registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 6,021
|
Post by registerme on Oct 19, 2022 10:40:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 19, 2022 10:49:11 GMT
Yes she does worry me. A lot. She seems to represent a strand of this apparent 'libertarian' neo-con grouping that have a particularly nasty authoritarian (and anti foreigner) leaning at their core. Or maybe simply a tendency to adopt whatever they think might hit a particular populist chord at any given time.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,314
|
Post by keitha on Oct 19, 2022 11:13:19 GMT
Nope we need to stop these people before they disrupt others lives.
me I'd have sent an officer up the bridge with a knife and told the protestors come down of I will cut the cord, these idiots don't realise that they are increasing carbon emissions from cars sat idling.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,962
Likes: 1,680
|
Post by Steerpike on Oct 19, 2022 11:28:26 GMT
I don't understand this talk of "fellow travellers" and "neo-con grouping" but I do see that the police in this country are failing to maintain law and order and I believe that most people really want that to change.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,251
Likes: 2,694
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 19, 2022 11:42:50 GMT
I don't understand this talk of "fellow travellers" and "neo-con grouping" but I do see that the police in this country are failing to maintain law and order and I believe that most people really want that to change. Gone are the days when the police could politely ask people not to obstruct the road or whatever and they would move, now they all 'know their rights'. Unfortunately the police are going to need the power to forcibly move people or these stupid protests that disrupt ordinary people's lives are going to become more and more frequent and cause havoc with the production and distribution of fuel and goods. I think it should be called terrorism when they occupy infrastructure and deliberately stop the operation of places like fuel and gas depots to the detriment of the country.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 19, 2022 11:44:31 GMT
Nope we need to stop these people before they disrupt others lives. Injunctions against people believed "likely" to protest. Not actually protesting. That's already illegal, under Patel's draconian Police, Crime, Sentencing Act. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/32/part/3/crossheading/public-nuisance/enacted"(1)A person commits an offence if— (a)the person— (i)does an act, or (ii)omits to do an act that they are required to do by any enactment or rule of law, (b)the person’s act or omission— ... (ii)obstructs the public or a section of the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large"It's already illegal to not just inconvenience one person, no matter how mildly, but also to fail to stop somebody else from inconveniencing them. No, this goes a step further, into thoughtcrime. If this poundshop-Patel-tribute-band thinks you might be about to do something she doesn't like, then she can hit you with a court injunction. Even Patel didn't think that necessary or proportionate. This is Braverman's amendment to the forthcoming Public Order Bill, introduced by Patel in May. This was added by Braverman yesterday at the third reading, the final Commons stage. bills.parliament.uk/bills/3153/stages/16631/amendments/10001084Bill itself - bills.parliament.uk/bills/3153Hansard record of yesterday - hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-10-18/debates/52B4111A-9C01-4FF0-A1CF-06721F589D61/PublicOrderBill#Vote - hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-10-18/division/FBB27059-7245-4A12-8110-B6DCD7141BFF/PublicOrderBill?outputType=PartyEntirety of those in favour? 282 Tories and 1 former Tory (suspended for sexual impropriety). And who needs to be involved in this decision? Nobody at all. "Before bringing proceedings under subsection (4) in relation to any activities the Secretary of State must consult such persons (if any) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate"You really can't see any possibility of abuse to simply silence political opponents...? And please don't insult our intelligence by saying "Well, if you aren't a disruptive criminal, then you've got nothing to fear..."
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 19, 2022 11:45:29 GMT
...now they all 'know their rights'. Is that a bad thing? I mean, they are their legal rights, after all.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 19, 2022 11:54:58 GMT
Nope we need to stop these people before they disrupt others lives. me I'd have sent an officer up the bridge with a knife and told the protestors come down of I will cut the cord, these idiots don't realise that they are increasing carbon emissions from cars sat idling. "these people" : but who are "these people" ? If you are referring to the likes of "Just Stop Oil" and Extinction Rebellion and their more extreme actions, I agree with you. There is a difference between protesting and a point at which your disruption to society is too great. But the rhetoric about 'what they want to stop' is people who protest outside parliament, and those who 'disturb' the Conservative Party Conference by being too noisy (this being different from those that were physically threatened trying to get to the conference. On the other hand, when it came to the recent Chinese Embassy protest, a Govt. spokesman was very quick to jump up and champion the "British right to peacefully protest". So who gets to choose which protests and which actions are ok and which are not ? The question that opened this thread was "Do you trust Suella Braverman?" and the answer, in regard to making balanced unbiased peace and order decisions vs right to demonstrate is, for me, a simple "No".
