The fact that your able to complain about this disproves that there is no freedom of speech, the very large G20 protests disproves that there is no freedom to protest.
Read up on SOCPA McDuff. And the various terrorist laws that have been indroduced since 2000 and you will find that our civil liberties have been seriously dented. Walk up to parliment with a sign and see how far you get then come and talk to me about freedom to protest.
McDuffer - you might need to look up what Parliament Square is for, what is's purpose is.
You also seem to be adopting a slightly myopic view of the larger implications of these laws. There is a review to have them rolled out nation wide, at which point the 'it's only a kilometre' argument collapses.
You also argue that traffic flow usurps the right to free expression and protest - another questionable notion, more so if you are aware of Parliament Square's history.
@MRSstraightA The History of Parliament square is quite clear I have no need to look it up, the same could be said about a 'myopic view' for yourself as well as we appear to be on opposing sides of a discussion, bear in mind however that as soon as he took charge Gordon Brown said that SOCPA needed changed! as have the 2 parliamentary committees that have sat on it! odd that you omitted those facts!
Its not just a matter of traffic its the general publics ability to move about unimpeded etc..
With regards the difference between protestors and public in general protestors will always be outnumbered by the public most other people wanting to go about their daily lives 'putting one section of public above another' is indeed what I am doing but on a proportional basis why should a group of twenty protestors be allowed to disrupt everyone else going about their business? seems a tad unfair that a minority be allowed to ascert their rights before a majority
@MRSstraightA I'm not so sure about that it only takes one person to chain themselves to something! it only takes one or two to be stood in the road to stop the flow of traffic.
I am all in favour of protest but do it responsiby just because your unhappy with something in no way give you the right to inflict your opinion on anyone else.
with regards 'function creep' if the current sitting Prime Minister and 2 of the parliamentary committees have agreed that the laws need changing I hardly think its something you need to worry about I think its safe to assume that some action will be taken to amend them.
@MRSstraightA I get more synical the older I get but I am also at a stage where I'm looking to be invovled where I can make a change, rather than be stood out on the sidelines grumbling about the way things are run I'm going to get involved in the political process I'm going to get involved in the oversight of the police I'm going to actively take part and then I can only complain about my own inactions in future.
*the very large G20 protests disproves that there is no freedom to protest.*
Not at all, what was made entirely clear with the G20 protests was that although still lawful - free protest on this scale is no longer tolerated by the police - the Met were unambiguously hostile to the protest, readily using violence against law abiding citizens and detaining thousands of protesters in pens for the day - which meant they were unable to continue their march - this is not freedom to protest.
in other words what you want to take from it and use as disinformation to support your agenda!
There was good and bad on both parts during those protests Iain Thomlinsons death probably being a major fault for the police, however the idea that a group of people can come along and just set up camp in a major city closing down a street is just bizarre.
As for the kettling I'm not sure about that yet I see the need to limit numbers for safety but ctd..
@McDuff73 it does seem somewhat restirictive and a tad harsh maybe its something they should look at.
Violence occurred on both sides, unless you've been in the shoes of a police officer at one of those events you cant understand their actions motives or behaviour.
**unless you've been in the shoes of a police officer at one of those events you cant understand their actions motives or behaviour.**
Indeed, but even before the protest the commanding officer in charge said - whilst being interviewed for the evening news cycle - "we are up for it" - a comment that spoke volumes about the police's approach to the protest, regardless of how the event panned out they had already made up their mind to a certain extent.
The actions on the day point towards bellicosity - leaving the unprovoked (as far as we can see) attack on Ian Tomlinson aside - the footage from the day is littered with examples of hostile - and sometimes nakedly violent aggression towards members of the public.
Of course these things are open to perspective, but I am not alone in this view - as I have said elsewhere - it is broadly shared by many, including many far removed from the protesters agenda.
@MRSstraightA see I'm not confortable with that the man wasnt attacked its not like he was jumped and they beat the crap out of him he was pushed several times as the police did to many other protestors that day his underlying conditions didn't help him as part of a normal operation to clear that part of the streeets.
