Actual Police State

Dis86 said:
Got a source for that? Everything I'm reading states it's a legal right unless in certain circumstances which don't appear to apply here.
Click to expand...

If you read the Human Rights Act 1998, you'll see this is often part of the schedule:
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Click to expand...
 
Burnsy2023 said:
If you read the Human Rights Act 1998, you'll see this is often part of the schedule:
Click to expand...

And that's great, because so long as they comply with that then the protests can continue. Which is not what the Met have said. They've banned all protests associated with the group.
 
How come so many of the arrested/charged are ' address unknown ' or even ' no DOB given - address unknown ' ?

They can't all be homeless surely :confused:
 
Dis86 said:
And that's great, because so long as they comply with that then the protests can continue. Which is not what the Met have said. They've banned all protests associated with the group.
Click to expand...

The point is that there's an argument as to whether the restrictions are proportionate to meet the exemptions of the Act. The freedom to assemble is a qualified right.

In my view, I think the Met's order could be successfully challenged in court. It could very well be deemed too broad, especially as there is no end date and it covers the whole of London which may be judged to be disproportionate. That's for barristers to argue in court though.
 
Brizzles said:
How come so many of the arrested/charged are ' address unknown ' or even ' no DOB given - address unknown ' ?

They can't all be homeless surely :confused:
Click to expand...

Technically, there is no requirement to disclose name and address through the whole process. They could be convicted without those details, although they'd be remanded before court.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
The point is that there's an argument as to whether the restrictions are proportionate to meet the exemptions of the Act. The freedom to assemble is a qualified right.

In my view, I think the Met's order could be successfully challenged in court. It could very well be deemed too broad, especially as there is no end date and it covers the whole of London which may be judged to be disproportionate. That's for barristers to argue in court though.
Click to expand...

Which is my point. Conditions must be met to enact and maintain a ban - that can't be the case where the Met have just installed a blanket ban. Bad Met. BAD!
 
Dis86 said:
Which is my point. Conditions must be met to enact and maintain a ban - that can't be the case where the Met have just installed a blanket ban. Bad Met. BAD!
Click to expand...

That's still for a court to rule on though. They might deem it lawful, I have no idea how that case might end up.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Technically, there is no requirement to disclose name and address through the whole process. They could be convicted without those details, although they'd be remanded before court.
Click to expand...

How would you enforce the sentence on someone with no name or address ?

a nine-month conditional discharge and was required to pay £85 costs and a £21 surcharge.
Click to expand...

Would they have to pay before they are released ?
 
Extinction Rebellion set to bring chaos to London Underground as they expand protests to target Tube

I'm debating starting a group/petition to agree to "peacefully remove" the protestors and see how many Londoners agree! I can't fathom why they think this is a good idea. Mass transit is demonstrably the best form of transport for the environment and the Tube is among the best and well known in the world. They should be celebrating it, not disrupting it. I wonder what they'll think of all the extra co2 when everyone tries to get cabs, they're a **** ton more traffic than usual etc. Idiots :rolleyes:

I think this is jumping the shark, proof they're more a vocal minority intent on causing disruption rather than getting a point across.
 
It's not about the environment, there's ADHD Swedish teenagers for that, it's about causing as much financial damage as possible, holding cities to ransom and being a bloody pita for everyone else.

I've said multiple times an actual police state is what is needed to possibly alter climate change through control of the Plebs.
 
Brizzles said:
How would you enforce the sentence on someone with no name or address ?
Click to expand...

The practicalities are always harder than the theory. I have known it to happen, essentially it restricts what sentences can be given, often resulting in a custodial sentence even if it's really short.
 
Brizzles said:
How would you enforce the sentence on someone with no name or address ?
Click to expand...

Following interview and charge they would be remanded and put in front of the first sitting court. If they still refused to give over details then the courts could either remand them until trial or administer a punishment fitting of the offence (one nights imprisonment already served at a police station)
 
My conspiracy mind wonders why these rules weren't enforced when they were bringing London to a standstill.

They should have been removed from the start.

We have a strange situation in this country that we have to ask permission before we can protest.
 
You don't need to ask permission before you protest. Standing in the middle of the town square on a soapbox with a few placards wont attract any negative police attention.

Planning a major march or mass event likely to cause disruption or attract counter protest requires registering with local police to ensure that it can be properly managed to reduce likelihood of disorder or violence.

Holding a protest that results in abuse and threat's screamed at employees of a firm, blocking the public highway, criminal damage or widespread violent disorder will get it banned and shut down.

Article 10 & 11 allows you 'peaceful protest' not protest wherever, however and to whoever you see fit.
 
Dis86 said:
How do you know they apply? Do you have a crystal ball?
Click to expand...

Is this a rhetorical question?

Or do I really have to point out the disruption and criminal activity being caused by protesters that you've already linked to.

It isn't a peaceful protest and when the organisers themselves are into criminal activity you can't say it's some rogue elements, it's from the top.
 
Hotwired said:
Is this a rhetorical question?

Or do I really have to point out the disruption and criminal activity being caused by protesters that you've already linked to.

It isn't a peaceful protest and when the organisers themselves are into criminal activity you can't say it's some rogue elements, it's from the top.
Click to expand...

Yet you also can't say what would happen in the future. Not all of their protests have broken laws.
 
Dis86 said:
Yet you also can't say what would happen in the future. Not all of their protests have broken laws.
Click to expand...

But it IS an organised protest so when the organisers are clearly advocating behaviour that is excessively disruptive (debatable) or downright illegal (not debatable) there's a decent case to say the whole lot should be told to push off.
 
Dis86 said:
Yet you also can't say what would happen in the future. Not all of their protests have broken laws.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a view of the uk legal system that is rather divorced from reality. Both criminal and civil laws are not purely reactive to the committing of an act itself.

You are aware of the concept of conspiracy in English law, for example?

https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/conspiracy/

Or the granting of injunctions to prevent things happening?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom