Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,834
Most people thought the protest was great, right up until they couldn't get petrol for their own car.
It’s all kicking off in Bristol
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
- Status
Most people thought the protest was great, right up until they couldn't get petrol for their own car.
I think it gives Police broad powers, but people forget we live in a Democracy and not North Korea. The government needs to be deemed to be acting reasonably when it comes to protests, they need to strike a balance. The vast majority of people support the right to protest, so any government that is seen to be using powers to stop reasonable protests will simply find themselves no longer in power at the earliest opportunity people have to elect a new government. People also actually want to be able to go about their daily business without having their lives disrupted by left wing lunatics who simply *hate* the Tories, if the government allow these people to go around disrupting peoples lives unchallenged they'll also be unelected. This whole thing where you're worried about people suddenly being unable to protest in a reasonable and peaceful manner is ridiculous because it's simply so incredibly unpopular to jail peaceful protestors that it won't happen, the powers are there for extreme circumstances.
Most people thought the protest was great, right up until they couldn't get petrol for their own car.
I remember, I drove back to uni the weekend of the fuel strike (circa 350 miles), fortunately started with a full tank of fuel in the hire car.
There have been too many abuses of Section 5 of the Public Order Act and Section 127 of the Communications Act for me to agree with you there. If this bill becomes and act, it will likely be abused too.
Granted that Section 5 was reformed somewhat a few years ago, but it is still abused.
I agree there is scope for abuse, and that's why we have a free press that is able to highlight instances where that does take place and the authorities can be held to account for that.
Yes, but it's better to be proactive rather than reactive, and not have such a vague law to begin with. You can write laws to prevent people from physically restricting people from entering business and trains, e.g. to prevent XR, without having such a broad effect on peaceful protest.
Protestors aren't stupid, they're organised and seek have as much impact as possible while skirting around existing laws. Laws need to be broad otherwise they're simply ineffectual.
Maybe it would be better to oppose the passing of legislation that will let police take action against one bloke shouting louder than a police officer deems to be acceptable in the first place, rather than pass it and try and deal with the consequences of any abuse?
I'm more worried about protestors abusing a lack of legislation since I have no control over them than I am a government that we freely elect
You can still support amending the legislation to become more appropriate before it's passed, it's not a binary choice of 'accept it as it is or nothing'.
I mean I'm happy for them to put in reasonable amendments but I also agree with the intention of the bill which is to protect businesses and the economy from protestors intent on causing massive amounts of disruption
Which there are already plenty of laws they could use to stop protestors doing this. You know, if the police had the right resources and funding.
Trying to legislate to effectively make any and all protests illegal to prevent them isn’t about protecting businesses. It’s a power grab and an attempt to stifle debate and silence those with an alternative view and something the British government would condemn a third world country for doing.
I’m saying this as an ex card carrying, Spectator subscribing, Tory voter for what it’s worth!
Yes it would be great if we had unlimited money to fund everything to the levels we would like. How would the Police both arrest people and put them in prison for 10 years and represent a massive threat to individual rights, while also being under funded?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,671
Under the Conservatives we didn't have the money, because austerity (Boo!)
But don't worry, because now under the Conservatives we've a magic money tree to spend on silly PPE contracts, extra police, Furlough etc etc.
It's almost like austerity was ******* pointless.
But don't worry, because now under the Conservatives we've a magic money tree to spend on silly PPE contracts, extra police, Furlough etc etc.
It's almost like austerity was ******* pointless.
I would imagine you keep that rather quiet in Glasgow
Whilst at university I worked as an Asda home shopping delivery driver. I once saw Ruth Davidson doing a photo shoot outside a tenement. I thought I’d go say hello and show my support so I parked my van and walked towards her. The look on her face as a scruffy man in safety boots, high vis and a bright green jacket walked purposefully towards her was one of shock, horror and abject danger!
Back then? Probably Bearsden. Certainly not one of the lunatic, flag waving, bench destroying, Subway burning nutters from Larkhall! Give me a scone at a village fete and allow my house to appreciate four hundred percent a year please.
The police will be used as an extension of the state to quell dissent and opposition voices. That’s what this bill allows for.
It’s not connected, but isn’t it great We’ve left the tyranny of the EU to join such liberal, forward thinking countries like Myanmar and China...
Go on then Vincent, you've heard about a few PPE contracts that were handled poorly during a pandemic, how many PPE contracts were issued in totality?
Extra front line Police is what most people wanted, and Furlough is designed so the economy recovers.
- Status