O/T Which jab have you had?

[rolymiller]

Point 1: In post 287, you referred to my “mistaken belief that the bill gives her (or any Home Secretary) powers to ban marches” and in post 308 stated “how do you say that she has "the power to decide whether individual protests can go ahead" as you claimed earlier. It clearly can't.”
So please clarify for me – can the Home Secretary consider the nature of current protest strategies and then pass legislation that lead to the outlawing of similar strategies in the future? And then, having done that, can reconsider again and pass further legislation outlawing other protest strategies? Can she do that or not? Yes or no?

Point 2: In post 337 you said “but nothing within them permits a 'police leader' or anyone else to 'deny a protest because they think there will be "serious noise" but now are acknowledging the wording of the proposed legislation that says “There is a power to impose conditions up to and including the banning of a protest if there is a reasonable belief that the noise generated by persons taking part it may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness…”
So, are you accepting now that a police leader can deny a protest if they feel that the noise will cause such offense to sturdy humans or do you stand by your view that nothing within the legislation permits said leader to deny the protest because of noise?

Point 3. You state that the article I linked to was talking about the existing and old public nuisance law. It is not. It is talking about section 59 of the proposed (amended from the old) legislation which now reads (when cutting through the paragraphing) “A person commits a crime if the person does an act which causes serious harm to a person and if [by definition of ‘serious harm’] as a result the person suffers serious annoyance”.
(Yes I’m aware we’re talking about collective offense here – I’ve already clarified in post 337 that the idea of arresting an individual for being ‘seriously annoying’ to an individual was for humorous spin, clearly still beyond you!)
So - are you saying that you have no objection to this new wording being brought in on the grounds that no one prosecuted under the old public nuisance laws? Why do you think the Government have suddenly changed the wording to this then?
(Seeing as that article was so rubbish, David Allen Green goes into more depth dissecting the wording of this paragraph: https://davidallengreen.com/2021/03/...blic-nuisance/
I assume he has got it wrong also?)

Sorry to have taken your breath away by accepting the public’s right to protest by making a noise outside my college in response to me bringing in curriculum content that is causing them considerable concern. In fairness, I did point out the absurdity of your scenario.

In summary, I wish I shared your confidence and trust in this government.

The biggesr tory who never was!

[sawmiller]

Meanwhile, in Bolsonaro's Brazil.....

the pine overcoats are coming thick and fast...

[KerrAvon]

The biggesr tory who never was!

I could not be a Tory under the current leadership. Irrespective of the success of the vaccine roll out, if we ever get an inquiry into the handlng of Covid it will show that tens of thousands of additional deaths were caused as a consequence of repeated poor messaging, inertia and negligence.

If there were a General Election tommorow I would probably take a leaf out of your book and not vote -for the first time in my life. My instinctive home has always been Labour, but they have become a party that puts identity politics over the politics of real life and Gaza and the West Bank over Glasgow and the West Midlands. And they seem to be getting back to what they do best, which is to have a civil war.

We may be getting a handle on Covid, but are a politically unwell country.