Question re. injunction

PermaBanned

PermaBanned

PermaBanned

Soldato
Joined
7 Jul 2009
Posts
16,234
Location
Newcastle/Aberdeen
Well i just saw this on the local news (urgh):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-14517090

An injunction has been gained to prevent revellers gathering on beaches in South Shields.

South Tyneside Council said it feared up to 2,000 people would gather on Saturday after registering on a social networking site.

It and Northumbria Police obtained an injunction from a Newcastle Crown Court judge on the grounds of public safety.

It forbids a party at Sandhaven Beach, or any others controlled by the council, without proper approval.

Council lead member for leisure and community safety, Councillor Tracey Dixon, said they wanted to maintain a family-friendly atmosphere along the seafront.

She said: "Because of our firm stance we went to court to obtain this injunction against the 'organiser' as we had very real concerns that this illegal, large-scale event was not properly organised.

"It could have put at risk the safety of those attending and caused extreme nuisance and disturbance to residents and visitors alike."
Click to expand...

Now this is the first i've heard about this case, but could somebody please explain to me why Article 20 of the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights doesn't apply here?

Universal Deceleration of Human Rights said:
Article 20.
  • (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Click to expand...
 
I imagine they claim that due to the amount of people, that it's going to be a 'party' and that they fear for public safety that it can't be considered "peaceful assembly" and as such, they can block it.
 
To be fair, they're not saying that you can't have a party on the beach, they're saying you can't have a 2,000+ people party on their turf without satisfying them it isn't going to be dangerous or completely unorganised. At any other event that size you'd need marshals and paramedics, which I'm guessing this lot haven't prepared.
 
Universal declaration of human rights? It's the first I heard of it.

If you are going to quote human rights, the only law valid here is the Human Rights act 1998 which incorporate the European Convention of Human rights into our law.
 
Good, probabley would have just ended up being a load of chavs fighting with each other. It's bad enough when there's a group of 5+ scumbags at Shields beach, nevermind 2000.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Universal declaration of human rights? It's the first I heard of it.

If you are going to quote human rights, the only law valid here is the Human Rights act 1998 which incorporate the European Convention of Human rights into our law.
Click to expand...

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Since we're part of the General Assembly i would say it's pretty relevant...
 
Off topic....but wasn't it the STC that went to the Cali courts to try and name the person on twitter for posting council spending?
 
Moses said:
Really? Didn't you study law?!
Click to expand...

International law isn't needed by the Law Society (for Scotland anyway) therefore it's not a case of him missing anything in his training/education.
However, it is surprising that he's never heard of it but then again I found int. law to be the most interesting subject.
 
Last edited:
Autocorrect is amazing isn't it? Here we've got the Universal slowing down of Human Rights - surely the diametric opposite of what the drafters intended. :p

As stated though the UDHR isn't binding on the UK, it's one of those things it would be nice to follow but sometimes it is decided that other concerns outweight the niceties of allowing it to take precedence.
 
Just break your group up, everyone pair up and meet there. Then it's a gathering of 1000 pairs instead of 2,000 as a whole :)
 
Because the authorities apply the laws that suit them. If you wish to challenge it get your wallet out.
 
Stretch said:
Because the authorities apply the laws that suit them. If you wish to challenge it get your wallet out.
Click to expand...

Or, more likely, certainly in this case the authorities understand that whilst you have the freedom to travel, speak, and meet people, under certain circumstances that needs to be balanced with the rights of others to have peace and quiet, and for some sort of planning...

Also from memory like "freedom of speach", and "freedom of movement", the "freedom to congregate" doesn't apply when it applies to things that are done at another's expense.
You've got the freedom of speech, but don't expect someone else to pay for it or supply you with a place to practise it*, you've got the freedom of travel but doesn't mean you're guaranteed a driving licence** or a means of transport (other than shanks pony), and you've got the freedom to congregate but you may need permission to do so in large groups in some areas.



*Rather like you can't expect a newspaper to print that long ranting letter you sent in, or for a privately run computer forum to allow you to post whatever you want regardless of the rules (yes we've had that "but you're impinging on my freedom of speech" stuff).

**I vaguely remember a couple of cases where people have tried that "freedom to travel" line when they've been facing a driving ban in the States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom