It's based on a lack of understanding of a law that was written about a distinct class of people in a society that no longer exists - and law that is no longer valid anyway. It's at best misguided and at worst deliberately provocative and damaging. It's rarely ever public and civil law experts leading these charges, is it? Possibly because they know something the "revolutionaries" don't?
This isn't an anti-government movement. There has been a longstanding battle between the government and the judiciary that really hit it's peak when Labour was in power. These folks are basically at the stage that the previous government has been trying to prod them to reach for years.
If you want some interesting reading, research the "seperation of powers". The massive landslide for Labour in the 90's basically merged two of the pillars leaving only the judiciary as an independant body with any hope for acting as a counterbalance. Since then, the executive has been pushing through many reforms that lack legal sense but are deliberately provocative.
A good example is "victim statements". A victim was given the right to have their statement read out in court for the judge to take note of, but at the same time the courts were then prohibited from taking the statements into account. Result? "The courts don't care! The law says I have a right to be heard but they are deliberately ignoring me! Damn the courts!". Noone ever thinks to blame the people who made the law. Ridiculous fines given out for things? Judges have very limited discretion, they are bound by government guidelines. Who gets the blame? The judges.
So, merry revolutionaries of England, well done for "sticking it to the man" by doing exactly what they've socially engineered you to do