Its been done many many times it just so happens this one ended in disasterous consequences, you again omit the violence and aggression towards the police also!
He was walking away from officers, he was stuck on the legs (from behind) with the full force of a raised baton, when that failed to bring him down, the officer lunged (again from behind) with his full force and sent Mr Tomlinson to the ground with some considerable impact.
Do this thought experiment - review the video evidence in your mind - but replace the officer with Tomlinson (& visa versa) - do you doubt for a moment that Tomlinson would be in jail now ?
The 'thought experiment' is moot Police by the nature of their work have license to use some force to assist themselves.
And thats not to deny that sometimes its overused but by using this one incident to claim some higher agenda to violence against society on the part of the police is rather rash and a little silly.
You'd have thought that a line of police walking towards you shouting move on, would have been enough for the average person to well actually move!
"but by using this one incident to claim some higher agenda to violence against society on the part of the police is rather rash and a little silly."
Clearly I have not done this, in fact I went as far as to say that *even when leaving the attack on Tomlinson aside* there was aggresion,
Did you see that . . . *even when leaving the attack on Tomlinson aside* . . so I have not at all made claims of an agenda to violence based on that attack.
I dont think your point of view is wrong because there is a problem with you in fact I dont think your point of view is completely wrong I just think its a little narrow, as I said in my first post faults lay on both sides of the G20 protest and I'm a little dismayed by your assertion that my point of view is so weak that I have to resort to attacking you personally.
"in other words what you want to take from it and use as disinformation to support your agenda!"
Possibly, we all have some level of confirmation bias - and I am as subject to it as the next man.
But the postmortem has seen a fairly broad consensus from all quarters, including the police themselves, the IPCC, The Metropolitan Police Authority as well as ECHR (with regard to the 'kettling') that the policing of the G20 protest was something of a failure, even with leaving out the death.
It was a failure in that the right to protest was not facilitated - it was broadly agreed that many will have been put off exercising their right to protest having seen protesters detained - by the thousand - and prevented from marching.
It is a reasonable conclusion - with even a cursory reading of recent policing of protest - that there is a cultural shift in attitude within the police force whereby the actual act of protest is viewed as disorder, not to be facilitated but to be restricted.
@MRSstraightA no its not reasonable its a one sided and rather short sighted view expressed by people like yourself and others of your ilk, I on the other hand see the need for protests to be allowed but to be carried out in a fair manner and with as little disruption to those around it.
Bear in mind the added weight that when things as they invariably do, go wrong and someone is injured its the police that are sued wether involved or not taking more much needed finance away from them.
Which oppressive law?
The fact that your able to complain about this disproves that there is no freedom of speech, the very large G20 protests disproves that there is no freedom to protest.
McDuff73 2 years ago
Read up on SOCPA McDuff. And the various terrorist laws that have been indroduced since 2000 and you will find that our civil liberties have been seriously dented. Walk up to parliment with a sign and see how far you get then come and talk to me about freedom to protest.
ad83astra 2 years ago
Freedom to protest is still there just a kilometre away from paliament whats wrong with that?
And as long as you apply for a licence you may still be able to protest closer.
I see nothing wrong with that your talking about one of the biggest and busiest conurbations in Europe! its understandable to limit disruption to it!
McDuffer73 2 years ago
McDuffer - you might need to look up what Parliament Square is for, what is's purpose is.
You also seem to be adopting a slightly myopic view of the larger implications of these laws. There is a review to have them rolled out nation wide, at which point the 'it's only a kilometre' argument collapses.
You also argue that traffic flow usurps the right to free expression and protest - another questionable notion, more so if you are aware of Parliament Square's history.
MRSstraightA 2 years ago
@MRSstraightA The History of Parliament square is quite clear I have no need to look it up, the same could be said about a 'myopic view' for yourself as well as we appear to be on opposing sides of a discussion, bear in mind however that as soon as he took charge Gordon Brown said that SOCPA needed changed! as have the 2 parliamentary committees that have sat on it! odd that you omitted those facts!
