Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Lobby]

10 years in jail for serious annoyance lol

Actually, it’s 10 years for risking serious annoyance!

[fishfoodie]

10 years in jail for serious annoyance lol

Time to start investing in companies that build, or run prisons so !

10 years for not mowing your lawn, or turning up stereo a bit too loud; it's a curtain twitchers dream law.

[SaintK]

10 years in jail for serious annoyance lol

It would be amusing if it wasn't so heavy handed
Just given half a parliamentary day by Rees-Smug to debate what is a 300 page document
Only to be expected from Patel. That's what the smirking witch was put there to do

[tabascoboy]

10 years in jail for serious annoyance lol

Time to start investing in companies that build, or run prisons so !

10 years for not mowing your lawn, or turning up stereo a bit too loud; it's a curtain twitchers dream law.

Or presumably for mowing your lawn if the noise causes a "nuisance"

[fishfoodie]

And before any Tory steps in & proclaims how British common sense will prevail in the application of these powers; I will refer them to the case of the Nazi saluting dog trainer !

[Hal Jordan]

10 years in jail for serious annoyance lol

It would be amusing if it wasn't so heavy handed
Just given half a parliamentary day by Rees-Smug to debate what is a 300 page document
Only to be expected from Patel. That's what the smirking witch was put there to do

She is on the record as saying, "I don't believe in protests". I think we can infer where this legislation is going to be used.

[Biffer]

Any protest which will involve breaking the existing law should be banned. That involves abiding to COVID restrictions.

Presumably the new laws are there to prevent breaking the law rather than needing to make necessary fines and arrests as it happens.

The new laws are there to suppress any public display of dissent or opposition to the Government, from that bloke outside Parliament protesting Brexit to marches and vigils that the police don't like.

Incidentally, 100 people held a vigil in Nottingham Town Square yesterday evening, and it went off peacefully without any police intervention whatsoever, so the idea that the Met were forced to go in on a bunch of women protesting the death of a woman at the hands of a serving Met officer is fucking nonsense.

Perhaps I misunderstood the new laws. Does it give police full discretionary rights, the right to block protests even where they will not break existing laws? And without parameters?

They can ban a protest if it has the potential to cause ‘serious annoyance’ to one passer by.

And the definition of serious annoyance is left to the police.

[Random1]

The new laws are there to suppress any public display of dissent or opposition to the Government, from that bloke outside Parliament protesting Brexit to marches and vigils that the police don't like.

Incidentally, 100 people held a vigil in Nottingham Town Square yesterday evening, and it went off peacefully without any police intervention whatsoever, so the idea that the Met were forced to go in on a bunch of women protesting the death of a woman at the hands of a serving Met officer is fucking nonsense.

Perhaps I misunderstood the new laws. Does it give police full discretionary rights, the right to block protests even where they will not break existing laws? And without parameters?

They can ban a protest if it has the potential to cause ‘serious annoyance’ to one passer by.

And the definition of serious annoyance is left to the police.

Yeah, it’s ever such a strange balance we have at the moment. We have a law there that seems to be draconian and not exactly in line with our free society ethic.

But if the police dare to use it, there are calls for the chief of police to be sacked.

It’s a bad way to be, as the mob has rule without actually fucking assembling. Anything not aligning with the majority could be under threat in future.

Interesting times.

[Biffer]

Perhaps I misunderstood the new laws. Does it give police full discretionary rights, the right to block protests even where they will not break existing laws? And without parameters?

They can ban a protest if it has the potential to cause ‘serious annoyance’ to one passer by.

And the definition of serious annoyance is left to the police.

Yeah, it’s ever such a strange balance we have at the moment. We have a law there that seems to be draconian and not exactly in line with our free society ethic.

But if the police dare to use it, there are calls for the chief of police to be sacked.

It’s a bad way to be, as the mob has rule without actually fucking assembling. Anything not aligning with the majority could be under threat in future.

Interesting times.

I'm describing the new law that's coming in, not the existing law, just to be clear.

[JM2K6]

It's hard work to make this about "mob rule" and completely exonerating the police of any blame but you got there in the end, Random1.

[I like neeps]

It's hard work to make this about "mob rule" and completely exonerating the police of any blame but you got there in the end, Random1.

The Government are pushing through a law making protests anything but illegal the day after the police decide to beat up a load of woman in mourning and mob rule is the problem. It's a work of art really.

[Paddington Bear]

I’m broadly pro police and generally find protests a bit tiresome (last night’s an exception to that). How the police ever thought their response last night was at all acceptable I cannot begin to fathom. It’s what? a year or so since they refused to touch XR as they shut down city centres causing actual economic harm, but bring out the batons for a vigil for a murdered woman. Shameful and heads should roll

[Random1]

It's hard work to make this about "mob rule" and completely exonerating the police of any blame but you got there in the end, Random1.

You’ve misunderstood (or more accurately, I’ve explained poorly)

I’m saying that this sort of law, when it’s placed at the discretion of the police is dangerous, as the police will factor in political and personal ramifications into the decision. That means they’re more likely to block smaller, niche groups compared to larger groups (who I was referring to when saying mob). This is because political and personal consequences increase as the size of the mob increases.

I suspect I’m on the same page with you on this - I’m worried about this law as it puts too much power into the hands of the police and the daily mail readers.

[JM2K6]

I see, ok.

[Random1]

It's hard work to make this about "mob rule" and completely exonerating the police of any blame but you got there in the end, Random1.

The Government are pushing through a law making protests anything but illegal the day after the police decide to beat up a load of woman in mourning and mob rule is the problem. It's a work of art really.

It was definitely how I explained myself, as I’ve given you the wrong impression too.

I have a legal back ground, so I don’t look short term with law, I look for the unintended consequences a decade, or even a generation into the future.

I don’t think this law is a good idea.

[Insane_Homer]

[Insane_Homer]

[Rinkals]

It's hard work to make this about "mob rule" and completely exonerating the police of any blame but you got there in the end, Random1.

You’ve misunderstood (or more accurately, I’ve explained poorly)

I’m saying that this sort of law, when it’s placed at the discretion of the police is dangerous, as the police will factor in political and personal ramifications into the decision. That means they’re more likely to block smaller, niche groups compared to larger groups (who I was referring to when saying mob). This is because political and personal consequences increase as the size of the mob increases.

I suspect I’m on the same page with you on this - I’m worried about this law as it puts too much power into the hands of the police and the daily mail readers.

It does indeed.

We had a raft of similar laws in South Africa prior to Mandela's release.

Not that I anticipate large crowds taking to the street with car tyres and boxes of matches.

[fishfoodie]

I'd like to see him walk into an ebola ward wearing that binliner, & see if he looks so fucking smug then !

[Insane_Homer]

It's OK folks, nothing to worry about, "mild streaming" of existing laws only, since they have to account for new technology, like the UK having just invented the the megaphone!

[Insane_Homer]

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Actually, it’s 10 years for risking serious annoyance!

is there anyone in the country not looking at over 50,000 years in jail for repeat offences?

[fishfoodie]

Actually, it’s 10 years for risking serious annoyance!

is there anyone in the country not looking at over 50,000 years in jail for repeat offences?

Up until Saturday, Ben Youngs was facing 500,000 years; but now he's gotten a full pardon,

[Lobby]

Actually, it’s 10 years for risking serious annoyance!

is there anyone in the country not looking at over 50,000 years in jail for repeat offences?

If Torq was to be given 10 years for every one of his posts on Finn Russell, I don’t think any of our Scottish posters would complain.

[tabascoboy]

It's OK folks, nothing to worry about, "mild streaming" of existing laws only, since they have to account for new technology, like the UK having just invented the the megaphone!

So is this an reworking of or additional to existing regulations on Noise and Nuisance? Is this something new incorporated into regulations solely to protests and demos? Or is this rewriting:

List of Statutory Nuisances
Part Three of the 1990 Environmental Protection Act has a list of nuisances to which abatement (reduction) procedures apply.

noise that is harmful to health or a nuisance and comes from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street (other than noise made by traffic, by an military force or by political demonstration or a demonstration supporting or opposing a cause or campaign) (see section 79(1)(ga) and (6A)) - a number of issues need to be taken into account when judging whether a noise amounts to an actionable nuisance; they are listed below but nearly always need to be taken in combination:

I mean you might just as well say construction noise, barking dogs, tree cutting, lawn mowers etc etc is equally an "serious annoyance or inconvenience". Why is noise from a protest any worse than having to listen to workers using road drills all day?

