Perhaps not, but it seems if I'm a law-abiding owner of a business engaging in lawful activity who is quite reasonably and legally minimising my tax liability as best I can, they are out to commit aggravated trespass on my business property. Private property is private property.
Argument from repetition.
You have no evidence of intent, you cannot say they are out to commit aggravated trespass because you cannot do so.
Neither is it anything to do with the point I raise, validity of lawful peaceful protest and trespass in that regards being a civil matter, not criminal.
So you accept that in at least some circumstances we cannot be justified in breaking the law to highlight our grievances? Great, we're making progress.
Irrelevant straw man.
So how do you distinguish between aggravated trespass and arson? As rights violations they are equal.
Irrelevent strawman and insinuation.
They are no where near equal morally and by way of damage.
Although I expect little else than desperation to stick mud to anything related to public protest from yourself.
I disagree. I would suppose a majority of the protestors, although perhaps not intending to cause disruption to the business through their own individual actions, embarked on the protest knowing that the action as a collective endeavour would cause disruption.
This is a thought crime by circumstance if this is justification.
All protest causes disruption to certain extent dependent on your definition, and I am sure that is why people do it. If you do not cause at least some disruption no one looks listens or notices. I agree with you re-iterating my point in part, there probably was an acknowledgement of possible disruption. After all, hundreds of thousands of people leaving their home to go march in London it is hard to not foresee an impact. What else do you expect?
Which is not the same as setting out to commit aggravated trespass.
As far as I can tell it was a wide spectrum of people who were collared, it was not a millitant attack of like this law was borne from. No evidence has so far been brought forward. It should have remained a civil matter and dealt with the old way, which wasn't so discriminate nor did it facilitate as many claims of false arrest as now.
This may be perceived to reduce time for the police but I have doubts, it is often easier to deal with it at the scene than lifting everyone (and things) up and taking them back. It will only clog up the officers with pointless paperwork, fill cells unnecessarily and divert them, as it seemed to, from dealing with the severe cases of criminal conduct. It would also have a continuing effect on the CPS and judiciary if these events are repeated and due diligence is taken.
As far as I'm aware there is no legal precedent for this.
Correlation does not imply causation.
On the whole you cannot evidence your supposition in each case in this circumstance; that the relatively high number of civilians in an uncontrolled confined space set out to purposefully disrupt that business other than peaceful protest.
What you describe is a probable thought crime if used as justification for these actions, refusing to leave as individuals once right of access has been removed it is then a civil matter not a criminal one unless you are acting like a total idiot, if you are it is an individual offence.
You and I may both agree that they set out to stop the money flowing or a bunch of other part related subjects but it can't be proved, it shouldn't effect the application of the law by our public servants which should be considered against other rights in deciding the final outcome.
I apologise if you interpreted my home defence analogy as relevant to this point; I never alluded to that. Breaking and entering is a separate offence.
How are they in my living room then?
I don't leave my door unlocked or wide open.
How did the protesters get in my house if they have not broken and entered?
As I said pseudo public space and initial invitation are the differentiators.
It has nothing to do with breaking and entering, burning houses, not terrorism, nor silly long drawn out incomplete analogies that have the slightest of relevance if they weren't smothered with hyperbole.
For the purpose of argument it is possible to ignore how the person got onto the property.
How much more do I have to put up with this irrelevant false analogy?
My house has walls,, windows a roof and a locked door.
To get in my living room as you describe you would need to enter through one of these.
Flawed example.
In the shop case, they had an implied licence but that has been rescinded. We could assume, for example, that you originally invited me into your living room, giving me licence to be on the property, then I deeply offended you and you likewise rescinded my right to be there.
That would be constructive trespass.
This is still not a crime.
As in the previous office example, for this to be as analogous to the Fortnum & Mason case as possible, we would also assume that I can return to your property without breaking and entering (i.e. that you have no lock on your door, etc.)
This nonsense is flawed and on the whole irrelevant. I am not going to discuss this particular argumentative angle any longer.
I do not support squatters' rights in the slightest, and believe — like many in this country judging from the sporadic media coverage the issue gets — the law needs to be reformed.
That's nice.
I didn't think you would either. But, that was't my point nor did I ask for your opinion on squatting.
I notice you fail to discuss the apparent parity in law, as we stood before the introduction aggravated trespass, with squatting and trespass. Both being civil offences right up until criminal acts were committed.
You may want something akin to what I would see as a totalitarian state, others do not and as you said yourself earlier your own beliefs do not outweigh the rights and liberties of everyone else.
