Life in a democracy.....

[j4bberw0ck]

You know how we all live in one of the world's leading democracies? The country that gave the world habeas corpus, double jeopardy, innocence until proven guilty? The country of freedom of speech?

Yeah, right. Another triumph of Blairite Socialism.

The last sentence of the article makes particularly interesting reading.

Heaven forfend that our elected representatives might have to tolerate citizens of this country trying to communicate their beliefs.

[Rheghead]

Should a crime go unpunished is that what you are saying?

[Metalattakk]

Don't see the problem here - he had a choice: pay the £600 fine or go to jail. He chose one of the options.

Doesn't seem un-democratic to me.

[Boozeburglar]

It seems mad to me.

We have prisoners convicted of serious crimes being released early because our prisons are overcrowded.

There is no room in prison, and should we really be locking someone up for owing money?

Would a community sentence not suffice?

It will cost so much more than the money he owes to keep him in prison.

Could they not sieze his possessions, future earnings, etc.?

Is this really where we are at, locking people up for minor things that harmed no one?

[j4bberw0ck]

Heaven forfend that our elected representatives might have to tolerate citizens of this country trying to communicate their beliefs.

I evidently wasn't sufficiently clear in my objection to this. The triumph of Blairite Socialism is the passing of a law which bans any protest or gathering within 1 kilometre of the houses of Parliament or Downing Street unless it's previously been sanctioned by the government or one of its agencies (in this case the Police). Before 2005 there was, was there not, freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom to protest? Defining areas where it's NOT ok to protest (and I accept that there are a very few locations which should be off limits for reasons of danger or national security), apparently because it might inconvenience or embarrass our elected representatives, is a long step down a slippery road.

So it's not the choice between paying the fine and going to jail that's at issue here. It's another of those inconvenient principles, which politicians love encroaching upon; Parliament today, London tomorrow, the UK after that?

Nothing demonstrates "mission creep" quite like a politician's zeal and desire to control.

[Boozeburglar]

I evidently wasn't sufficiently clear in my objection to this. The triumph of Blairite Socialism is the passing of a law which bans any protest or gathering within 1 kilometre of the houses of Parliament or Downing Street unless it's previously been sanctioned by the government or one of its agencies (in this case the Police). Before 2005 there was, was there not, freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom to protest? Defining areas where it's NOT ok to protest (and I accept that there are a very few locations which should be off limits for reasons of danger or national security), apparently because it might inconvenience or embarrass our elected representatives, is a long step down a slippery road.

So it's not the choice between paying the fine and going to jail that's at issue here. It's another of those inconvenient principles, which politicians love encroaching upon; Parliament today, London tomorrow, the UK after that?

Nothing demonstrates "mission creep" quite like a politician's zeal and desire to control.

I think the Public Order Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 set out the stall for modern Britain's approach to public protest.

The Tories would not have passed similar legisaltion to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act? Right.

More likely they would have, in light of the recent 'terror' attacks, set up an exclusion zone miles around Parliament, just like the one they set up around Stonhenge for years.

Gordon Brown is going to scrap exclusion zone as far as I have heard.

Anyway there are other laws to cover assembly without permission in public places, thanks to the Tories.

[j4bberw0ck]

Boozie, do me a favour, and re-read what I said, please? It's not about restriction of the right to protest where there's danger to the protestors or a sound national security reason to prohibit it; it's about prohibition at the seat of government. I'm also aware that there are circumstances in which protest (like demonstrations and mass-marches) needs to be managed for the benefit and safety of those who aren't involved and have a life to lead.

To aim a Serious Organised Crime charge at a couple of people waving a placard in Downing Street (which is basically what's involved here) is a grotesquely disproportionate reaction, and the fact that it can happen at all means that either the Police are once again failing to use their discretion and common sense, or that "mission creep" has already begun. And the fact that learned Judges rule that there's no breach of human rights in prosecuting means there's something rotten in the State of Denmark woops, sorry, Government.

And do please appreciate that despising socialism doesn't make me a Conservative, so suggesting that legislation passed years ago in different circumstances by a Conservative administration is relevant, is wasting your energy and mine. Removing the political allegiance tags does, though, demonstrate legislative mission creep, as alleged.

[Boozeburglar]

prohibition at the seat of government

...but they are NOT prohibiting anything, only asking that people get permission first, and all 'reasonable' applications will be allowed. They also want to make sure protests are kept tidy, which is fair enough as you don't need to make a big mess to protest and it is an area of amenity for Londoners and a big tourist attraction.

