Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

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

Page 4 of 9 [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,302
Location: Pacific Northwest

10 Nov 2022, 10:57 pm

Caz72 wrote:
then why do so many murderers claim they are autistic even when they might not be


You basically get a slap on the wrist when you're autistic but here in the US, that excuse doesn't work.

There was a young man with autism who stabbed his dad to death because he interrupted his game play because he refused to join his family for dinner. He only got 3 years due to autism and this is Australia. This man should be locked up for life.

Also in the uk, you can avoid extradition to the US if you have autism.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

11 Nov 2022, 6:42 am

Nades wrote:
I think you're deliberately trying to mislead people with this thread.


Of course I'm not! I'm scared and angry about the way my country is going and I don't want to be arrested for say, waiting outside for a friend and being mistaken for being a possible protester!

Not everyone has some kind of political agenda. Hard to believe in this day and age but we don't!


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


Last edited by KitLily on 11 Nov 2022, 7:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

11 Nov 2022, 6:47 am

Reported move triggers backlash from lawyers, with one senior QC quoted as saying the prime minister is seeking a ‘more compliant judiciary’

magz wrote:
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.


Yes, you're exactly right. Influencing judges is very serious and threatens our legal structure.

Americans tell me that's why Roe v Wade was undone: because Trump and friends had put right wing judges in place in the Supreme Court and there were enough of them to take Roe v Wade apart...


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

11 Nov 2022, 6:50 am

Juliette wrote:
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.


Also, do people know that our government is preparing to take the UK out of the European Convention of Human Rights? The ECHR prevented some refugees being deported to Rwanda recently, and so Boris Johnson (calling them woke leftie lawyers) and Suella Braverman intend to take us out of the ECHR...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 95809.html

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-bori ... ll-he-act/


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

11 Nov 2022, 7:01 am

KitLily wrote:
Reported move triggers backlash from lawyers, with one senior QC quoted as saying the prime minister is seeking a ‘more compliant judiciary’

magz wrote:
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.


Yes, you're exactly right. Influencing judges is very serious and threatens our legal structure.

Americans tell me that's why Roe v Wade was undone: because Trump and friends had put right wing judges in place in the Supreme Court and there were enough of them to take Roe v Wade apart...

Same here with Constitution Tribunal of Julia Przyłębska and her ruling - also on abortion, worse than Roe vs Wade, as it's now illegal in Poland to abort even a fetus that has no chance of surviving after birth.

Actually, that is the most spectacular thing, other abuses are less obvious for laypeople, including myself, but I can understand the structural damage of making the judicary system dependent on the government.

We are in a conflict with EU over it (not about abortion - about judicary dependence), EU is freezing fundings, our PM signed an agreement to unfreeze it but our government is not fulfilling their side of agreement because Mr Ziobro is threatening he would leave the coalition, which would mean the right-wing alliance would lose parlimentary majority.

Of course they spice it all with independence rhetorics - like independence was all about a right not to fulfill treaties and to abuse your own citizens...


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

11 Nov 2022, 7:12 am

magz wrote:
Same here with Constitution Tribunal of Julia Przyłębska and her ruling - also on abortion, worse than Roe vs Wade, as it's now illegal in Poland to abort even a fetus that has no chance of surviving after birth.

Actually, that is the most spectacular thing, other abuses are less obvious for laypeople, including myself, but I can understand the structural damage of making the judicary system dependent on the government.


Yes...I heard about that in Poland. What an awful ruling about abortion. What is the point of making a woman go through pregnancy and childbirth only to give birth to a baby who won't survive?? It's basically torturing the woman for no reason. Just cruelty. Also the baby's father too. And making women go through pregnancy after being raped. Again, torturing the woman. Rapists seem to have more rights than their victims!!

I have a friend in Arizona. Her baby died in the womb but she was not allowed to have an operation to remove it. She has a video of herself handing out presents at Christmas that year with a big pregnant tummy containing a dead baby. She miscarried on New Year's Day and nearly died in the Emergency Room. All because her doctor would not do an operation to remove the dead baby because it was classed as an abortion.

^^situations like that are sheer and blatant cruelty to women.