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 19, 2022 11:57:39 GMT
I don't understand this talk of "fellow travellers" and "neo-con grouping" but I do see that the police in this country are failing to maintain law and order and I believe that most people really want that to change. So if they are failing to maintain law, then by your reckoning the issue is not the law itself, and therefore exposing a need for additional law, but a failure to adequately police the existing law is it not ? Or did you mean something else ?
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 19, 2022 12:06:19 GMT
I don't understand this talk of "fellow travellers" and "neo-con grouping" but I do see that the police in this country are failing to maintain law and order and I believe that most people really want that to change. Gone are the days when the police could politely ask people not to obstruct the road or whatever and they would move, now they all 'know their rights'. Unfortunately the police are going to need the power to forcibly move people or these stupid protests that disrupt ordinary people's lives are going to become more and more frequent and cause havoc with the production and distribution of fuel and goods. I think it should be called terrorism when they occupy infrastructure and deliberately stop the operation of places like fuel and gas depots to the detriment of the country. I don't personally disagree that there should be greater efforts made and a stronger line taken when it comes to disruption / occupation of societally important infrastructure. Whether that requires new law or not is a debatable point (I don't know sufficient to say one way or the other). Nonetheless there will still be very similar practical problems to what you have now. Take the closure of the QEII bridge the other day. As I understand it, that happened because protesters had scaled the bridge. No amount of additional law is going to have changed the actions then taken: i.e. to close the bridge. You can't have traffic travelling along the bridge while there is a risk of a body dropping onto the carriageway. And physically removing them puts others lives in danger and so is not an instant thing. Unless you want to add a clause that would allow the bridge to be closed and cleared, and then snipers empowered to shoot the protesters so they drop of their own accord without danger to others. Do I trust the likes of SB to reasonably use the powers they appear to want to accrue to themselves while maintaining reasonable democtratic protest: no I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2022 12:24:45 GMT
I think the role of Home Secretary is one of the hardest in Government. We seldom get a good one and the last good was Teresa. Unfortunatly the present conservative party has a bunch of people who hate Thick Liz and then a bunch of morons who are basically out of their depth in their roles. Braverman is one of these latter people.
"Sending a policeman up with a knife", an absurd suggestion
Having watched a series of (non-police, "concerned citizens") numpties yesterday trying to move protestors one by one from a road you can see the frustration, but honestly their solution was laughable.
Look it is really easy.
1) The protestors are right, climate change is real and we are not doing enough 2) Take the fortune we are going to give to a Nuclear power station and build power storage and wind turbines 3) Move governmental paid for vehicles over to battery or hydrogen
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 19, 2022 12:28:16 GMT
On the other hand, when it came to the recent Chinese Embassy protest, a Govt. spokesman was very quick to jump up and champion the "British right to peacefully protest". ...whilst also castigating other regimes for quashing protest - Russian anti-war protests, Iranian anti-hijab protests, etc. And therein lies the massive hypocrisy of this government's claims to be "libertarian", whilst actually being massively authoritarian. I don't support the actions of XR and Just Stop Oil, although I do agree with their intent. And I ABSOLUTELY agree with their right to protest. me I'd have sent an officer up the bridge with a knife and told the protestors come down of I will cut the cord Extrajudicial killings of inconvenient political opponents? Mmm. That sounds very... Russian, Iranian, Chinese, North Korean...
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 19, 2022 12:33:27 GMT
I think the role of Home Secretary is one of the hardest in Government. We seldom get a good one and the last good was Teresa. Debatable. Reduction in police numbers, the first steps to curb protests, the "hostile environment" and "go home" vans, repeated blatant lies about the ECHR, passport office incompetence, Windrush...
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 6,021
|
Post by registerme on Oct 19, 2022 14:27:22 GMT
It could certainly give new meaning (or at least outcomes) to the phrase "protest vote".
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,895
Likes: 2,768
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 19, 2022 14:42:59 GMT
I am completely against these latest waves of disruptive protests. Not only due to the obvious ill effects on society as has been mentioned but actually they are anti-democratic. Why? They seek to empower a small number of people with a disproportionately loud voice. By definition. If I stand up holding a sign I'm one person. If I glue myself outside number 10 there's a chance I might make the news.
Protest is allowed as an escape valve if all else fails. That means hundreds of thousands lining the streets making their view known. Why should a few hundred who disrupt traffic etc be able to achieve the same effect?
And anyone who thinks their issue is more important than yours or mine deserves no mercy in court.
|
|