To aim a Serious Organised Crime charge at a couple of people waving a placard in Downing Street (which is basically what's involved here) is a grotesquely disproportionate reaction, and the fact that it can happen at all means that either the Police are once again failing to use their discretion and common sense, or that "mission creep" has already begun. And the fact that learned Judges rule that there's no breach of human rights in prosecuting means there's something rotten in the State of Denmark woops, sorry, Government.

The charge was a minor one. If the law is that you must get permission to protest and they did not, then it is a fair cop.

And do please appreciate that despising socialism doesn't make me a Conservative, so suggesting that legislation passed years ago in different circumstances by a Conservative administration is relevant, is wasting your energy and mine. Removing the political allegiance tags does, though, demonstrate legislative mission creep, as alleged.

I don’t suggest you are a Conservative, and applaud your right to despise Socialism.



You talk about the passing of this Law as a, “triumph of Blairite Socialism”.


I have every right to give my opinion that there would be worse and more under the Tories in a similar situation; and I point to their law making in support of that.


You suggest that, “Before 2005 there was, was there not, freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom to protest?”


No there was not.


This is what makes the Public Order Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 VERY relevant.



There are plenty of contradictions in our law. The Human Rights Act guides what the available freedoms should be, but our existing laws always provide the context of their provision.


What other way could it be?


Why exactly should you not ask permission before holding a protest?

I don't see that as a freedom I need, and I have been on countless protests and arrested a few times as well.

[oldmarine]

...but they are NOT prohibiting anything, only asking that people get permission first, and all 'reasonable' applications will be allowed. They also want to make sure protests are kept tidy, which is fair enough as you don't need to make a big mess to protest and it is an area of amenity for Londoners and a big tourist attraction.

The charge was a minor one. If the law is that you must get permission to protest and they did not, then it is a fair cop.

I don’t suggest you are a Conservative, and applaud your right to despise Socialism.

You talk about the passing of this Law as a, “triumph of Blairite Socialism”.

I have every right to give my opinion that there would be worse and more under the Tories in a similar situation; and I point to their law making in support of that.

You suggest that, “Before 2005 there was, was there not, freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom to protest?”

No there was not.

This is what makes the Public Order Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 VERY relevant.

There are plenty of contradictions in our law. The Human Rights Act guides what the available freedoms should be, but our existing laws always provide the context of their provision.

What other way could it be?

Why exactly should you not ask permission before holding a protest?

I don't see that as a freedom I need, and I have been on countless protests and arrested a few times as well.

I recall that this was the way it was prior to Blair and even before Margaret Thatcher whom I thought was a good Prime Minister. Our laws often change.
Sometimes for the good and sometimes challenged by one side or another. I
find this thread a good tool to express ones opinion.

[crayola]

Can you imagine amything worse than living under Blairite Socialism or Gordon Brown moonbatism? I don't think I can. No. Wait. Can you imagine life under j4bberw0ckianism?

Every morning we'd hear:-

'Time to wake up my fellow w0ckans. The great leader has issued three new independent and individual thoughts for today. Repeat after me:

I am free to ignore the diktats of the state and reach my own conclusion that anthropic global warming is a figment of the imagination and a devious plot by the eco-fascists to deflower global liberal capitalism to death by the incompetent state-controlled political centralisers under state control of agents of the former Old, or was it New, Labour.

The state is my enemy and I'll defend my personal, individual, my very own pension, and not shared with you lot of socialist, high marginal rate of tax paying scroungers, pension fund to death.

The NHS must be free from the interference of politicians and must be run by well ORGanised dilettante economists who have escaped the grasp of the backward, centralist, mediocre-ist Keynesian government controlled bloated state-pensioned civil servanted political socialist economorons.

That's all for today. More inspirational thoughts from the great free leader tomorrow.

[Rheghead]

To aim a Serious Organised Crime charge at a couple of people waving a placard in Downing Street (which is basically what's involved here) is a grotesquely disproportionate reaction.

Nobody is stopping them from having freedom to protest, they can do it anywhere apart from where the UK government deems it should be restricted.


Why didn't they protest in Chelmsford shopping mall for example instead of making a nuisance of themselves?

[helenwyler]

"Blairite socialism" is an oxymoron.

The words should not co-exist in the same sentence without an accompanying negative or interrogative........

....the ditching of Clause 4, privatisation, big-business funding etc. etc. etc...

This is a discussion about something that hasn't ever existed in practice!

