O/T Which jab have you had?

[KerrAvon]

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?

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?

I stand my assertion that a police officer can't ban a protest because of 'serious noise' as you claimed, because that is the factual position.

You repeatedly omit the additional wording that qualifies and defines police powers in such a manner as to protect the right to protest. I don't.

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?)

The government are acting upon a Law Commission report that suggested that the offence of publc nuisance shoud be made a statutory offence (I note Green's scepticsim about that, which, perhaps, indicates his own bias). The whole point of such an exercise is to replace the centuries of judge made law with a clear exposition of the offence in modern language.

Green is correct when he states that the proposed statutory defintion of public nuisance will extend the offence to acts that put people 'at risk' of the consequences that the offence is intended to address. He is incorrect and makes the same mistake as you when he refers to 'a person' as opposed to 'the public or a section of the public', which is bit unfortunate when he had just set out the wording of the clause itself.

I guess that the person who drafted the public nuisance clause thought it better for the police to be able to act before the public or section of the public suffered the consequences described within it - so not having to wait until the motorway was shut down in the example that I gave.

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.

Again, you miss out qualifying words in order to be able to frame your argument.

You indicated your support of the public's to protest in a manner that would disrupt the abilty to teach within it. That a college adminstrator would put the holding of a disruptive protest above the learning outcomes of students is truly extraordinary.

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

I wouldn't trust this government as far as I could throw it, but, as you have pointed out, protests that cause such serious inconvenience, noise and nuisance are relatively rare and so the use of the new powers will also be relatively rare. Having read the relevant clauses, I am content that they are framed in a manner that protects both the rights to protest and of the rights of local communities not to be
caused intimidation or harassment or to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress or disruption as a consequence.