I am arguing for liberty that has been taken away. You want to remove more of them.
The current government was elected by the people of this country. They, like the body of law, represent and enforce the moral sentiment of a majority of the country.
So the people who elect the government are responsible enough to make informed decisions, but those who protest aren't?
They are the same people.
Are general election politics, and politics in general, not as controversial or mired with data flaws as these marches? Why are you making a distinction, if not a generalisation on 250,000 people?
Why do you profess one part of democracy, but support heavily subduing the other?
Protest is morally valid, the topics inducing these protests are also valid, in fact almost any reason could be used for justifying peaceful protest really.
Protest can and always been used as a means to an end. We as a society possibly may have not made the improvements in society we did so early if it was not for the effect of protest.
As for the Parliament is the people. The mandate is poor, it is not representative and is warped through political interference, disenfranchisement in many ways is rife in parts as the self serving establishment puts more people off what is viewed as a corrupted system. You failed to address the earlier point that the UK political spectrum has significantly narrowed over decades past, this is not conductive to an inclusive politik and this along with the continued decline is exactly why you are more likely to see dissent in extreme times.
There are issues with that, I'll be the first to point out, but there is a vast difference between a legally elected government acting on majority-held views and an individual acting unlawfully to put forward her individually-held views. Your comparison between the two is bogus on those grounds.
Skewed example.
Your comparison is bogus as outlined above.
I could peacefully make your life a living hell.
That would go from protest to harassment.
The UK Uncut protestors are peacefully harassing businesses, disrupting their lawful activity, causing them not insubstantial financial losses. According to your interpretation of the law they should be allowed to continue to do so ad infinitum, potentially bringing businesses such as Fortnum & Mason to the ground.
UK Uncut weren't the only people there, why do you keep shining the spotlight on them?
Are you on some cruisade?
It is not hyperbolic, no, or at least has none of the negative connotations of the term as you intend it. Again, it is reductio ad absurdum. I take your argument and demonstrate how it can also be used to justify absurd and morally repugnant actions, many of which involve violence. Instead of waving your hands about and declaring such absurd examples hyperbolic (because that's. the. point.), you should either be adjusting your argument to avoid such flaws, explaining how your argument is already nuanced enough to make a distinction between these cases (which you have consistently failed to do), or just straight up give it up. Take your pick.
It's all hyperbolic nonsense.
Yes, we should not be debating this point. Once again it is irrelevant; proof is not required for an arrest to be enacted, as I have explained countless times now.
This is stretching probable cause to all 149 people indiscriminately.
Again, it can't be done.
So what's the distinction between PLCs/large enterprises and people? Businesses are owned by people too. When you disrupt businesses you are infringing the rights of the business owners, and causing them financial harm. You need to drop the 'us vs. them' mentality; it doesn't justify violation of businesses' rights but not individual rights.
Normally open doors and security and perception of person and a social creation. Large enterprises can be huge, 'faceless' entities or at least perceived to be to the individual.
Upon entering a large office without implied authority [it is not always so clear] then if those who are protesting are doing so reasonably it is still a civil matter until criminal offences are committed, ie by the group moving from the reception area onto desks or by blocking access to the building or sections.
This comparison between protesting on open business property and inside someone’s normally secured home has already been shown to be utterly flawed.
It is nothing like the us v them as you emote as usual.
I am arguing what I see as the middle ground and consider myself a relative apolitical person to this movement in England (given I don’t actually give a **** what you do) with the right to protest on one side consideration the various acts and levels of law enacted in these situations.
I think civil disobedience is valid as long as no crimes are commited. It is a valid premise regardless of target.
The economic impact is often unacceptable but this is, again, another problem when trying to balance the rights of people against that of land owners and buisness et al. So many people marching is going to have an adverse effect on such a large economic area anyway so by such clinical neoliberal argument you in effect ban large scale public protest.
As it should be. What is your objection, if any, to this?
That is your opinion. My objection was clearly expressed, the power is being abused to make life easier and erroding the rights of freedom and expression of the people.
Land owners are not the most important people, the freedom of our society is.
Again, I could peacefully make your life a living hell. You can throw the word "peaceful" around until the cows come home, it won't change the fact that aggravated trespass involving the disruption of business infringes on rights, causes harm, and should be (and in fact is) legislated against as a criminal offence.
I keep reiterating the peaceful aspect to counter act your biased insinuations, peaceful protest is morally unassailable;
Once again, aggravated trespass is not and never will be a valid method of protest.