Its not just a matter of traffic its the general publics ability to move about unimpeded etc..
McDuff73 2 years ago
Your point about SOCPA is unclear ?
**Its not just a matter of traffic its the general publics ability to move about unimpeded etc..**
Protesters **are** the general public. All you are doing is putting the needs of one section of the public above another.
The 'myopic' comment alluded to the idea that 'function creep' of these laws seems - as recent history illustrates - a matter of course.
MRSstraightA 2 years ago
With regards the difference between protestors and public in general protestors will always be outnumbered by the public most other people wanting to go about their daily lives 'putting one section of public above another' is indeed what I am doing but on a proportional basis why should a group of twenty protestors be allowed to disrupt everyone else going about their business? seems a tad unfair that a minority be allowed to ascert their rights before a majority
McDuff73 2 years ago
"why should a group of twenty protestors be allowed to disrupt everyone else"
A group of 20 protesters will unlikely prevent anyone from going about their day.
If there is sufficient number of protesters to disrupt road and foot traffic then your proportional privilege argument collapses.
MRSstraightA 2 years ago
@MRSstraightA I'm not so sure about that it only takes one person to chain themselves to something! it only takes one or two to be stood in the road to stop the flow of traffic.
I am all in favour of protest but do it responsiby just because your unhappy with something in no way give you the right to inflict your opinion on anyone else.
McDuff73 2 years ago
with regards 'function creep' if the current sitting Prime Minister and 2 of the parliamentary committees have agreed that the laws need changing I hardly think its something you need to worry about I think its safe to assume that some action will be taken to amend them.
McDuff73 2 years ago
**I hardly think its something you need to worry about I think its safe to assume that some action will be taken to amend them.**
I am not really up to date with the current position (future) of these statutes / acts - but can only hope you are right here.
I am less inclined to assume the right thing will necessarily be done, but of course could be wrong.
MRSstraightA 2 years ago
@MRSstraightA I get more synical the older I get but I am also at a stage where I'm looking to be invovled where I can make a change, rather than be stood out on the sidelines grumbling about the way things are run I'm going to get involved in the political process I'm going to get involved in the oversight of the police I'm going to actively take part and then I can only complain about my own inactions in future.
McDuff73 2 years ago
*the very large G20 protests disproves that there is no freedom to protest.*
Not at all, what was made entirely clear with the G20 protests was that although still lawful - free protest on this scale is no longer tolerated by the police - the Met were unambiguously hostile to the protest, readily using violence against law abiding citizens and detaining thousands of protesters in pens for the day - which meant they were unable to continue their march - this is not freedom to protest.
MRSstraightA 2 years ago
@MRSstraightA 'what was made entirely clear'
in other words what you want to take from it and use as disinformation to support your agenda!
There was good and bad on both parts during those protests Iain Thomlinsons death probably being a major fault for the police, however the idea that a group of people can come along and just set up camp in a major city closing down a street is just bizarre.
As for the kettling I'm not sure about that yet I see the need to limit numbers for safety but ctd..
McDuff73 2 years ago
@McDuff73 it does seem somewhat restirictive and a tad harsh maybe its something they should look at.
Violence occurred on both sides, unless you've been in the shoes of a police officer at one of those events you cant understand their actions motives or behaviour.
McDuff73 2 years ago
**unless you've been in the shoes of a police officer at one of those events you cant understand their actions motives or behaviour.**
Indeed, but even before the protest the commanding officer in charge said - whilst being interviewed for the evening news cycle - "we are up for it" - a comment that spoke volumes about the police's approach to the protest, regardless of how the event panned out they had already made up their mind to a certain extent.
MRSstraightA 2 years ago
@MRSstraightA again that depends on perspective the comment could also be that they are prepared for the job not that they want to fight!
