|
04 Dec 10 - 11:38 AM (#3046249) Subject: BS: Con-Dems restrict peaceful protests From: GUEST, RIchard Bridge A Coalition bill published on 30 November would make it a potential criminal offence to play a musical instrument, listen to a radio or even use a mobile phone in Parliament Square Garden, without a special permit. The maximum penalty would be a £5000 fine. The measures, which include a ban on tents, are intended to tighten control over public demonstrations in the Square. See Part 3 of the wide-ranging Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (starting from page 103 of the PDF file): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/116/11116.pdf See also the Home Office summary: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/legislation/police-reform-bill/ Parliament Square Garden is situated within Parliament Square, on the west side of the Houses of Parliament. Peace campaigner Brian Haw has been camped there since 2001. Ministers suggested last month that they wanted to clear the area in time for the royal wedding in Westminster Abbey, which is on the south side of the Square. The bill defines 'amplified noise equipment' in paragraph 141(4): '... any device that is designed or adapted for amplifying sound, including (but not limited to) - (a) loudspeakers, and (b) loudhailers.' This covers many musical instruments, iPods, radios, mobile phones and even hearing aids. Their unlicensed use would be a 'prohibited activity' if a police constable or other 'authorised officer' believes that people in the vicinity 'can hear or are likely to be able to hear' them (see paras 141(2)(a) and 142(5)). iPods or hearing aids may be unlikely candidates, but instruments and mobile phone ring tones would certainly be audible. The bill makes many significant changes to the Licensing Act, most of which are intended to tackle alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, including measures to allow local authorities to attach conditions to Temporary Events Notices. But inevitably this would lead to an increase in the daft conditions for live music so beloved of local authorities, like St Albans whose licence conditions include restrictions on the number of performers and musical genres: http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council Possibly the most sinister constitutional significance is that like the much reviled and now allegedly reformed "sus" laws this bill undermines the rule of law by depending on the subjective view of a police officer. We all know some fine policemen, I am sure, but far too many appear to be of an authoritarian and vindictive bent. It remains to be seen whether an unpowered megaphone or a rolled up newspaper (since they merely direct rather than amplify sound) will be caught under the law, and there may be a very technical argument about whether an ordinary mobile phone ring (as distinct from one that reproduces a recorded song) will be caught since it generates a new sound rather than amplifying an antecedent one. But the sinister nature of this coalition becomes daily more apparent. |
|
04 Dec 10 - 12:17 PM (#3046264) Subject: RE: BS: Con-Dems restrict peaceful protests From: Arthur_itus Bloody hell Richard, they are no more sinister than the Labour Government. |
|
04 Dec 10 - 02:07 PM (#3046326) Subject: RE: BS: Con-Dems restrict peaceful protests From: GUEST, Richard Bridge Arthur - look up the Dicean rule of Law and say that again if you honestly can. |
|
04 Dec 10 - 04:39 PM (#3046429) Subject: RE: BS: Con-Dems restrict peaceful protests From: Penny S. Isn't Arthur being a bit ironic? Penny |
|
04 Dec 10 - 04:48 PM (#3046440) Subject: RE: BS: Con-Dems restrict peaceful protests From: Arthur_itus Indeed :-) |
|
04 Dec 10 - 05:26 PM (#3046467) Subject: RE: BS: Con-Dems restrict peaceful protests From: McGrath of Harlow No different from the last government,indeed, when it comes to civil liberties, which is a pretty powerful condemnation. But then they are still pretty new - give them time. On the evidence of the last few months They'll be even nastier soon enough. And even less competent. |
|
05 Dec 10 - 01:27 AM (#3046686) Subject: RE: BS: Con-Dems restrict peaceful protests From: MGM·Lion Well, the trouble is that all government is operated by professional politicians, whose livelihood depends on always having to be seen to be 'doing', so they have to keep on thinking up new laws about something, or what are they for so where's their livelihood? ~~ so one is caught up in the Catch-22, a bit like Groucho on clubs, of "I wouldn't ever vote for the kind of person who would want to be an MP". All this officious legislation is surely related to this initial oxymoron/paradox/Catch-22? ~Michael~ |