[SaintK]

Scathing report on Covid data sharing by Gove's team

The public administration and constitutional affairs committee examined the government’s levels of transparency and openness around the data underpinning key decisions, finding a lack of sufficient explanation that it says has placed needless strain on public confidence.

The MPs severely criticise Michael Gove for not appearing before them, which they say was “contemptuous of parliament”. Gove heads the Cabinet Office, which has shared responsibility for the response to the pandemic with the Department of Health and Social Care.

In their report, the MPs say accountability for decisions and the data on which they are based must be clear to ensure the trust of the public. They call on Gove to respond to their criticisms, “clearly outlining his understanding of his responsibilities”.

Ministers sent in Gove’s place were poorly briefed and unable to answer the questions put to them, says the committee, and when it wrote asking for information, it was often not provided. “This is wilful evasion of parliamentary scrutiny,” said the committee.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021 ... ovid-data

[I like neeps]

It would be funny how they're pushing through a law to ban protests under the guise of protecting statues.

No serious judge is giving anyway anything but a light sentence for redorating Churchill. Imagine UK taxpayer paying 41k per year to keep someone banged up for defacing a statue. What a mental country.

[Hal Jordan]

Scathing report on Covid data sharing by Gove's team

The public administration and constitutional affairs committee examined the government’s levels of transparency and openness around the data underpinning key decisions, finding a lack of sufficient explanation that it says has placed needless strain on public confidence.

The MPs severely criticise Michael Gove for not appearing before them, which they say was “contemptuous of parliament”. Gove heads the Cabinet Office, which has shared responsibility for the response to the pandemic with the Department of Health and Social Care.

In their report, the MPs say accountability for decisions and the data on which they are based must be clear to ensure the trust of the public. They call on Gove to respond to their criticisms, “clearly outlining his understanding of his responsibilities”.

Ministers sent in Gove’s place were poorly briefed and unable to answer the questions put to them, says the committee, and when it wrote asking for information, it was often not provided. “This is wilful evasion of parliamentary scrutiny,” said the committee.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021 ... ovid-data

And it will have the effect of the square root of fuck all on him. This Government have shown that, like Trump, if you just ignore the unwritten rules and bareface it out by simply not addressing the issue, or shit out torrents of lies, obfuscation and half-truths, there is almost nothing that can be done in terms of accountability to Parliament or society in general.

[SaintK]

It would be funny how they're pushing through a law to ban protests under the guise of protecting statues.

No serious judge is giving anyway anything but a light sentence for redorating Churchill. Imagine UK taxpayer paying 41k per year to keep someone banged up for defacing a statue. What a mental country.

So a potential10 year sentence for vandalism of a statue
The average sentence for possessing a firearm is 5 years and for rape is 8 years
Glad to see these bastards getting their priorities right

[fishfoodie]

It would be funny how they're pushing through a law to ban protests under the guise of protecting statues.

No serious judge is giving anyway anything but a light sentence for redorating Churchill. Imagine UK taxpayer paying 41k per year to keep someone banged up for defacing a statue. What a mental country.

So a potential10 year sentence for vandalism of a statue
The average sentence for possessing a firearm is 5 years and for rape is 8 years
Glad to see these bastards getting their priorities right

Lock the bastards up is what I say !!!

[GogLais]

10 years in jail for serious annoyance lol

Time to start investing in companies that build, or run prisons so !

10 years for not mowing your lawn, or turning up stereo a bit too loud; it's a curtain twitchers dream law.

Or presumably for mowing your lawn if the noise causes a "nuisance"

I doubt that the Tories will want to upset people that mow their lawns.

[Lobby]

It would be funny how they're pushing through a law to ban protests under the guise of protecting statues.

No serious judge is giving anyway anything but a light sentence for redorating Churchill. Imagine UK taxpayer paying 41k per year to keep someone banged up for defacing a statue. What a mental country.

So a potential10 year sentence for vandalism of a statue
The average sentence for possessing a firearm is 5 years and for rape is 8 years
Glad to see these bastards getting their priorities right

The maximum sentence for rape is life. Similarly, the maximum sentence for possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life is life.

While I think the suggested maximum sentence for defacing a statue is ridiculous, lets not kid ourselves that the courts will be routinely handing out the maximum sentence every time someone writes a rude word on Churchill’s statue.

[SaintK]

It would be funny how they're pushing through a law to ban protests under the guise of protecting statues.