Yes...if judges' laws have to be referred to the government before being passed, soon the government will say 'what's the point of judges and the legal system?' And all laws will be decided by the government. That is very, very dangerous indeed.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

11 Nov 2022, 7:17 am

KitLily wrote:
I have a friend in Arizona. Her baby died in the womb but she was not allowed to have an operation to remove it. She has a video of herself handing out presents at Christmas that year with a big pregnant tummy containing a dead baby. She miscarried on New Year's Day and nearly died in the Emergency Room. All because her doctor would not do an operation to remove the dead baby because it was classed as an abortion.

Seriously???
That's even crazier! What's "pro-life" about a refusal to remove an already dead fetus?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,111
Location: wales

11 Nov 2022, 8:04 am

KitLily wrote:
Nades wrote:
I think you're deliberately trying to mislead people with this thread.


Of course I'm not! I'm scared and angry about the way my country is going and I don't want to be arrested for say, waiting outside for a friend and being mistaken for being a possible protester!

Not everyone has some kind of political agenda. Hard to believe in this day and age but we don't!


Its says in every news article on the subject where they want to draw a line on protests. Even in the link you provided it explicitly says that they wanted to target disruptive protestors. The country is going downhill but they're heading in the right direction with this new law.

The right to protest was under the wrong type of legal principal and now they're correcting it. It should always have been under common law and not civil law.



DuckHairback
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2021
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,484
Location: Durotriges Territory

11 Nov 2022, 8:05 am

Nades wrote:
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.


You can state it as many times as you like, it doesn't make it correct.

I'm not sure if you're wilfully misunderstanding this.

Yes, we have common law but it exists in a hierarchy which is overriden by Parliamentary acts.

This bill creates an act that overrides common law. This is normal and correct. What isn't normal is this:

Quote:

After subsection (11) insert—
“(12)The Secretary of State may by regulations amend any of subsections (2A) to (2C) for the purposes of making provision about the meaning for the purposes of this section of—
(a)serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
(b)serious disruption to the life of the community.


This insidious passage appears several times in the act.

It means that the Home Secretary can change the 'meaning' of the words 'disruptive protest' under the law. At a whim. Without the new definitions having to be approved by Parliament.

The definition of the law should reside with the legislative branch of government. This effectively moves that responsibility to the executive branch - i.e. The government of the day.

There's no debate here. That's what it does.

You can debate whether it's a good thing or not. I'd say not and many, including many Conservative MPs, including former Home Secretary Theresa May, have spoken out about how dangerous this is.

Nades wrote:
I think you're deliberately trying to mislead people with this thread


KitLily has defended herself on this and as you'd imagine from my posts, I share her concern.

However the title is misleading. This isn't law yet, but it's likely to be soon and its important people understand what is being proposed.


_________________

Les grands garçons sont dans les boucheries


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,111
Location: wales

11 Nov 2022, 8:23 am

DuckHairback wrote:
Nades wrote:
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.


You can state it as many times as you like, it doesn't make it correct.

I'm not sure if you're wilfully misunderstanding this.

Yes, we have common law but it exists in a hierarchy which is overriden by Parliamentary acts.

This bill creates an act that overrides common law. This is normal and correct. What isn't normal is this:

Quote:

After subsection (11) insert—
“(12)The Secretary of State may by regulations amend any of subsections (2A) to (2C) for the purposes of making provision about the meaning for the purposes of this section of—
(a)serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
(b)serious disruption to the life of the community.


This insidious passage appears several times in the act.

It means that the Home Secretary can change the 'meaning' of the words 'disruptive protest' under the law. At a whim. Without the new definitions having to be approved by Parliament.

The definition of the law should reside with the legislative branch of government. This effectively moves that responsibility to the executive branch - i.e. The government of the day.

There's no debate here. That's what it does.

You can debate whether it's a good thing or not. I'd say not and many, including many Conservative MPs, including former Home Secretary Theresa May, have spoken out about how dangerous this is.

Nades wrote:
I think you're deliberately trying to mislead people with this thread


KitLily has defended herself on this and as you'd imagine from my posts, I share her concern.

However the title is misleading. This isn't law yet, but it's likely to be soon and its important people understand what is being proposed.


