4 ms·

Right, suppress the protestors before they even consider taking action, human rights be damned.

techdragon 4y ago
What do you expect from a country that made it legal for cops to do crimes in pursuit of “official business “. The UK is arguably more fucked than many “western” countries, just in its own unique way.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
The wording will be very important to prevent abuse but the stated aim is reasonable: "It is intended to deal with protest groups’ changing tactics, such as slowing traffic to a crawling pace by carrying out walking protests through big cities." I think it is fair and reasonable that the police be able to remove people who block the flow of traffic on roads. If they are peaceful and well-behaved maybe let them have their 10 minutes but then it should be possible to remove them.
- kadoban 4y ago
  The stated goal is arguably reasonable. Giving the police basically unlimited power to shut down protests is not a reasonable way to achieve that goal.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    Who says they are giving the police "unlimited power" (edit: obviously regarding shutting down protests) ? Even the article (which is from The Guardian after all) reports that "The change would broaden and clarify the legal definition of “serious disruption” and allow police to consider protests by the same group on different days or in different places as part of the same wider action." So, again, the exact wording of that amendment will be key and I don't think it has been published yet.
    - kadoban 4y ago
      > Who says they are giving the police "unlimited power"? Unlimited power to shut down protests. In other words, they will shut down all protests (not the other possible meanings). > "The change would broaden and clarify the legal definition of “serious disruption” and allow police to consider protests by the same group on different days or in different places as part of the same wider action." This will be used by police to view every protest as some "wider action", with the worst possible implications, and they'll act accordingly.
    - georgeplusplus 4y ago
      [dead]
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >I think it is fair and reasonable that the police be able to remove people who block the flow of traffic on roads. If they are peaceful and well-behaved maybe let them have their 10 minutes but then it should be possible to remove them. Police should not only be able to remove people who set up illegal roadblocks, these people should be jailed and face consequences for breaking the law and illegally impeding the free movement of others in a public place, and not simply be removed from the road. That being said, I completely disagree that police should have the power to preemptively shut down a protest that hasn't yet occurred. As many have pointed out, this is no different than prosecuting "thought crimes". It is the job of police to arrest people who have broken the law, not punish people who they guess might break the law in the future. This law is absolutely Orwellian. The core of the issue is that nobody has the right to break the law, even if you do it in the name of "protesting". The central part of civil disobedience is that one is willing to suffer the legal consequences for their actions. When there are no legal consequences for breaking the law in the name of "protest", you end up with the chaotic situation we have today, where people are free to go around setting up roadblocks and physically restricting others from moving freely in public with no (or virtually no) consequence. It is unfortunate that instead of implementing reasonable, common-sense policies (like swift removal and moderate punishment of those setting up illegal roadblocks), authorities always overreach and use the situation for a power grab.
- andrepd 4y ago
  You think suppressing public protests is a reasonable trade-off for speeding motor traffic?
  - stu432 4y ago
    People died because of the last set of protests. That's not a reasonable consequence of a public protest.
    - truculent 4y ago
      Do you have a source for that?
      - mytailorisrich 4y ago
        https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/21/just-stop-oil-accused-of-having-blood-on-their-hands-after-m20-crash-17610976/ https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/21/just-stop-oil-accused-of-havi... Ambulance took 40 minutes to attend traffic accident because roads were blocked. Accident also occurred on M20 where traffic was rerouted because other road was blocked.
        nobodyandproud 4y ago
        Police took two or three days to remove them. Perhaps I’m not understanding, but is it legal to be climbing and stay high up on the cables on a major roadway?
        mytailorisrich 4y ago
        Well, I think that's the debate at the moment and I don't know the answer: Are the relevant laws already there? Are new laws needed? Is it an issue with the way the police responds, of fails to respond, to these actions?
        nobodyandproud 4y ago

What do you expect from a country that made it legal for cops to do crimes in pursuit of “official business “. The UK is arguably more fucked than many “western” countries, just in its own unique way.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

The wording will be very important to prevent abuse but the stated aim is reasonable: "It is intended to deal with protest groups’ changing tactics, such as slowing traffic to a crawling pace by carrying out walking protests through big cities." I think it is fair and reasonable that the police be able to remove people who block the flow of traffic on roads. If they are peaceful and well-behaved maybe let them have their 10 minutes but then it should be possible to remove them.

kadoban 4y ago
The stated goal is arguably reasonable. Giving the police basically unlimited power to shut down protests is not a reasonable way to achieve that goal.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  Who says they are giving the police "unlimited power" (edit: obviously regarding shutting down protests) ? Even the article (which is from The Guardian after all) reports that "The change would broaden and clarify the legal definition of “serious disruption” and allow police to consider protests by the same group on different days or in different places as part of the same wider action." So, again, the exact wording of that amendment will be key and I don't think it has been published yet.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    > Who says they are giving the police "unlimited power"? Unlimited power to shut down protests. In other words, they will shut down all protests (not the other possible meanings). > "The change would broaden and clarify the legal definition of “serious disruption” and allow police to consider protests by the same group on different days or in different places as part of the same wider action." This will be used by police to view every protest as some "wider action", with the worst possible implications, and they'll act accordingly.
  - georgeplusplus 4y ago
    [dead]
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>I think it is fair and reasonable that the police be able to remove people who block the flow of traffic on roads. If they are peaceful and well-behaved maybe let them have their 10 minutes but then it should be possible to remove them. Police should not only be able to remove people who set up illegal roadblocks, these people should be jailed and face consequences for breaking the law and illegally impeding the free movement of others in a public place, and not simply be removed from the road. That being said, I completely disagree that police should have the power to preemptively shut down a protest that hasn't yet occurred. As many have pointed out, this is no different than prosecuting "thought crimes". It is the job of police to arrest people who have broken the law, not punish people who they guess might break the law in the future. This law is absolutely Orwellian. The core of the issue is that nobody has the right to break the law, even if you do it in the name of "protesting". The central part of civil disobedience is that one is willing to suffer the legal consequences for their actions. When there are no legal consequences for breaking the law in the name of "protest", you end up with the chaotic situation we have today, where people are free to go around setting up roadblocks and physically restricting others from moving freely in public with no (or virtually no) consequence. It is unfortunate that instead of implementing reasonable, common-sense policies (like swift removal and moderate punishment of those setting up illegal roadblocks), authorities always overreach and use the situation for a power grab.
andrepd 4y ago
You think suppressing public protests is a reasonable trade-off for speeding motor traffic?
- stu432 4y ago
  People died because of the last set of protests. That's not a reasonable consequence of a public protest.
  - truculent 4y ago
    Do you have a source for that?
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/21/just-stop-oil-accused-of-having-blood-on-their-hands-after-m20-crash-17610976/ https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/21/just-stop-oil-accused-of-havi... Ambulance took 40 minutes to attend traffic accident because roads were blocked. Accident also occurred on M20 where traffic was rerouted because other road was blocked.
      - nobodyandproud 4y ago
        Police took two or three days to remove them. Perhaps I’m not understanding, but is it legal to be climbing and stay high up on the cables on a major roadway?
        mytailorisrich 4y ago
        Well, I think that's the debate at the moment and I don't know the answer: Are the relevant laws already there? Are new laws needed? Is it an issue with the way the police responds, of fails to respond, to these actions?
        nobodyandproud 4y ago