human rights are being stripped back home. Quite staggering.

It makes me think it wasnt about sovereignty after all.

[howdydoo]

Who knows of the untold damage the BLM and counter protests did last year?

[WanChaiMiller]

Who knows of the untold damage the BLM and counter protests did last year?

Totally agree Howdy. I thought the BLM protests in the UK were wrong in terms of both timing and content.

But thereby lies the problem. The bill is ok now when it covers off something you oppose. What happens down the line when it strips the rights of something we're fighting for?

[KerrAvon]

Good points on distinction between serious and non serious terminology, fair enough.

What this boils down to, if I'm understanding the bill correctly, is that Patel or any future home secretary now has the power to outlaw any suggested protest that she feels may cause "serious annoyance" to the local community?

Are you in favour of that?

What planned protest, even a well organised peaceful one, that involves closing down streets and rerouting traffic, will not cause serious annoyance to the local community? We are Londoners, city people are city people, and that is part and parcel of what we accept as city living, it is where large scale protests are organised.

Is it a problem of trust: do we trust that this or future home secretaries will still permit the vast majority of planned protests such as BLM and counter BLMs last year and historically the poll tax and Iraq protests, or will these new powers be used to shut them down? Do you think that the home secretary should have these powers and will use them with goodwill, allowing mass protest to still go ahead?

Straw manning again, I didn't say I was against the bill and am open to how police can be empowered to shut down extremist agitators. But do we lose more than we gain with the bill in it's current form and current 'annoying' wording? And under this bill, would old Grist be allowed to join a mass protest against the cancellation of Brexit?

Out of interest, which parts of the bill do you not approve of?

I've repeatedly pointed out that it is a senior police officer who makes 'reasonable belief' decisions and you say that you have read the bill. Despite that, you repeatedly refer to the Home Secretrary... No you are not 'understanding the bill correctly' and may wish to read it again.

So your argument is that rerouting traffic etc., causes serious annoyance to the local community and in the next breath say that people in London are used to it? Whilst the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, you are getting very close to that.

You have exposed a further deficiency in your reading of the bill, I think. 'Annoyance' only appears within the proposed statutory offence of public nuisance and not the protest provisions. As I have explained, public nuisance is already a common law offence, which means that its definition has been determined by judges over the last few centuries. In proposing to make it a statutory offence, the government is merely giving it a fixed definition that gives more certainty about what it involves. They are also simply giving effect to the recommendations of the Law Commision (an indepenedent body), which reported on the subject in 2015:

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...public-decency

I know that it is a matter of trust. That has been clear from the outset given your repeated references to the Home Secretary and your mistaken belief that the bill gives her powers to ban marches. If the people of this country had decided that Johnson was the less palatable of the two PMs that were on offer in 2019 and it was a Labour government that was bringing this bill forward to 'protect immigrant communties from harassment and London colleges from being disrupted from teaching critical race theory by the EDL', or similar, you would be cooing away about how wonderful it was that the government were protecting communities.

I won't respond to your straw manning point as it is based upon your incorrect reading of the bill and consequential belief that the word 'annoyance' appears in the protest provsions.

I think that bringing in an offence of damaging public monuments is populist nonsense and an uneccessary complication of the law. the Criminal Damage Act 1971 covers that behaviour.

[the_idiotb_stardson]

The lefties dont half make me laugh.

Throughout the last 18 months there has been a constant refrain of 'tories are crooks' ' Boris is liar' ' 'you cannot trust this tory govt'
' all Johnson interested in his profit' ' the tories are ripping us off' 'f*ck of Boris' etc


Boris then announces that the vaccine is safe and all the lefties go ' ok mate, no problem'.

[KerrAvon]

Yet, there are ever more countries, many outside the EU, suspending Astra Zeneca orders, Hong Kong the latest (although they have other reasons too). The UK will offer under 30s the option of an alternative.

Do you seriously think its through spitefulness, particularly from EU politician?* Maybe there are legitimate concerns. Johnson could simply have jumped the gun without proper scrutiny to cover over failings in his Covid response?

Of course you may just be spinning some anti EU rhetoric to get a bite? Ive bitten. Lol.

So two days ago you were behaving like a 7 year old on this thread, but now want to engage? Fair enough.

Whan Macron referred to the AZ vaccine being being ‘quasi-ineffective’ in the over 65s, and the German goverment gave similar briefings to the German press, I don't think that they had in mind a possible link to blood clots in younger people. Do you?

When Von der Leyden and other EU Commissioners belly ached about AZ's performance on its contract (a matter that they have still not been willing to go to court on, which is telling) are you saying that was all to do with a possible connection with blood clots and that they wanted more because of it?

When Von der Leyden and other EU Commissioners threatened to seize AZ's assets and intellectual property, are you postulating a link with blood clots?

When the Italian Police very publically 'inspected' AZ facilities in that country are you suggesting that it was the possible blood clot squad that were involved?

I stand by my comments on the actions of the EU and some European leaders in relation to the AZ vaccine. Quite apart from treating the company disgracefully, they have managed to destroy European public confidence in its vaccine and are now in a position where they are cajoling AZ into providing supplies that they are struggling to use. It has and will cost tens of thousands of European lives, but, hey, it allows Wan to make a stupid point, so that's ok.

[ragingpup]

I've repeatedly pointed out that it is a senior police officer who makes 'reasonable belief' decisions and you say that you have read the bill. Despite that, you repeatedly refer to the Home Secretrary... No you are not 'understanding the bill correctly' and may wish to read it again.

So your argument is that rerouting traffic etc., causes serious annoyance to the local community and in the next breath say that people in London are used to it? Whilst the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, you are getting very close to that.

You have exposed a further deficiency in your reading of the bill, I think. 'Annoyance' only appears within the proposed statutory offence of public nuisance and not the protest provisions. As I have explained, public nuisance is already a common law offence, which means that its definition has been determined by judges over the last few centuries. In proposing to make it a statutory offence, the government is merely giving it a fixed definition that gives more certainty about what it involves. They are also simply giving effect to the recommendations of the Law Commision (an indepenedent body), which reported on the subject in 2015:

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...public-decency

I know that it is a matter of trust. That has been clear from the outset given your repeated references to the Home Secretary and your mistaken belief that the bill gives her powers to ban marches. If the people of this country had decided that Johnson was the less palatable of the two PMs that were on offer in 2019 and it was a Labour government that was bringing this bill forward to 'protect immigrant communties from harassment and London colleges from being disrupted from teaching critical race theory by the EDL', or similar, you would be cooing away about how wonderful it was that the government were protecting communities.

I won't respond to your straw manning point as it is based upon your incorrect reading of the bill and consequential belief that the word 'annoyance' appears in the protest provsions.

I think that bringing in an offence of damaging public monuments is populist nonsense and an uneccessary complication of the law. the Criminal Damage Act 1971 covers that behaviour.

I keep referring to the new powers given to the home secretary deliberately to emphasise that this bill would give her (and others after) the power to define "serious disruption" through secondary legislation, and without scrutiny. Effectively this gives her (and others) the power to decide whether individual protests can go ahead.

Do you find it impossible to have a discussion without recourse to childish personal remarks? Who the **** teaches critical race theory except in the culture wars you and your government seem to cherish? (I can lower myself too!) You seem to imply that I would approve these powers if coming from a leftist government, but the whole point of me framing the question as whether Grist could protest if Brexit was cancelled was to emphasise that we should protect our freedom to protest for whatever cause as frequently the faith we put in elected politicians can let us down.