In your opinion of course, which is as usual half right.
Aggravated trespass is open to some interpretation as are most things, but that doesn't detract from it being a valid method of protest where companies are acting illegally which is perfectly lawful, and cases where a private enterprise has been shown to be by accused perspective to be acting unlawfully it has a lot of the time gone no where. That would leave an implied moral validity.
It is the position supported by the democratically-elected government.
Nonsensical reply. It is not such a static position.
What is the moral standard in law?
What about creative use of some revenue channels by way of evasion vehicles that are under constant fiscal consideration? Valid evasion schemes are reviewed for the impact on the public purse and other economic impacts, and these change year on year. They are then closed in some cases. The government tends to be sluggish to keep up with trends. The loophole status is a result of political interference and deliberate complexity.
Why are the same population not allowed to come to their own conclusions about the current tax arrangements and protest as such?
If we vote on such matters, tax gap pledges et al, why is disagreement so frowned upon?
Also closing the tax gap is actually one of the commitments and some investment has been made towards it, although not without its own debate.
Correct, but the UK Uncut campaign does not appear to consider this. It is an uneducated mob mentality. All it takes is one person to point the finger at a business, make up a figure (HMRC described the Vodafone £6bn figure as an "urban myth", for example; people are still libellously touting it) and the mob descends on that business. When questioned about their actions, they simply respond "They're dodging millions/billions in tax! It's a class war! If they weren't dodging tax we wouldn't need these public sector cuts!" These guys won't fare well in the history books.
This is not only UK Uncut as you seem someone preoccupied with, they are not the summary of the protest.
The £6bn is iffy yet partially accurate and inaccurate depending on the argument being taken from it. Through a set of technicallities the settlement was deemed appropriate and 'a good value for tax payers money', should the full liability have been demanded if that technicallity was not allowed it would have been more.
The issue issue is positioning within these schemes in light of the profit being taken from here, and perhaps the issue over the tax gap all together. There are far deaper and wider social issues being contested at the moment than you deride and generalise through bias.
It is also not libel as those on the right are also happy to throw about, it is a matter of opinion. It is the business media have the monopoly on the use of libel and matter of opinion to attack individuals publically. As do MP's.
Your over eagerness to band libel at people you don’t agree with politically is a bit hyperbolic, again.
Not in the slightest. The task of the treasury, and indeed the law more generally stated, is to reflect the prevailing moral opinion of society.
Treasury is magisterially controlled to set out and administer public and economic policy. It has nothing to do with prevailing public moral opinion, votes do not automatically translate to expected policy. Hard decisions have to be made that often the population will not agree with, like continued tax rises for example.
It is not a moral crusader far from it, it acts from law policy and ministerial instruction.
Manifestos are non legally binding, so the endorsement
eventially if allowed to deviate enough counts for nothing other than a pretence.
Al Vallario said:
Proposing, protesting, and arguing in favour of alternative moral standards does not require breaking the existing moral standard. Crucially, however, having a different moral standard does not justify you in breaking the law and disrupting businesses.
It is the governments position to recover all taxes due by targeting avoidance schemes agressively to turn a claimed inward investment of £0.6bn for a return seven fold return in gains from closing the gap further, and the closure of tax heavens and obtaining agreements of reciprocating tax transparancy will continue.
There is no moral position like you claim is written in law, it is ever changing policy.
Al Vallario said:
The hypocrisy of these closing statements is remarkable.
You are arguing for the right for protestors to violate other peoples'/businesses' rights. You cannot possibly assume the role of rights-protector on those grounds.
Strawman. This is on built upon the flawed premise that your opinion and ideology is the ultimate position in this discussion and attempting to condemn me by my own moral compass twisted through your own political bias.
Quite simply I feel civil disobedience is acceptable in a peaceful way. I do not hold the rights of business above people in a civil context. You do, this is the difference between me and a tory. I believe the economic doctrine, it should not be paramount in our moral compass however.
Al Vallario said:
I am only arguing against the right to protest where it violates other peoples'/businesses' rights. The right to protest is important, but it does not trump your right not to have your house burned down, or Fortnum & Mason's right not to have their property trespassed on and their lawful activity disrupted. trespassed on and their lawful activity disrupted.
I contest that, and stop pulling in 'burning down houses'; this analogy is worthless.
![Chris [BEANS]](/styles/overclockers/avatars/6.png){kind=avatar}
Seems pretty archaic not to have those kind of protections already.
