Mammoth, Black, Roaming Earth: Weapon...
Crosswords2 mins ago
Well Done Plod.....
80 Answers
Answers
and what about the vast majority who were there and dont want the event disrupted by these loony leftie scum, what about their rights ?
19:00 Mon 08th May 2023
“ Which section of the new act makes those definitions”
section 78… “serious distress” and “serious annoyance” are not defined at all and are therefore entirely at the discretion of politicians to deem any at all to be illegal
“ which section provides for politicians to amend them?”
section 79… the power actually applies to the definition of “disruption” but the consequences are the same…
“ As far as I know, neither the Tory party nor any other main party that I know of who is likely to form a government, has published its position on the abolition of the Monarchy.”
the tory party is fairly obviously a monarchist party… i don’t think we need them to tell us.
“ which “basic rights” are being stripped from them by the Act? ”
the right to peacefully protest
“ Or are we back to the idea that you believe it is acceptable for serious annoyance or serious distress to be inflicted in furtherance of a particular aim?”
let us have a little think about what’s going to happen if the government has the right to arrest people for being “annoying”… everybody is annoyed by something and being annoyed is fundamentally not harmful to anyone… not a single person has ever actually been harmed by being annoyed. So the definition of “serious annoyance” is completely up to the government and every form of protest is eligible because it might annoy someone… corrupt politicians will doubtless find it “seriously annoying” to encounter protests about their behaviour… people who experience oppression are very “annoying” indeed to those who do the oppressing… people who protest against wars and genocides are very annoying to people who carry them out… the consequence of outlawing “annoyance” is to deprive the public of the cherished right to assemble and protest against these things
i am very pleased for those who had a nice time during the coronation but it is not the job of the uk government to ensure that royalists have a nice day out free from the displeasure of being irritated… it is however the job of the government to protect the freedom of its citizens and the tories seem to hold that responsibility in absolute contempt
section 78… “serious distress” and “serious annoyance” are not defined at all and are therefore entirely at the discretion of politicians to deem any at all to be illegal
“ which section provides for politicians to amend them?”
section 79… the power actually applies to the definition of “disruption” but the consequences are the same…
“ As far as I know, neither the Tory party nor any other main party that I know of who is likely to form a government, has published its position on the abolition of the Monarchy.”
the tory party is fairly obviously a monarchist party… i don’t think we need them to tell us.
“ which “basic rights” are being stripped from them by the Act? ”
the right to peacefully protest
“ Or are we back to the idea that you believe it is acceptable for serious annoyance or serious distress to be inflicted in furtherance of a particular aim?”
let us have a little think about what’s going to happen if the government has the right to arrest people for being “annoying”… everybody is annoyed by something and being annoyed is fundamentally not harmful to anyone… not a single person has ever actually been harmed by being annoyed. So the definition of “serious annoyance” is completely up to the government and every form of protest is eligible because it might annoy someone… corrupt politicians will doubtless find it “seriously annoying” to encounter protests about their behaviour… people who experience oppression are very “annoying” indeed to those who do the oppressing… people who protest against wars and genocides are very annoying to people who carry them out… the consequence of outlawing “annoyance” is to deprive the public of the cherished right to assemble and protest against these things
i am very pleased for those who had a nice time during the coronation but it is not the job of the uk government to ensure that royalists have a nice day out free from the displeasure of being irritated… it is however the job of the government to protect the freedom of its citizens and the tories seem to hold that responsibility in absolute contempt
jimf: "Well, they wanted to protest against the coronation, which was happening in London - where do you suggest they should have protested against the coronation? " - they are primarily protesting against the very idea of the monarchy, fair enough they can have every day between now and the next coronation to protest till their hearts content. Why disrupt this extremely rare event?
https:/
The Metropolitan Police has expressed "regret" over the arrests of six anti-monarchy protesters on Coronation day.
...
The Met also confirmed it had used a controversial new law to detain the group.
...
"We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route," [the Met said].
Now it has said all six people have had their bail cancelled and confirmed no further action will be taken.
...
