|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 28, 2023 21:03:57 GMT
In view of recent protests, I'm talking about groups like 'Just Stop Oil' who block the public highway and stop people going about their lawful business, which is incidentally against the law, and the seemingly never ending pro Palestine/Hamas protests that closed shops on some of the busiest trading days of the year, should the government restrict the right to protest? Note, I say restrict, not ban.
It has just been mentioned on GB News that the new president in Argentina, Javier Milei, has not banned protest, but he has decreed that if protests financially damage the economy the protest organisers must pay. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Unfortunately, according to Toby Young of the free speech union, left wing lawyers in this country would probably beat such a law thanks to the ECHR.
Just for interest, this year the policing bill for JSO and Palestine/Hamas protests is running at £20 million, that's not including the financial cost to the economy. That in my opinion is ridiculous. The right to protest is rightly enshrined in law, the right to disrupt people lives and in the process cost the authorities £millions, is not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2023 21:23:34 GMT
When a large football match is held, the Police bill has to be paid by the clubs/promoters.
In the same way, the promoters of street protests should be billed by the "old bill" for their expenses and overtime. There would be a lot less public protest, and probably an increase in crowd funding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 28, 2023 21:41:10 GMT
When a large football match is held, the Police bill has to be paid by the clubs/promoters. In the same way, the promoters of street protests should be billed by the "old bill" for their expenses and overtime. There would be a lot less public protest, and probably an increase in crowd funding. A perfectly reasonable point of view, a point of view I share. The problem is left wing lawyers would almost certainly use the ECHR to stop the government imposing financial costs on protest organisers. Just another reason to withdraw from the ECHR. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 28, 2023 21:44:32 GMT
In view of recent protests, I'm talking about groups like 'Just Stop Oil' who block the public highway and stop people going about their lawful business, which is incidentally against the law, and the seemingly never ending pro Palestine/Hamas protests that closed shops on some of the busiest trading days of the year, should the government restrict the right to protest? Note, I say restrict, not ban. It has just been mentioned on GB News that the new president in Argentina, Javier Milei, has not banned protest, but he has decreed that if protests financially damage the economy the protest organisers must pay. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Unfortunately, according to Toby Young of the free speech union, left wing lawyers in this country would probably beat such a law thanks to the ECHR. Just for interest, this year the policing bill for JSO and Palestine/Hamas protests is running at £20 million, that's not including the financial cost to the economy. That in my opinion is ridiculous. The right to protest is rightly enshrined in law, the right to disrupt people lives and in the process cost the authorities £millions, is not. The laws already exist to stop disruption, we do not need more we just need the application of the laws that exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 28, 2023 21:52:09 GMT
The laws already exist to stop disruption, we do not need more we just need the application of the laws that exist. I assume you refer to the Public Order Act 2023. I would be grateful if you could point out the relevant article/section/paragraph that refers to reasonable compensation for financial losses incurred due to protests. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 29, 2023 14:41:31 GMT
The laws already exist to stop disruption, we do not need more we just need the application of the laws that exist. I assume you refer to the Public Order Act 2023. I would be grateful if you could point out the relevant article/section/paragraph that refers to reasonable compensation for financial losses incurred due to protests. I am referring to the laws that can be applied to stop the protests being as disruptive as they have been, then compensation would not be such an issue. For JSO the obstruction of the King's highway is clear and is now being used about a year too late. Kettling of protestors and control of areas into which demonstrations can take place with police permission is already available as are laws that outlaw certain aggressive acts. More laws are not necessary all that is really required is application of the existing laws and many issues associated with unfettered demonstrations are resolved. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 29, 2023 15:32:47 GMT
Well let’s just take a moment to think about what is meant by the right to protest.
Under Blair we started to see a change of police policy. Protest gatherings and marches were diverted and kettled. A protest against the antics of the chinese timed to coincide with their head honcho being feted in a London noshery was ordered into a dead end industrial estate and kettled, so they were indeed allowed to ‘protest’, two miles away from where the news cameras were covering the chinese visit. No chinaman (outside however many hundred Chinese Stasi attached to the visit) saw as much as a glimmer of dissatisfaction and the masses back home saw London welcome their beloved leader in a style more reminiscent of Kim Jong SillyBloodyHaircut.
That is what the Metropolitan police mean by your public right to protest. A right to stand where they have ensured no one of any importance will see you and shout your mouth off where they have ensured no one if any importance will hear you.
It’s a bit different from being allowed to go to speaker’s corner where anyone who wants can come and hear you speak your mind and anyone who wants can also return as good as they get from you.
|
|
