O/T Which jab have you had?

[ragingpup]

Judging by the antics at recent "demonstrations" the Police Bill is well overdue.

So you are happy to have any aspect of the right to protest taken away from you? So for example, if the 'establishment' (lol) had denied Brexit, you would be happy that you wouldn't be able to demonstrate to show your public anger, along with others, at such a decision?

What did you think of the poll tax when that was introduced? Was it fair or were you pleased that people took to the streets to demonstrate and led to it being scrapped?

(I agree that the Bristol rioters are playing right into the hands of the Tories in forcing this bill through btw)

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

So you are happy to have any aspect of the right to protest taken away from you? So for example, if the 'establishment' (lol) had denied Brexit, you would be happy that you wouldn't be able to demonstrate to show your public anger, along with others, at such a decision?

What did you think of the poll tax when that was introduced? Was it fair or were you pleased that people took to the streets to demonstrate and led to it being scrapped?

(I agree that the Bristol rioters are playing right into the hands of the Tories in forcing this bill through btw)

And the Extinction Rebellion mob that blocked the major London roads so that ambulances couldn't get through to the hospitals

Etc etc etc

Gone beyond peaceful demonstrations

[KerrAvon]

So you are happy to have any aspect of the right to protest taken away from you? So for example, if the 'establishment' (lol) had denied Brexit, you would be happy that you wouldn't be able to demonstrate to show your public anger, along with others, at such a decision?

What did you think of the poll tax when that was introduced? Was it fair or were you pleased that people took to the streets to demonstrate and led to it being scrapped?

(I agree that the Bristol rioters are playing right into the hands of the Tories in forcing this bill through btw)

I think this post neatly demonstrates part of the issue with the Bristol protests. I'm guessing that you (like most of the protestors, I suspect) haven't bothered to read the bill before commenting upon it?

The bill doesn't propose taking away 'any aspect of the right to protest'. It lowers the threshold at which the police can impose conditions upon public assemblies.

At the moment, the power to impose conditions is restricted to situations where there is a 'reasonable belief' that an assembly may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community

The proposal is that the threshold be lowered to allow condistions to be imposed if there is a 'reasonable belief' that the noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession, or it may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to be in the vicinity, or it may cause such persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress.

I think that any restriction upon the right to protest must be carefully scrutinised and not entered into lightly, but it would help if the debate were not fuelled by ignorance and 'kill the bill' rhetoric.

You're welcome.

[gm_gm]

I think this post neatly demonstrates part of the issue with the Bristol protests. I'm guessing that you (like most of the protestors, I suspect) haven't bothered to read the bill before commenting upon it?

Thats where you keep the sugar! Bingo and full house!

Thats usually the case that some people protest about something they have little knowledge about, but have been wound up by some numpties on twitter

[ragingpup]

I think this post neatly demonstrates part of the issue with the Bristol protests. I'm guessing that you (like most of the protestors, I suspect) haven't bothered to read the bill before commenting upon it?

The bill doesn't propose taking away 'any aspect of the right to protest'. It lowers the threshold at which the police can impose conditions upon public assemblies.

At the moment, the power to impose conditions is restricted to situations where there is a 'reasonable belief' that an assembly may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community

The proposal is that the threshold be lowered to allow condistions to be imposed if there is a 'reasonable belief' that the noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession, or it may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to be in the vicinity, or it may cause such persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress.

I think that any restriction upon the right to protest must be carefully scrutinised and not entered into lightly, but it would help if the debate were not fuelled by ignorance and 'kill the bill' rhetoric.

You're welcome.

I have read much of it as it happens Kerr and thanks for highlighting the worrying aspects. How would you define "reasonable belief"? Whose reasonable belief? Who will be making that decision? the Home Secretary? Are you happy to Priti to have these powers?

Similarly, "the noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may result in..." The noise? What even peaceful demonstration takes place without noise? How is that not likely to "result in serious disruption" to nearby activities, if it is noise that worries affected organisations? I think we can agree with the "may result in the intimidation and harassment" part of the wording but "may cause such persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress". Frankly, any organised demosntration, even peaceful, is likely to cause some people "unease". Effectively the bill gives the police, and by extension, any government the powers to put a stop to any organised protest that they find inconvenient to them.

I notice that you didn't include the even more frightening part of legislation wrapped up in the bill: The new statutory offence of Public Nuisance provides for a maximum sentence of 10 years for anyone who does an act that, intentionally or recklessly, causes serious harm to the public or puts them at risk of such harm. The proposed definition of ‘serious harm’ includes where person suffers ‘serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity’.

Serious annoyance? A person taking part in a protest can be criminalised for 'annoying' somebody, in the eyes of an arresting officer. Really?

This goes for any protest by the way, including those whom I personally disagree with. We hear much made from people on here about the right to express your views being taken away, but very little about this.

Regarding people breaking laws in unlawful protest, we already have laws that cover this don't we? What does this bill bring to the table that wasn't already in existence?

So having carefully scrutinised the bill yourself, are you in favour of it?

[WanChaiMiller]

Judging by the antics at recent "demonstrations" the Police Bill is well overdue.

The problem we face is the amount of Political control Government can place on the police.

If China had brought this level of control over Hong Kong there would be outrage.

[Brin]

I thought this thread was about the COVID vaccine and which one have you had???????

[WanChaiMiller]

I thought this thread was about the COVID vaccine and which one have you had???????

It never has been. Read the opening post by Jilted GM.

[Ericsladkilnhurst]

Canapiss smoker, still saying he's immune from covid 19, because he smokes the sh*t.

[crookadile]

Can’t see what any of this has to do with what Covid jab you have had.
Can the Mods move all the political crap to the correct place please.