Anything the home secretary comes up with will ways be challenged by judges and juries. Ultimately, most legislation is spawned by the government anyway.

What's wrong with the current law is that the right to protest clashes with other laws and being rigidly inflexible, it's open to serious abuse if loopholes are found. Right now, little is being done to even let ambulances through. It should have always been under common law where a jury is free to drag protestors over the coals for such behaviour.

I don't see what the problem is. New and deeply irritating ways of protesting should always be kept on top of. The home secretary being able to change the law as he/she pleases very quickly is brilliant. Remember, if the home secretary is taking the piss a jury or judge can knock her back into line at any moment. It balances out nicely.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

11 Nov 2022, 8:54 am

Nades wrote:
What's wrong with the current law is that the right to protest clashes with other laws and being rigidly inflexible, it's open to serious abuse if loopholes are found. Right now, little is being done to even let ambulances through. It should have always been under common law where a jury is free to drag protestors over the coals for such behaviour.
Why isn't it?
Nades wrote:
The home secretary being able to change the law as he/she pleases very quickly is brilliant.
No, it's not. It's a dangerous concentration of uncontrolled power.
The whole tripartition etc. has developed exactly to prevent such situations, to ensure powers balance each other out. Dictatorship is faster to react than democracy but it creates a whole new world of dangers.
Nades wrote:
Remember, if the home secretary is taking the piss a jury or judge can knock her back into line at any moment.
How?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,111
Location: wales

11 Nov 2022, 9:09 am

magz wrote:
Nades wrote:
What's wrong with the current law is that the right to protest clashes with other laws and being rigidly inflexible, it's open to serious abuse if loopholes are found. Right now, little is being done to even let ambulances through. It should have always been under common law where a jury is free to drag protestors over the coals for such behaviour.
Why isn't it?
Nades wrote:
The home secretary being able to change the law as he/she pleases very quickly is brilliant.
No, it's not. It's a dangerous concentration of uncontrolled power.
The whole tripartition etc. has developed exactly to prevent such situations, to ensure powers balance each other out. Dictatorship is faster to react than democracy but it creates a whole new world of dangers.
Nades wrote:
Remember, if the home secretary is taking the piss a jury or judge can knock her back into line at any moment.
How?


The right to protest is pretty much right and can't really be challenged. In all intents and purposes, the law on it is as far from common law as it can be.

Tripartition is done via common law to an extent. It strikes a balance between what the law says and how it actually pans out on a case by case basis. A judge and especially jury can override anything the home secretary pens in the legislation, as has always been the case. If the home secretary steps out of line by being too strict with what counts as a disruptive protest, the courts can correct it when these protestors are brought to them.



DuckHairback
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2021
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,484
Location: Durotriges Territory

11 Nov 2022, 9:15 am

Nades wrote:
Anything the home secretary comes up with will ways be challenged by judges and juries.


This is what you're not getting. The bill is an Act of Parliament. Parliament is sovereign. Judges and juries cannot overturn it. They can challenge it under common law, but it's worth noting that (to my knowledge) this has never happened and for good reason - if it did happen it would most likely trigger a constitutional crisis.

Do you remember how the press reacted when Justices ruled that there needed to be an Act of Parliament to trigger Brexit? "Enemies of the People" screamed the Daily Mail and published photos of the Justices involved. Can you imagine the response if the courts tried to overturn an Act of Parliament that had already passed?

Saying repeatedly that it can be challenged by courts is just disingenuous.

So what can courts do? Well, when the wording is vague, they can interpret it and make a value judgement on the severity of the transgression and the severity of the judgement.

But here the very threshold of illegality is subject to change at the whim of the Home Secretary.

Nades wrote:
The home secretary being able to change the law as he/she pleases very quickly is brilliant.


Wow. Okay. I think at that point then, this particular discussion is over. I strongly disagree.


