We are no longer allowed to protest in Britain. At all.
Seriously???
That's even crazier! What's "pro-life" about a refusal to remove an already dead fetus?
It's horrendous isn't it. I cried when she told me that. I couldn't believe it. But I trust her to tell the truth and this was some years ago too, so how long has life in America been like this for women?
Surely carrying a dead creature inside a woman's body is dangerous and could lead to blood poisoning or something. Wouldn't it be rotting away inside the womb?
That is too awful to think about isn't it...
_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.
If these laws are insufficient, one needs to work on them.
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.
_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.
<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>
I say "Even acts of parliament" in the lightest sense too. Acts of parliament is basically what all law in the UK is. If you ever set foot in a court room you'll almost certainly be charged via an act of parliament so this whole implications that anyone charged is doomed is not the case.
What's happened is protests have gotten out of hand so the home secretary has bypassed the typical routs of making new laws and it's happened without a prior vote. This isn't a problem.
The legislation has been left intentionally vague just like self defence laws. This is so juries can decide what types of protesting is in the public interest and have the final say, not the government or home secretary. Their decision is then recorded so these vague patches are filled out with "common law". The jury can decide whatever they like. Later this common law is used to decide who gets arrested, charged and prosecuted later on.
The home secretary has made clauses that allows he/she to make quick amendments if a new type of protest tactic is causing chaos. This also has to be approved by juries on the day so again nothing to worry about. If the new amendment is clearly Draconian, then a jury will slap the home secretary down.
All in all its good law making use of common law principals. People who are genuinely causing others a lot of grief will be punished and jailed and those who are not can carry on protesting.
If these laws are insufficient, one needs to work on them.
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.
It's because of a clash between the right to protest (which is powerful) and the criminal acts of highway blocking, public order offences and low end vandalism (which is weak). It's the ideal battle ground for common law in a separate specific, protest orientated act of law.
Juries can tell anyone to go and do one too. Even the prime minister.
Common law is recorded and brought up in a defence later on. If someone has been found innocent of a similar offence, then the police, crown prosecution service, or judges are obliged to acquit and usually not even arrest.
It's honestly a lot worse on paper than it is in reality. It's how the law has always operated in the UK.
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.
It's left vague so people like you and me can decide on what's disruptive of we're chosen to be in a jury in such a case and not the home secretary over government. If you're on a jury you not only have the chance to decide on what's disruptive, you also have your decision used in future cases under common law.
Common law is recorded and brought up in a defence later on. If someone has been found innocent of a similar offence, then the police, crown prosecution service, or judges are obliged to acquit and usually not even arrest.
It's honestly a lot worse on paper than it is in reality. It's how the law has always operated in the UK.
I.e., the home secretary making it practically illegal to protest when the government is trying to do something otherwise controversial.
How to systematically prevent such a situation?
_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.
<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>
Common law is recorded and brought up in a defence later on. If someone has been found innocent of a similar offence, then the police, crown prosecution service, or judges are obliged to acquit and usually not even arrest.
It's honestly a lot worse on paper than it is in reality. It's how the law has always operated in the UK.
I.e., the home secretary making it practically illegal to protest when the government is trying to do something otherwise controversial.
Making a separate law is fairer. It takes into account intent better. Blocking a highway because you parked a car very badly is a lot less serious than blocking a highway out of genuine premeditated protest over a dubious cause. The former shouldn't face an excessive sentence because the sentencing guidelines where increase because of the latter persons obnoxiously intentional behaviour.
It disciplines a home secritary by making a fool of him/her and diluting their authority with the legislation. In common law countries, juries take priority over all others and their verdicts are recorded to use at a later date to erode the power parliamentary acts if they're against public discourse.
Juries verdicts are never "reset" in common law. Instead they're used even decades later to screw up poor government law making.
Juries verdicts are never "reset" in common law. Instead they're used even decades later to screw up poor government law making.
_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.
<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>
And that the police now have the powers to arrest anyone they think is 'likely to protest.'
That could be anyone! Any human at any time.
I'm angry and scared. Britain is quickly becoming a police state.
Ok, who set this law into motion? The new king maybe?
The media might end up picking up on the unsuccessful number of prosecutions using the new public order act (assuming the jury hates it) and ridicule the home secretary and government as a whole. Anemic laws are often a point of ridicule for politicians in the media.
Very serious question, the state controlling media to some degree is a common thing in the world, we're on a constant battle against it here.
_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.
<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>
And that the police now have the powers to arrest anyone they think is 'likely to protest.'
That could be anyone! Any human at any time.
I'm angry and scared. Britain is quickly becoming a police state.
Ok, who set this law into motion? The new king maybe?
The jury and the courts verdicts as a direct result. If the jury doesn't like this law then it's dead in the water.
Very serious question, the state controlling media to some degree is a common thing in the world, we're on a constant battle against it here.
But you say "usually" - doesn't the scale of the nuisance influence the instance adressing it?
Very serious question, the state controlling media to some degree is a common thing in the world, we're on a constant battle against it here.
_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.
<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>
But you say "usually" - doesn't the scale of the nuisance influence the instance adressing it?
Depends on how you see the severity of blocking ambulances or the cumulative impact of the lost income of tens of thousands of people who are prevented from getting to work. I don't know what you mean by that specific question but I like to consider myself fair in my acts of vengeance. I've done my time in prison myself and know exactly what the worst case scenario is for protestors. If I end up on a jury and end up sending an ambulance blocker on blue lights to prison for two years (which I think is very reasonable) then I know exactly what they're being sentenced too and think it's fair. It's all part of being on a jury which even myself are now allowed to be part of.