Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2022 14:24:11 GMT
Khan was born in London and is a British as you and I. How many times? I am well aware, where Khan was born. However, if you think that makes Khan, a British Pakistani and practicing Muslim whose parents came to this country from Pakistan in 1968, as British as me, then you are very, very wrong. I sincerely hope as an outraged lefty you are outraged by this. I would be disappointed in any other reaction. I am not outraged, I 'feel' for you.  |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 12, 2022 14:26:49 GMT
How many times? I am well aware, where Khan was born. However, if you think that makes Khan, a British Pakistani and practicing Muslim whose parents came to this country from Pakistan in 1968, as British as me, then you are very, very wrong. I sincerely hope as an outraged lefty you are outraged by this. I would be disappointed in any other reaction. I am not outraged, I 'feel' for you. You bloody well don't, you perv.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2022 14:49:03 GMT
I am not outraged, I 'feel' for you. You bloody well don't, you perv. Oh go on.  |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 12, 2022 15:36:07 GMT
You bloody well don't, you perv. Oh go on. Mods help, I feel violated. Red Rum is attempting to groom me.  |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 12, 2022 15:55:45 GMT
Oh go on. Mods help, I feel violated. Red Rum is attempting to groom me. If you will go out dressed like that what do you expect? |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 12, 2022 17:26:45 GMT
Mods help, I feel violated. Red Rum is attempting to groom me. If you will go out dressed like that what do you expect?  |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 12, 2022 17:34:51 GMT
No because this is what Sir Mark Rowley actually said: 'Police are unable to clear London roads blocked by Just Stop Oil campaigners because the protests are not passing the legal test of causing “serious disruption”, the Met Commissioner admitted on Wednesday.
Sir Mark Rowley said he was annoyed and “frustrated” that officers could not to do more and that the protests were diverting police from tackling knife crime, violence against women and girls and other offending.
But he said that despite reports of ambulance being blocked, the advice that the Met was receiving from Transport for London, local councils and the emergency services was that the “serious disruption” threshold set by Parliament for police intervention had not been crossed.'uk.news.yahoo.com/just-stop-oil-protesters-not-122806503.htmlDo you really need it explained in easily crayonable terms that 'set by Parliament' means set by your Tory government? The Criminal Laws in the UK a whole raft of them have been in place over many years by various Parties when in power by the Parliamentary process, some are added to some amendments are made as well over the years, when it comes to the Public Order Act in relation to Protests the Tories simply added to the existing act after the riot in Bristol, to give the Police a little more power to deal with Protests that is all. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 12, 2022 18:45:35 GMT
No because this is what Sir Mark Rowley actually said: 'Police are unable to clear London roads blocked by Just Stop Oil campaigners because the protests are not passing the legal test of causing “serious disruption”, the Met Commissioner admitted on Wednesday.
Sir Mark Rowley said he was annoyed and “frustrated” that officers could not to do more and that the protests were diverting police from tackling knife crime, violence against women and girls and other offending.
But he said that despite reports of ambulance being blocked, the advice that the Met was receiving from Transport for London, local councils and the emergency services was that the “serious disruption” threshold set by Parliament for police intervention had not been crossed.'uk.news.yahoo.com/just-stop-oil-protesters-not-122806503.htmlDo you really need it explained in easily crayonable terms that 'set by Parliament' means set by your Tory government? The law does not mention 'serious disruption' this is a classic case of the police interpreting the law as they see fit. The Highways Act 1980 clearly states it is an offence to wilfully obstruct the highway. Quote; Penalty for wilful obstruction. If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or, a fine, or both.
This was reaffirmed in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The law is quite clear. The police choose not to implement it.  You bring in Mark Rowley and when his actual words are quoted (showing you to have been bullshitting) you try a swerve moving the goal posts. And you fuck that up as your woeful ignorance of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 is noted 'Serious Disruption' is specifically mentioned 18 times in the Act www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/32/enacted/data.pdf |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2022 18:57:24 GMT
The law does not mention 'serious disruption' this is a classic case of the police interpreting the law as they see fit. The Highways Act 1980 clearly states it is an offence to wilfully obstruct the highway. Quote; Penalty for wilful obstruction. If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or, a fine, or both.
This was reaffirmed in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The law is quite clear. The police choose not to implement it. You bring in Mark Rowley and when he's actual words are quoted (showing you to have been bullshitting) you try a swerve moving the goal posts. And you fuck that up as your woeful ignorance of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 is noted 'Serious Disruption' is specifically mentioned 18 times in the Act www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/32/enacted/data.pdfSteve, they all relate to public processions or assembly, not to wilful obstruction of the Highway. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 12, 2022 19:02:33 GMT
You bring in Mark Rowley and when his actual words are quoted (showing you to have been bullshitting) you try a swerve moving the goal posts. And you fuck that up as your woeful ignorance of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 is noted 'Serious Disruption' is specifically mentioned 18 times in the Act www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/32/enacted/data.pdfSteve, they all relate to public processions or assembly, not to wilful obstruction of the Highway. Nope, 'protest' and 'demonstration' are specifically mentioned and it's not how the government reads it Remember the 2022 Act works by inserting further conditions into other Acts (eg Public Order Act) |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 15, 2022 13:57:36 GMT
No because this is what Sir Mark Rowley actually said: 'Police are unable to clear London roads blocked by Just Stop Oil campaigners because the protests are not passing the legal test of causing “serious disruption”, the Met Commissioner admitted on Wednesday.
Sir Mark Rowley said he was annoyed and “frustrated” that officers could not to do more and that the protests were diverting police from tackling knife crime, violence against women and girls and other offending.
But he said that despite reports of ambulance being blocked, the advice that the Met was receiving from Transport for London, local councils and the emergency services was that the “serious disruption” threshold set by Parliament for police intervention had not been crossed.'uk.news.yahoo.com/just-stop-oil-protesters-not-122806503.htmlDo you really need it explained in easily crayonable terms that 'set by Parliament' means set by your Tory government? Steve Have you tried finding the statute passed by parliament whereby they dictated that level of serious disruption ? I read the metropolitan police statement. And I went off to Google where parliament set that as claimed. The only web results I get back are references, mainly by whiny snowflakes, to proposed legislation, referred to in articles from August and September this year, where Serious Disruption Protection Orders were proposed. I’m not sure that legislation is on the statute books yet. I think it strange I can’t see anything from an earlier date, but if such exists I’d love to hear of it and know how bad it has to get before the threshold is met. Of course that may not be public knowledge or freely available on the grounds if it were, just stop oils scum would know how far they could go. If the situation is that this threshold is part of that set of measures that were proposed and whinged about in September, and are not yet on the statute books, do you not think it a little less than professional of the met police to pretend they cannot act because of something they say the government has not done when the reality is such measures are not yet law ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 15, 2022 17:32:53 GMT
Well there is my Nov 12, 2022 at 7:02pm post that quotes the relevant legislation and links to the government guidance where it says this 'Serious disruption to the activities of an organisation is defined as including where it may result in persons connected with the organisation not being reasonably able, for a prolonged period, to carry out their activities within the vicinity of a protest. The Home Secretary has a delegated power to further define the meaning of serious disruption and provide further clarity to police in the use of these powers through secondary legislation. We are working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and other policing partners to produce guidance on the use of these new measures and other powers included in the Act.'And then there's the CPS guidance www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-during-protests-demonstrations-or-campaigns which includes: 'New subsections 12(2A) and 14(2A) POA 1986 provide that the cases in which a procession or assembly may result in serious disruption to the life of the community include, in particular, where it may result in a significant delay to the supply of a time-sensitive product to consumers of that product or a prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or essential services, including those listed.' |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Nov 15, 2022 19:10:41 GMT
Well there is my Nov 12, 2022 at 7:02pm post that quotes the relevant legislation and links to the government guidance where it says this 'Serious disruption to the activities of an organisation is defined as including where it may result in persons connected with the organisation not being reasonably able, for a prolonged period, to carry out their activities within the vicinity of a protest. The Home Secretary has a delegated power to further define the meaning of serious disruption and provide further clarity to police in the use of these powers through secondary legislation. We are working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and other policing partners to produce guidance on the use of these new measures and other powers included in the Act.'And then there's the CPS guidance www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-during-protests-demonstrations-or-campaigns which includes: 'New subsections 12(2A) and 14(2A) POA 1986 provide that the cases in which a procession or assembly may result in serious disruption to the life of the community include, in particular, where it may result in a significant delay to the supply of a time-sensitive product to consumers of that product or a prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or essential services, including those listed.'Pre the Supreme Court your links may have been relevant Not so now , after the Supreme Court's highly political judgment in Ziegler giving them as good as carte blanche to block roads Blame Blair www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0106.html |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 15, 2022 20:36:04 GMT
Well there is my Nov 12, 2022 at 7:02pm post that quotes the relevant legislation and links to the government guidance where it says this 'Serious disruption to the activities of an organisation is defined as including where it may result in persons connected with the organisation not being reasonably able, for a prolonged period, to carry out their activities within the vicinity of a protest. The Home Secretary has a delegated power to further define the meaning of serious disruption and provide further clarity to police in the use of these powers through secondary legislation. We are working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and other policing partners to produce guidance on the use of these new measures and other powers included in the Act.'And then there's the CPS guidance www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-during-protests-demonstrations-or-campaigns which includes: 'New subsections 12(2A) and 14(2A) POA 1986 provide that the cases in which a procession or assembly may result in serious disruption to the life of the community include, in particular, where it may result in a significant delay to the supply of a time-sensitive product to consumers of that product or a prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or essential services, including those listed.'Pre the Supreme Court your links may have been relevant Not so now , after the Supreme Court's highly political judgment in Ziegler giving them as good as carte blanche to block roads Blame Blair www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0106.htmlNo because the 2022 legislation being a later decision (legally of the Monarch) trumps a 2021 judgement. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Nov 19, 2022 13:02:57 GMT
Pre the Supreme Court your links may have been relevant Not so now , after the Supreme Court's highly political judgment in Ziegler giving them as good as carte blanche to block roads Blame Blair www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0106.htmlNo because the 2022 legislation being a later decision (legally of the Monarch) trumps a 2021 judgement. No you are wrong (never previously heard of legislation being called a decision of the Monarch - Do you think the queen wrote it?), the 22 Act does not deal with obstruction of the highway and the political judgment in Ziegler at Supreme court level is freely available to be used as a defence by any rag tag highly organised anti government lobby group. |
|