|
05 Dec 10 - 04:57 AM (#3046740) Subject: RE: BS: Con-Dems restrict peaceful protests From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Blair tried moving the peace campaigner on with legislation and failed. Either this lot will too, or the parliamentary drafters will write tighter legislation this time. I am not aware that this is an attempt to stifle free speech or protest, just a feeble attempt to not have to stare at it every day. Perhaps those whose heads are so far up their own arses might just straighten up for a while, they may consider this is a success for the peace protester? Oh, would this legislation prevent M'unlearned friend from setting up his sniper rifle overlooking Parliament Square, as he seems excited about doing? (See earlier threads, ad nauseum.) Doesn't matter who you vote for, you get the government. |
|
05 Dec 10 - 05:13 AM (#3046750) Subject: RE: BS: Con-Dems restrict peaceful protests From: Richard Bridge In the absence of protest consider the following. It is edited from wikipedia but confirms to my general recollection from the past (although I didn't know about the US bowdlerisation). "They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up." The above is the text preferred by Pastor Niemoller of his famous saying. But there is some disagreement over the exact wording and date of origin. It may have been presented differently by Niemöller on different occasions. Research traced the text to several speeches given by Niemöller in 1946. The wording remains controversial, both in terms of its provenance, and the substance and order of the groups that are mentioned in its many versions. While Niemöller's published 1946 speeches mention Communists, the incurably ill, Jews or Jehovah's Witnesses (depending on which speech), and people in occupied countries, the 1955 text, a paraphrase by a German professor in an interview, lists Communists, Socialists, "the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on," and ends with "the Church". At the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, the quotation is on display, but is altered so that there is no mention of communists, even though communists have been mentioned in every version of the quote given. The Holocaust Museum website, however, gives a thorough discussion of the history of the quotation. The "official" version of the statement (as preferred by Niemöller) is also on display at the Holocaust memorial Yad Vashem in Israel. For an alleged former socialist Mr Fluids, you seem awfully keen on not doing anything to upset the social order. |
|
05 Dec 10 - 06:04 AM (#3046771) Subject: RE: BS: Con-Dems restrict peaceful protests From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email) Rubbish. This is nothing more than scarmongering. You would think he would be able to read the entire full actual article. As usual Bridge is pointing at individual text that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related data that may contradict that position. Where was this great protestor and hero of the Socalist Working class when Labour sold us down the river and got the country into this mess in the first place? |
|
05 Dec 10 - 08:49 AM (#3046810) Subject: RE: BS: Con-Dems restrict peaceful protests From: Bonzo3legs I suggest that Bridge diverts his attention to snow sweeping for older folks instead of posting rubbish here! |
|
05 Dec 10 - 09:39 AM (#3046817) Subject: RE: BS: Con-Dems restrict peaceful protests From: Richard Bridge As I said about the Licensing Act, Richie - read the Bill, not the commentary. Guess who was right then? |
|
05 Dec 10 - 09:45 AM (#3046820) Subject: RE: BS: Con-Dems restrict peaceful protests From: Richard Bridge All you have to do is read sections 139 to 143. |
|
05 Dec 10 - 12:34 PM (#3046919) Subject: RE: BS: Con-Dems restrict peaceful protests From: Little Hawk How about all those surveillance cameras you have now, Richard? I think the UK population must be the most spyed upon by their government in the entire world by now (possible exception to that: North Korea). It looks to me like Labour, Conservatives, and whoever else you have there are all in cahoots together creating their little fascist new order. I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference which one of them gets elected anymore. Tony Blair, after all, took your country into an illegal American war...just the same as the Conservatives would have done. That suggests to me that your party leaders are all dangling on the same set of corporate puppet strings, regardless of what their constituents really want from them. And that's what's happening in the USA and Canada too. |