3 ms·

Please don't be unreasonable. > Every single thing in the text you (inaccurately) quoted. Your first sentence makes no sense. It's quoted directly from the Gu

Please don't be unreasonable. > Every single thing in the text you (inaccurately) quoted. Your first sentence makes no sense. It's quoted directly from the Guardian article, not from me. > it sounds like the point is to make sure each rally is allocated a separate area, and they don't deny permission outright. FWIW, look at the next article I linked. You're really understating the restrictions for a public, outdoor venue. This is on brand with restrictive public use. - No noise directed outwards - no noise after 6PM - confined to two lawns (that can't fit more than 3k people) - no sound speakers - no overnight rallies even if quiet - leave no trash - no food for others - you're strongly advised to fill out a notification form if your group is larger than a dozen people

rafram 5mo ago
No, there was a bunch in the middle that you removed. Most of those restrictions sound pretty standard and reasonable! No amplification is the only one that I’d be upset about as an organizer.
- caminante 5mo ago
  > No, there was a bunch in the middle that you removed. I didn't remove anything. It seems you're reading and responding to different discussions.
  - rafram 5mo ago
    The article says: > London’s seat of democratic governance now sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment outfit. John Biggs, the London Assembly member, tells me he has been prevented from doing television interviews outside the building by private security guards who insist he needs a special permit; protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission. “I think that as active citizens we’ve got a reasonable responsibility to test and push at these public/private borders,” he tells me. “It’s clear we’ve got the balance wrong at the moment.” You “quoted”: > City Hall sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment company. Protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission. That’s a summary! But not a quote.
    - caminante 5mo ago
      > You “quoted”...That’s a summary! But not a quote. Look again! [0] It's a tagline for a photo that you overlooked. Please take a break and go outside. [0] https://i.postimg.cc/XvW4pN8Q/image.png https://i.postimg.cc/XvW4pN8Q/image.png

rafram 5mo ago

No, there was a bunch in the middle that you removed. Most of those restrictions sound pretty standard and reasonable! No amplification is the only one that I’d be upset about as an organizer.

caminante 5mo ago
> No, there was a bunch in the middle that you removed. I didn't remove anything. It seems you're reading and responding to different discussions.
- rafram 5mo ago
  The article says: > London’s seat of democratic governance now sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment outfit. John Biggs, the London Assembly member, tells me he has been prevented from doing television interviews outside the building by private security guards who insist he needs a special permit; protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission. “I think that as active citizens we’ve got a reasonable responsibility to test and push at these public/private borders,” he tells me. “It’s clear we’ve got the balance wrong at the moment.” You “quoted”: > City Hall sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment company. Protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission. That’s a summary! But not a quote.
  - caminante 5mo ago
    > You “quoted”...That’s a summary! But not a quote. Look again! [0] It's a tagline for a photo that you overlooked. Please take a break and go outside. [0] https://i.postimg.cc/XvW4pN8Q/image.png https://i.postimg.cc/XvW4pN8Q/image.png