We are no longer allowed to protest in Britain. At all.

Post Reply New Topic

No one is listening to me. The government is planning to overrule judges' decisions. I know this is an old link but I don't trust this government, it'll be planning this in the background. This government's reputation leads me to think this.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 70290.html

I think you're deliberately trying to mislead people with this thread. The UK is not banning protests but merely putting limitations on the types of protests people can partake in.

It's very clear the new legislation is aimed at disruptive protests and this new law has been in the pipeline for a while now. It's basically aimed at stopping a group of just two protestors shutting down arterial bridges or gluing themselves to trains.

Nothing unreasonable at all in my eyes and just propping up already existing legislation that's been around for generations that the judges *should* have taken note on but failed to do so.

Someone's right to protest doesn't come above the rights of someone being rushed to hospital in an ambulance afterall.

A polite protest is in order.No one goes to work on a given day , sits at home drinking tea in the garden (or something stronger.)
Let’s see them arrest all of you.

That's a very serious threat because it's structural. The tripartition is one of cornerstones of modern civilization - and it has developed for a good reason.

While a controversial bill is just a controversial bill (from my point of view, it would use some constructive critique and discussion on how to ensure ambulances reach emergencies without making laws prone to direct abuse), attempts at making judges "more compliant" are something very fundamental, paving a straight road to dictatorship.

You miss the point. The bill overrides courts and judges.

It's not courts and judges that will decide what is and isn't lawful in the case of this bill. It's the Home Secretary whoever that may be. A single person. They don't even need parliamentary approval.

The Conservative party has been actively trying to put government above law for some time now, since they were overruled on the proroguing of Parliament. This is authoritarian stuff, it has no place in a modern democracy.

There would be nothing to stop a unpopular Home Secretary that was fighting for their job (like, say, Suella Braverman) deciding a protest was unlawful and coming down hard on it for the sake of getting some positive media headlines to shore up their position or score some other political point. This is a power a Home Secretary shouldn't have.

They're relying on 'useful idiots' waving this through because they don't like climate protesters. It's pretty sinister.

Proof? By nature, anyone can appeal a criminal conviction in the courts. The high courts especially can make whatever decision they like.

Police have always been deciding what is and isn't illegal before arresting people too.

A friend was cleared over a protest 2 weeks ago thankfully. Not the first time that she’s gone to court for protesting.

“Greenpeace activists cleared over protest blocking tanker of Russian oil”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-63519487

The First Amendment protects your right to assemble and express your views through protest. However, police and other government officials are allowed to place certain narrow restrictions on the exercise of speech rights. Make sure you're prepared by brushing up on your rights before heading out into the streets.

Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights provides freedom of assembly. This means that every individual, regardless of cause, has the right to protest, march or demonstrate in a public space.

UK “Not only does every individual have this right but the police have a duty to refrain from restricting this right unnecessarily and they must take measures to protect peaceful protests. Even if they do not agree, or if there is some disturbance or offence caused to the general public, the police must demonstrate a certain degree of tolerance towards protesters.”


How does the new Policing Act affect my Protest Rights?
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/pcsc-policing-act-protest-rights/

The proof is in the wording of the bill. Yes you can appeal, but you're appealing to a court whose job is interpreting the words of the law. If the wording is deliberately vague and ultimately determined by the whim of the Home Secretary, an appeal is no protection at all.

I'm sorry but I'm really not sure you understand what you're talking about here.

The bill allows the Government to override the courts. There's no question about that. And that's the problem.



This is nonsense. They make no decisions about what is and what isn't legal. Police can arrest people who they have reasonable suspicion to have broken a law. Do you see the distinction? Again, clear law making is essential for this to work. This new bill is, as we've discussed, deliberately vague. Apart from anything else it isn't fair on the police to make them decide what is and isn't a lawful protest.

I hear in the UK you can be jailed for being autistic.

No they can't override the courts. This is what common law is all about. I stated in a previous post about the whole intention of the wording of the legislation. It's to deliberately be vague and the same exists in laws on self defense.

The government is depending on judges and juries to to set limits on this new legislation as they see fit on a case by case basis, just like self defence laws.

There is nothing suspicious about it when you consider the UK runs on both legislative law written down in black and white and common law that deals with proportionality, public opinion and legal grey areas where two laws might clash. Because there is already a right to protest, the government can't write any explicit, one size fits all limits.

You're talking about civil law which the UK *generally* doesn't use often here unless the cases are clear cut or you're in a magistrates court which basically goes with whatever the law book says. Common law [url=investopedia.com/terms/c/common-law.asp]Which is described pretty well here[/url] is what the UK uses and is why this new bill is vague. The bill sets out to intentionally arrest people for whatever the police deem an offence, throw them through the legal meat grinder and let judges and juries decide if any crime was committed.

Last edited by Nades on 10 Nov 2022, 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They do when arresting people. And common law. Between two types of legal framework, yes No it's not. Clarification is at a later date after many people are arrested and the juries and judges have their say on who has been naughty and who hasn't It is indeed and that's what's so good about it. Yes it is. Before they arrest them that is.

why jail someone for being autistic
im 50 and have never been jailed for being autistic yet

Nobody can be jailed for "being autistic" anywhere in the world.

I think they mean you can be jailed for being autistic when you have violent meltdowns or have bad behavior issues where you are doing assault or destroying property or if you have a mental health crisis. Actually I agree about locking someone up if they pose a danger to others and I don't think families should be forced to have their homes destroyed by an autistic person because they can't control their actions when they meltdown. No one has a right to be abused and parents and siblings have a right to be safe in their own homes.

And if a kid is only violent in their own home because of unconditional love and they know they will always be loved is a coward.

then why do so many murderers claim they are autistic even when they might not be

^so they could be possibly found innocent of murder by reason of insanity.