No serious judge is giving anyway anything but a light sentence for redorating Churchill. Imagine UK taxpayer paying 41k per year to keep someone banged up for defacing a statue. What a mental country.

So a potential10 year sentence for vandalism of a statue
The average sentence for possessing a firearm is 5 years and for rape is 8 years
Glad to see these bastards getting their priorities right

The maximum sentence for rape is life. Similarly, the maximum sentence for possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life is life.

While I think the suggested maximum sentence for defacing a statue is ridiculous, lets not kid ourselves that the courts will be routinely handing out the maximum sentence every time someone writes a rude word on Churchill’s statue.

You'd want to hope not!!
I wonder just how many statue vandals get as far as court?
The 2019 rape referral figures are appalling

ain 2019 about 4% of all rape cases reported to the police were referred to the CPS. Of these, just over three quarters made it to court

[tabascoboy]

Time to start investing in companies that build, or run prisons so !

10 years for not mowing your lawn, or turning up stereo a bit too loud; it's a curtain twitchers dream law.

Or presumably for mowing your lawn if the noise causes a "nuisance"

I doubt that the Tories will want to upset people that mow their lawns.

Unless you are doing it as a protest ( well I only do it under protest TBH )

[tc27]

A new winning electoral formula seems to be ‘go right on culture and left on economics’. The “fund the NHS and hang the paedos party”, to put it bluntly.

https://exponentsmag.org/2020/04/01/the ... -our-time/

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Be suggestive of going left might be a strategy. I can't think of any supposed right wing movements actually going left in practice on the economic front.

[Random1]

It's OK folks, nothing to worry about, "mild streaming" of existing laws only, since they have to account for new technology, like the UK having just invented the the megaphone!

So is this an reworking of or additional to existing regulations on Noise and Nuisance? Is this something new incorporated into regulations solely to protests and demos? Or is this rewriting:

List of Statutory Nuisances
Part Three of the 1990 Environmental Protection Act has a list of nuisances to which abatement (reduction) procedures apply.

noise that is harmful to health or a nuisance and comes from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street (other than noise made by traffic, by an military force or by political demonstration or a demonstration supporting or opposing a cause or campaign) (see section 79(1)(ga) and (6A)) - a number of issues need to be taken into account when judging whether a noise amounts to an actionable nuisance; they are listed below but nearly always need to be taken in combination:

I mean you might just as well say construction noise, barking dogs, tree cutting, lawn mowers etc etc is equally an "serious annoyance or inconvenience". Why is noise from a protest any worse than having to listen to workers using road drills all day?

It’s actually an interesting point, as statutory nuisance must emanate from premises or, a vehicle and/or machinery in the street, So a protest, involving megaphones etc could very well be covered.

However, you’d have to demonstrate that a domestic premises was being adversely affected by the noise, which may be a push considering the locations.

Plus, you’d need to serve an abatement notice before taking any further action, and so it’s not really practical, as the scamps would just pass the megaphone around!

Stat nuisance really wasn’t designed for this stuff though, and it has a hundred years of case law not involving protest, so it’d be a brave Environmental Health Officer taking it on!

Public order offences are the ones that should be used.

[JM2K6]

Not the biggest fan of Ian Dunt, but his thread here on the Tory defence of the bill is a must-read. They are utter fucking cunts. Just a pack of lying, amoral, power-grabbing shitstains willing to sell the people down the river in order to get what they want.

https://t.co/cItBV2oeaI?amp=1

[fishfoodie]

Not the biggest fan of Ian Dunt, but his thread here on the Tory defence of the bill is a must-read. They are utter fucking cunts. Just a pack of lying, amoral, power-grabbing shitstains willing to sell the people down the river in order to get what they want.

https://t.co/cItBV2oeaI?amp=1

I don't know what you've currently got in the UK; but it sure as fuck isn't Democracy

[Rinkals]

Not the biggest fan of Ian Dunt, but his thread here on the Tory defence of the bill is a must-read. They are utter fucking cunts. Just a pack of lying, amoral, power-grabbing shitstains willing to sell the people down the river in order to get what they want.

https://t.co/cItBV2oeaI?amp=1

I don't know what you've currently got in the UK; but it sure as fuck isn't Democracy

I think the one thing that Trump and now Boris have taught us is that the checks and balances don't work if you are brazen enough; the checks hold nothing in check and the authoritarian thumb is firmly on the balances.