Protesters vs public (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DCWoody -> Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 5:05:53 PM)

Brian Haw, tent dwelling hippy....who's spent the last 9 years camped outside parliament protesting against war, was arrested this morning, before the state opening of parliament with queeny et al....
While this probably sounds suspicious timing, his arrest is actually entirely legitimate, he was obstructing the police searching the tents for drugs. The plural of tent is the clue.

For the vast majority of the time he is there alone, but with the worlds media watching, many suppporters of his and other causes have joined in...a small tent village (named 'democracy' apparently, ugh) has sprung up.


The problem, and point of this post...is that it'd got to the point that the protesters were taking up most of the square, and somewhat impeding tourists, the normal users, etc....
This leaves the police with a problem, while they don't (can't) object to each individual protesters right to protest, as a community, they were getting in the way. So, cops trying to find (legitimate) excuses to get rid of some of them. Searching hippies for weed, probably fairly high success rate.

This has been a recurring theme with Haw, multiple legal arguments about the sheer amount of...placards, banners, art...he'd collected....legally he has a right to protest, to camp there....but it's prime public area, he has no right to block any of it, in theory not even what's been under his tent all these years.


What does collarme think of the problem....is it okay for a protest to block access to public areas for other users? How could any protest over a few hundred people be allowed to go ahead if not? Is it okay if it's blocked by a swell of bodies, but taking up a load of space with tents and signs etc not good? Should someone be allowed to, literally, permanently, set up home on public land?



pahunkboy -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 5:07:04 PM)

That should be a local decision.



DCWoody -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 5:11:31 PM)

By who?
And wouldn't that just result in no-one being allowed to protest in particularly protest worthy areas? If I had varying subspecies of sloganites shouting outside my house 7/365...I might be tempted to take a less than neutral view of protest rights. Specially if my addy was 10 downing.



pahunkboy -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 5:13:27 PM)

Woody- there are many problems that can never have a one size fits all answer.

This is one  of them.





Politesub53 -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 5:17:33 PM)

The police have a right to carry out drug searches, providing the follow the rules. I would be aghast if this was an attempt to silence free speech. The timing of the raid has to make one wonder.

Legally the question that needs to be asked is when does a protest camp, which is legal, start to become a home, which is not. Nice point about the camp obstructing a public thoroughfare as well.



DCWoody -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 5:18:07 PM)

I would argue that this is an example of something that NEEDS a one size fits all answer....if it were just left to....say, parish councils...to decide as and when, they'd end up deciding...and changing...their policy based on each individual protest. Protests would surely be allowed or forbidden (to a greater or lesser degree) based upon their subject.....save the rainforest from logging companies?....go ahead, extra space specifically for shower facilities.....save the celtic race from negroid crossbreeding?....best keep the park free for dogwalkers...



pahunkboy -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 5:19:58 PM)

What works in London- wont work in Peoria.



DCWoody -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 5:21:57 PM)

I think the timing of the raid does coincide with media attention, but not purposely, merely because the overpopulation of protesters does purposefully. The home point was an interesting addition, probably not relevant in this case....it's a tiny tent, and he doesn't leave each morning off to work....but the obstruction issue is/was becoming a serious problem, I heard Boris was getting involved to try to sort it.....



DCWoody -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 5:24:18 PM)

So who should have more right to protest/less right to access public spaces as a causeless wanderer? Londoners or Peoria? :)



pahunkboy -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 5:26:01 PM)

How about the home owners?


Let the others go home.



Real0ne -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 8:49:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

The police have a right to carry out drug searches, providing the follow the rules. I would be aghast if this was an attempt to silence free speech. The timing of the raid has to make one wonder.

Legally the question that needs to be asked is when does a protest camp, which is legal, start to become a home, which is not. Nice point about the camp obstructing a public thoroughfare as well.



you people need a big flashing sign on your avatar that warns everyone you are under the queen because around here the police dont have a "right" to exercise agency.   They dont by you either but I dont care what you say about your side of the pond.



TheHeretic -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 9:11:58 PM)

Well, I don't know how the laws work there, but from a philosophical point of view, his right to swing a fist stops at then end of my nose. An encampment on a thoroughfare quickly becomes a case of their right to protest being granted a higher value than the rights of others to just get their asses to work on time.