[j4bberw0ck]

Sorry, Real Life intruded for a while there

You talk about the passing of this Law as a, “triumph of Blairite Socialism”.

Yep, from the same freedom-loving administration that's in the process of giving away habeas corpus and double jeopardy. The administration that's put more laws on the statute book than any other. The administration which wants biometric id cards and the unification of tax, health, adminsitrative and judicial databases.

This is what makes the Public Order Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 VERY relevant.

No. Peripherally relevant. I agree there must be occasions and places where protest is allowed only with management and consent from the police or other agencies. What's different here is that Parliament and Downing Street have been redefined as places where protest is forbidden without consent. It seems to me that the intention was to stop large demonstrations and I have no problem with that - there's a clear security threat in having thousands of Muslims, pagans, lawyers or any other group parading up and down. The problem here is the arrest and prosecution of a couple of people waving a placard. If the arresting officers (or more likely the CPS) had half the sense god gave a cockroach the case would never have been brought.

It's clear we're coming at this from different directions, and are unlikely to agree; I mistrust and disagree with the decision to make a special case of the seat of our so-called democratically elected representatives. Next thing you know, perhaps it'll be reserved traffic lanes and the other accoutrements of power and privilege the Soviet leaders accorded themselves. After all, MPs of all parties have already voted themselves inflation-busting payrises and have a special pension scheme and severance arrangements that the private sector and public sectors can't touch. Why stop at that? There was a time when public service meant service - not an unseemly scramble to get into power and once there to stay there and bleed as much money, power and influence as possible out of it.

Why exactly should you not ask permission before holding a protest?

Nope. missing the point again. Why should you have to? Yes, if your protest will inconvenience other people or cost them money to police. No, if you merely want to make a point you believe in. If you have to ask, and the government says "no", then you're in the position of the government having compelled you to silence, which is a trick they've tried to pull in China, North Korea, the USSR, east Germany, and a variety of other Workers' Paradises, too.

I don't see that as a freedom I need, and I have been on countless protests and arrested a few times as well.

Bully for you. No one compels you to use a freedom you don't want - that's the essence of freedom. But if the freedom is withdrawn because of inertia or indifference, you're not going to get it back again....

'Time to wake up my fellow w0ckans. The great leader has issued three new independent and individual thoughts for today. Repeat after me:..........

Ahhh, crayola..... if only......

Not had many + rep points recently? Feeling the need to trawl for a few? No doubt you did quite well out of it

More seriously, I would have hoped that it was clear from what I've said that the idea of a Great Leader is what I'm arguing against, but which unfortunately, we're in the process of acquiring.

Why didn't they protest in Chelmsford shopping mall for example instead of making a nuisance of themselves?

Possibly because Chelmsford shopping mall isn't the seat of a democratically-elected Government?

[The Pepsi Challenge]

Speaking of democracy, did anyone see the John Pilger documentary on STV the other night? It reminded me of a T-shirt I seen that had a picture of the globe on it, Uncle Sam's big hand cowering over it, and the words emblazoned above him: 'Just try and stop us.'

John Pilger: gives journalism a good name.

[George Brims]

John Pilger: gives journalism a good name.

Absolutely agreed. Years ago he did a harrowing documentary, "Cambodia:Year Zero", which was the first most people had heard of the killing fields in Cambodia. I remember sitting watching it in horror with my oldest daughter, then about 6 months old, on my knee.

I then remember watching in outrage some press awards thing later that year, where the rest of the media gave him no recognition at all for the most important news story of the year.

[thefugitive1993]

You know how we all live in one of the world's leading democracies? The country that gave the world habeas corpus, double jeopardy, innocence until proven guilty? The country of freedom of speech?

Yeah, right. Another triumph of Blairite Socialism.

The last sentence of the article makes particularly interesting reading.

Heaven forfend that our elected representatives might have to tolerate citizens of this country trying to communicate their beliefs.

In my world, there would be a trial of those guilty of the initial and ongoing assault on the people of Iraq.

[Boozeburglar]

Nope. missing the point again.

Is it possible your point is as clear as mud?

[crayola]

In my world, there would be a trial of those guilty of the initial and ongoing assault on the people of Iraq.

How can you try those who are guilty? It's back to Law School for you.

[Rheghead]

Possibly because Chelmsford shopping mall isn't the seat of a democratically-elected Government?

I don't think it would really matter. In today's media, they could have posted their protest on youtube or had a slot on the TV and they would have got more media coverage. They only coverage they would have got from doing it outside parliament would be limited and negative.