McDuff73 2 years ago
The actions on the day point towards bellicosity - leaving the unprovoked (as far as we can see) attack on Ian Tomlinson aside - the footage from the day is littered with examples of hostile - and sometimes nakedly violent aggression towards members of the public.
Of course these things are open to perspective, but I am not alone in this view - as I have said elsewhere - it is broadly shared by many, including many far removed from the protesters agenda.
MRSstraightA 2 years ago
@MRSstraightA see I'm not confortable with that the man wasnt attacked its not like he was jumped and they beat the crap out of him he was pushed several times as the police did to many other protestors that day his underlying conditions didn't help him as part of a normal operation to clear that part of the streeets.
Its been done many many times it just so happens this one ended in disasterous consequences, you again omit the violence and aggression towards the police also!
McDuff73 2 years ago
"he was pushed several times"
He was walking away from officers, he was stuck on the legs (from behind) with the full force of a raised baton, when that failed to bring him down, the officer lunged (again from behind) with his full force and sent Mr Tomlinson to the ground with some considerable impact.
Do this thought experiment - review the video evidence in your mind - but replace the officer with Tomlinson (& visa versa) - do you doubt for a moment that Tomlinson would be in jail now ?
MRSstraightA 2 years ago
@MRSstraightA
The 'thought experiment' is moot Police by the nature of their work have license to use some force to assist themselves.
And thats not to deny that sometimes its overused but by using this one incident to claim some higher agenda to violence against society on the part of the police is rather rash and a little silly.
You'd have thought that a line of police walking towards you shouting move on, would have been enough for the average person to well actually move!
McDuff73 2 years ago
"but by using this one incident to claim some higher agenda to violence against society on the part of the police is rather rash and a little silly."
Clearly I have not done this, in fact I went as far as to say that *even when leaving the attack on Tomlinson aside* there was aggresion,
Did you see that . . . *even when leaving the attack on Tomlinson aside* . . so I have not at all made claims of an agenda to violence based on that attack.
MRSstraightA 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*You'd have thought that a line of police walking towards you shouting move on, would have been enough for the average person to well actually move!*
As indeed he was.
Anyhow let's leave it there, we obviously have differing stand points here and, to be honest, your recourse to ad hominem is a little tiring.
Best of luck.
MRSstraightA 2 years ago
I dont think your point of view is wrong because there is a problem with you in fact I dont think your point of view is completely wrong I just think its a little narrow, as I said in my first post faults lay on both sides of the G20 protest and I'm a little dismayed by your assertion that my point of view is so weak that I have to resort to attacking you personally.
McDuff73 2 years ago
"in other words what you want to take from it and use as disinformation to support your agenda!"
Possibly, we all have some level of confirmation bias - and I am as subject to it as the next man.
But the postmortem has seen a fairly broad consensus from all quarters, including the police themselves, the IPCC, The Metropolitan Police Authority as well as ECHR (with regard to the 'kettling') that the policing of the G20 protest was something of a failure, even with leaving out the death.
MRSstraightA 2 years ago
@MRSstraightA
It being deemed a failure is different from 'protests of this scale are no longer tolerated by the police'
As i said there was faults both sides.
McDuff73 2 years ago
It was a failure in that the right to protest was not facilitated - it was broadly agreed that many will have been put off exercising their right to protest having seen protesters detained - by the thousand - and prevented from marching.
It is a reasonable conclusion - with even a cursory reading of recent policing of protest - that there is a cultural shift in attitude within the police force whereby the actual act of protest is viewed as disorder, not to be facilitated but to be restricted.
MRSstraightA 2 years ago
@MRSstraightA no its not reasonable its a one sided and rather short sighted view expressed by people like yourself and others of your ilk, I on the other hand see the need for protests to be allowed but to be carried out in a fair manner and with as little disruption to those around it.
Bear in mind the added weight that when things as they invariably do, go wrong and someone is injured its the police that are sued wether involved or not taking more much needed finance away from them.
McDuff73 2 years ago
Ok, McDuff.
MRSstraightA 2 years ago