Former cabinet minister David Davis was the only Conservative MP to vote against the changes to the Public Order Bill, which criminalised protesters using lock-on measures.
He said that the legislation should be scrutinised by the Home Affairs Select Committee to ensure it is understood and implemented fairly.
He told the Today programme: "There's too many elements of the law that are too crude and too broadly defined.
"What the government said was that it expects the police to come up with standards of behaviour. That's very woolly. If we're going to do that, we should do it properly, do it centrally, with the same level of democracy in the whole country.
"No-one wants a day ruined, but the right to put up placards is virtually absolute in British democracy."
Former Greater Manchester police chief Sir Peter Fahy said he gave evidence in parliament expressing his concern that the new law was "poorly defined and far too broad".
"We see the consequences of that, particularly for the poor police officers who have to make sense of legislation that was only passed a few days ago," he told the Today programme.
"This law could affect all sorts of protests in your local community, and this legislation could be used against you, and the police would be under pressure.
"The government have actually reduced the amount of discretion the police have in getting the balance right."
The Metropolitan Police has expressed "regret" over the arrests of six anti-monarchy protesters on Coronation day.
...
The Met also confirmed it had used a controversial new law to detain the group.
...
"We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route," [the Met said].
Now it has said all six people have had their bail cancelled and confirmed no further action will be taken.
...
Former cabinet minister David Davis was the only Conservative MP to vote against the changes to the Public Order Bill, which criminalised protesters using lock-on measures.
He said that the legislation should be scrutinised by the Home Affairs Select Committee to ensure it is understood and implemented fairly.
He told the Today programme: "There's too many elements of the law that are too crude and too broadly defined.
"What the government said was that it expects the police to come up with standards of behaviour. That's very woolly. If we're going to do that, we should do it properly, do it centrally, with the same level of democracy in the whole country.
"No-one wants a day ruined, but the right to put up placards is virtually absolute in British democracy."
Former Greater Manchester police chief Sir Peter Fahy said he gave evidence in parliament expressing his concern that the new law was "poorly defined and far too broad".
"We see the consequences of that, particularly for the poor police officers who have to make sense of legislation that was only passed a few days ago," he told the Today programme.
"This law could affect all sorts of protests in your local community, and this legislation could be used against you, and the police would be under pressure.
"The government have actually reduced the amount of discretion the police have in getting the balance right."
Quite right YMB, I have respect and understanding for those who oppose the idea of a monarchy but they do their cause no favours by disrupting this kind of event. I don't approve of dog shows for example but I'm at Crufts trying to strap myself to a great dane, I accept it's their party and they can get on with it.
"Being a staunch Republican I am extremely annoyed at these people."
well colour me surprised lol
"fair enough they can have every day between now and the next coronation"
except they can't can they? it was the same thing when the queen died or during the royal weddings... basically any time that attention is focused on the royal family suddenly becomes "not the right time"... the first family comes first every time... why should monarchists dictate the correct time to protest about the monarchy?
some people object to the royals being given such unthinking deference and some of those have the courage and integrity to get out and stand by their convictions rather than abandon them every time the royals are having a bash... and good on them. people like that make the world a better place... kings and queens do not.
well colour me surprised lol
"fair enough they can have every day between now and the next coronation"
except they can't can they? it was the same thing when the queen died or during the royal weddings... basically any time that attention is focused on the royal family suddenly becomes "not the right time"... the first family comes first every time... why should monarchists dictate the correct time to protest about the monarchy?
some people object to the royals being given such unthinking deference and some of those have the courage and integrity to get out and stand by their convictions rather than abandon them every time the royals are having a bash... and good on them. people like that make the world a better place... kings and queens do not.
//it was the same thing when the queen died or during the royal weddings//
Wouldn't they be taken more seriously if they organised a proper rally in London on a day when one of those big and relatively rare occasions isn't taking place? Just disrupting proceedings - which is what they do - portrays them only as idiots and troublemakers.
Wouldn't they be taken more seriously if they organised a proper rally in London on a day when one of those big and relatively rare occasions isn't taking place? Just disrupting proceedings - which is what they do - portrays them only as idiots and troublemakers.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