Here, we would probably break it up over a lack of porta-shitters, and clear it out on health code violations if it came to that, but a drug inspection sounds like a good plan too. If he stayed 9 years (I'm assuming he stayed through the winters here) then I hope he at least gets his soapbox back. (If this is just a 'when the weather is nice,' thing, time to move the fuck along.)



Real0ne -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 9:19:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Well, I don't know how the laws work there, but from a philosophical point of view, his right to swing a fist stops at then end of my nose. An encampment on a thoroughfare quickly becomes a case of their right to protest being granted a higher value than the rights of others to just get their asses to work on time.

Here, we would probably break it up over a lack of porta-shitters, and clear it out on health code violations if it came to that, but a drug inspection sounds like a good plan too. If he stayed 9 years (I'm assuming he stayed through the winters here) then I hope he at least gets his soapbox back. (If this is just a 'when the weather is nice,' thing, time to move the fuck along.)


so you support prosecution of victimless crimes and take it upon yourself to trespass? 

You cant have it both ways like you just said.





TheHeretic -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 9:33:13 PM)

Society is the victim of drug users, Real. They steal our productivity. [8|]

At least, that's their story, and they are sticking to it.




Real0ne -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/25/2010 10:19:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Society is the victim of drug users, Real. They steal our productivity. [8|]

At least, that's their story, and they are sticking to it.




of course its fraud and you nor "they" have challenged or rebutted my point.





RCdc -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/26/2010 1:39:05 AM)

Protest is an important part of democracy.
Due to recent legislation, you cannot protest within a certain area around parliment (I think it's within a mile).
Due to Mr Haw being there before the legislation came about, is exempt and legally allowed to remain.  So all these people have done have attatched themselves to Mr Haw to get around a legal loophole.  It is reported that Mr Haw doesn't agree with this other encampment and doesn't want anything to do with them - let alone be associated with them there but there is nothing to he can do about it.  If they really 'supported him' - they wouldn't be there!  It's all just stunt.
Boris Johnson was attempting to have him removed legally through the courts which is why he is part of this at the moment.

the.dark.



Moonhead -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/26/2010 1:53:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

you people need a big flashing sign on your avatar that warns everyone you are under the queen because around here the police dont have a "right" to exercise agency.


[sm=abducted.gif]



pahunkboy -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/26/2010 2:24:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

you people need a big flashing sign on your avatar that warns everyone you are under the queen because around here the police dont have a "right" to exercise agency.


[sm=abducted.gif]




Umm.   My police chief told me pretty much the same thing the other day.



Politesub53 -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/26/2010 2:37:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

The police have a right to carry out drug searches, providing the follow the rules. I would be aghast if this was an attempt to silence free speech. The timing of the raid has to make one wonder.

Legally the question that needs to be asked is when does a protest camp, which is legal, start to become a home, which is not. Nice point about the camp obstructing a public thoroughfare as well.



you people need a big flashing sign on your avatar that warns everyone you are under the queen because around here the police dont have a "right" to exercise agency.   They dont by you either but I dont care what you say about your side of the pond.



Your post, like the previous 8073, makes no sense. If you have a point would you like to make it.



LadyEllen -> RE: Protesters vs public (5/26/2010 3:50:04 AM)

Stop and search powers, and powers of arrest by police without warrant are dealt with under PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act), and the basic premise is that the police have no right to do anything unless they have reasonable suspicion - and this reasonable suspicion must be held prior to stop/search or arrest, not acquired as a result of the stop/search or arrest.

All very well in theory of course, but I would not expect the public, particularly those elements prone to speculative police fishing trips, to be aware of it and I would not expect the police to be too keen on disclosing it either. There is also more than anecdote to suggest that the "cheerful Bobby" on the beat is just as often a thug as a stressed out, apprehensive public servant, but then so has it ever been.

Except of course that under the Terrorism Acts all bets are pretty much off when it comes to rights for public or police. Given how those particular attacks on civil liberties are drafted, there is reasonable suspicion my daughter is a terrorist.

Personally however I think this guy has had more than his chance to protest by now and for all the good it has done he might as well go home - but then he probably has nowhere to call home now and no chance of housing anyway.

E



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125