Bye bye right to peaceful protest

[HarryVegas]

....hello to a maximum of 10 years for "causing annoyance". Looks like the opposition are merely abstaining so there we go....rights gone, on the nod.

Still, he's dead funny on telly isn't he, that daft lad Boris!

 

[Billy69_uk]

yes, but we now have blue passports and no longer have that pesky European Court system to worry about.

 

[NYboro]

Disgraceful.

 

[Colin Warnek]

Disgraceful and if the opposition does abstain, they are equally culpable.

 

[HarryVegas]

Just heard that Starmer's u-turned and Labour will now be opposing it. Depends now on whether sufficient tories have the backbone to rebel.

 

[Alvez_48]

Hey @HarryVegas lockdowns are about saving lives and any legislation that comes after it and is Draconian in nature is in no way linked to it, smh.

At least labour are opposing this one (because they don't have the votes to make a shread of difference).

 

[changingman]

This is scandalous - personal freedoms (again) being curtailed without any scrutiny or checks and balances. The lurch towards totalitarianism continues.

What's equally annoying is that it will likely never be reversed because it arguably benefits the governing party of the day (and is another example of a pillar of legislation which the majority either don't understand or don't care about - until it's too late).

 

[Centralscrutinizer]

Just heard that Starmer's u-turned and Labour will now be opposing it. Depends now on whether sufficient tories have the backbone to rebel.

Don't hold your breath

 

[newusername]

....hello to a maximum of 10 years for "causing annoyance".

Caught a snippet on the radio & although people have a right to protest, non-protestors don't have a right to ignore them, & that part of the law is intended to fill that gap.

It was drafted to specifically prevent protests like Extinction Rebellion's when 1 or 2 people protesting cause a "disproportionate amount of disturbance" to large swathes of the public.

 

[Billy69_uk]

whats the point of demonstrating if you aren't causing a disturbance?

 

[HarryVegas]

whats the point of demonstrating if you aren't causing a disturbance?

Exactly, and how do you define 'annoyance'?

 

[Jonny Ingbar]

What is the definition of serious annoyance? In a legislative respect, serious harm (which is says must be caused) is just that, so I'd suggest it's far more than just "causing annoyance".

Not saying I agree with it, only pointing out what the statute actually says.

 

[newyddion]

Exactly, and how do you define 'annoyance'?

What if your government gathers in large groups and use legislation to cause annoyance? Do they go to prison?

 

[bear66]

Risk of causing serious annoyance is even more ambiguous.

 

[Colgates_shaving_foam]

Horrified by this.

Whoever voted for these delinquent power mad sociopaths I hope you are hanging your heads in shame.

 

[asredastheycome]

....hello to a maximum of 10 years for "causing annoyance". Looks like the opposition are merely abstaining so there we go....rights gone, on the nod.

Still, he's dead funny on telly isn't he, that daft lad Boris!

View attachment 15276

"Looks like the opposition are merely abstaining so there we go....rights gone,"
Not sure where you got that from. I saw someone from Labour on TV early this morning saying they would oppose it.

 

[HarryVegas]

"Looks like the opposition are merely abstaining so there we go....rights gone,"
Not sure where you got that from. I saw someone from Labour on TV early this morning saying they would oppose it.

Yep, they've decided to oppose. I was told from several party sources over the weekend that they'd be abstaining.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

Just heard that Starmer's u-turned and Labour will now be opposing it. Depends now on whether sufficient tories have the backbone to rebel.

 

[TheYorkshireTerrier]

If thousands of people want to protest in a noisey fashion, they will, the police could only arrest so many, they would be outnumbered instantly. This would end in tears for all involved.

 

[BoroMart]

It was drafted to specifically prevent protests like Extinction Rebellion's when 1 or 2 people protesting cause a "disproportionate amount of disturbance" to large swathes of the public.

That's nonsense, the current laws already allow the police to take action against people creating 'disturbances'. What this does is allow the police to have the excuse to wade in and arrest people with virtually no reason or unlawfulness. This puts the decision to arrest in the hands of commanding officers, and that makes it a political decision if to arrest XT and BML and not EDL for example.

I heard these new very loose and interpretable clauses described by someone from eastern germany as 'rubber clauses' because they were used under soviety rule and could be 'stretched' to cover any circumstance the political leaders so desired.