_________________

Les grands garçons sont dans les boucheries


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

11 Nov 2022, 9:30 am

Nades wrote:
magz wrote:
Nades wrote:
What's wrong with the current law is that the right to protest clashes with other laws and being rigidly inflexible, it's open to serious abuse if loopholes are found. Right now, little is being done to even let ambulances through. It should have always been under common law where a jury is free to drag protestors over the coals for such behaviour.
Why isn't it?
Nades wrote:
The home secretary being able to change the law as he/she pleases very quickly is brilliant.
No, it's not. It's a dangerous concentration of uncontrolled power.
The whole tripartition etc. has developed exactly to prevent such situations, to ensure powers balance each other out. Dictatorship is faster to react than democracy but it creates a whole new world of dangers.
Nades wrote:
Remember, if the home secretary is taking the piss a jury or judge can knock her back into line at any moment.
How?


The right to protest is pretty much right and can't really be challenged. In all intents and purposes, the law on it is as far from common law as it can be.

Tripartition is done via common law to an extent. It strikes a balance between what the law says and how it actually pans out on a case by case basis. A judge and especially jury can override anything the home secretary pens in the legislation, as has always been the case. If the home secretary steps out of line by being too strict with what counts as a disruptive protest, the courts can correct it when these protestors are brought to them.

That answers neither of my questions.
So I repeat them:
1. Why isn't disruption caused during protests a matter of common law?
2. How can a jury or judge "knock back" the home secretary "into line"?

Mind it, I live in a system without such a thing as common law but with such a thing as tripartition. If you believe common law somehow ensures tripartition, you need to explain the exact mechanism to me because it's not the case here.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,111
Location: wales

11 Nov 2022, 10:41 am

magz wrote:
Nades wrote:
magz wrote:
Nades wrote:
What's wrong with the current law is that the right to protest clashes with other laws and being rigidly inflexible, it's open to serious abuse if loopholes are found. Right now, little is being done to even let ambulances through. It should have always been under common law where a jury is free to drag protestors over the coals for such behaviour.
Why isn't it?
Nades wrote:
The home secretary being able to change the law as he/she pleases very quickly is brilliant.
No, it's not. It's a dangerous concentration of uncontrolled power.
The whole tripartition etc. has developed exactly to prevent such situations, to ensure powers balance each other out. Dictatorship is faster to react than democracy but it creates a whole new world of dangers.
Nades wrote:
Remember, if the home secretary is taking the piss a jury or judge can knock her back into line at any moment.
How?


The right to protest is pretty much right and can't really be challenged. In all intents and purposes, the law on it is as far from common law as it can be.

Tripartition is done via common law to an extent. It strikes a balance between what the law says and how it actually pans out on a case by case basis. A judge and especially jury can override anything the home secretary pens in the legislation, as has always been the case. If the home secretary steps out of line by being too strict with what counts as a disruptive protest, the courts can correct it when these protestors are brought to them.

That answers neither of my questions.
So I repeat them:
1. Why isn't disruption caused during protests a matter of common law?
2. How can a jury or judge "knock back" the home secretary "into line"?

Mind it, I live in a system without such a thing as common law but with such a thing as tripartition. If you believe common law somehow ensures tripartition, you need to explain the exact mechanism to me because it's not the case here.


They're usually charged under laws not related to protesting. Vandalism, obstructing a highway, public nuisance and so on. The problem is that protests are heavily protected by other law so the police are slow to act and judges are a bit temperamental in enforcing laws that were actually broken while protesting. This new law is actually looking to find a balance between what isn't and is acceptable during a protest rather than the anemic unrelated laws we have now.

Juries can basically decide on the day who is guilty or not regardless of what the law says. Once juries regularly finds people not guilty of "offences" done in a specific manner then the laws can get pretty toothless or are just not enforced anymore.

Even acts are parliament are not immune to being de-fanged by juries. The judges are obliged to let whoever the juries find not guilty go free. Eventually it trickles down and makes police less likely to arrest for similar offences and sways politicians.



KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

11 Nov 2022, 12:00 pm

Nades wrote:
Its says in every news article on the subject where they want to draw a line on protests. Even in the link you provided it explicitly says that they wanted to target disruptive protestors.


It depends what they see as 'disruptive' though doesn't it. It is all so vague that 'disruptive' could mean anything e.g. 'people likely to protest.' They will have to clarify it carefully so the law is not abused by people with agendas.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.