It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Liberal1984
So it’s the Health and Safety Act that’s taken away these peoples civil liberties?
isn’t the work of legislation introduced by the Labour government that these people have to apply for permission to protest in the first place?
I mean wasn’t there a time when you could just form a protest (i.e. without anyone having the time to check-create a stupid interpretation of the Health and Safety Act? (It may not comply with)
that quotes got less personal rhetoric than a stupid slogan for a national political party like “forward not back” (Labour election 2005)
Why: Because it’s the right thing; because it looks democratic, because it is democratic because it shows tolerance of other people’s views and passion.
because they have demanded that you will hand over my DNA and my eye scan in exchange for one of their biometric passports (i.e. equal to my legal right to leave this country).
More than 40 countries across the world are introducing biometric passports to comply with both the International Civil Aviation Organisation deadline in October and the US visa waiver scheme
Labour may as well have abolished the right to peaceful protest as peaceful protest is no good if you can’t do it outside somewhere like a political conference.
We need a constitution to protect our rights against your average government legislation; but somehow I don’t think that’s coming any time too soon.
- Interesting opinion lib.
But you won't be surprised to find that I don't agree.
Quite the opposite in fact.
I think it trashes the memory of those that sacrificed themselves for our rights to pretend this is on that level.
It isn't.
Members of my family did not fight, suffer injury and in instances die for this country so that a particular politically motivated group could pretend their rights to free speech and being heard in this country were being trampled upon (as they freely speak to and are reported in every newspaper and are broadcast on any and all TV channels they could arrange interviews with).
Just because they were not going to be allowed to stand exactly where they have demanded and have rejected all offers of compromise.
Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
it would be interesting to see you saying that to tthe families that who are carrying out that protest.
I think they would take offense to your comment.
After all it is their sons and daughters fighting out there not you is it.
In fairness it should also be remembered that it is also true that a compromise has been offered by the council; which would surely be a case of - the local - authority going out of their way to safeguard those 'rights'.
Who's 'rights' should have priority, the resident council tax bill-payers of the area or the drive-in protesters?
isn’t the work of legislation introduced by the Labour government that these people have to apply for permission to protest in the first place?
- Yes but that is a terrifyingly simplistic way of viewing legislation.
Originally posted by Liberal1984
Or saving face against a bad press?
Not least because it would appear that there is no legal reason why health and safety “concerns” cannot be used to stifle peaceful protest.
You would of thought removing the “right” for protester to claim compensation for injury during peaceful protest would quite easy.
Well given that the vast majority of residential council tax payers probably agree with the right to peaceful protest; and probably disagree with it being curtailed under health and safety legislation I think Manchester City Council would serve them best by footing them with the theoretical liability.
Frankly I think Manchester City Council has wasted taxpayers money by even paying legal experts to investigate whether it’s possible to ban peaceful protest under health and safety legislation (not least because it is unlikely to have the general support of any electorate in any part of the country).
I doubt we’ll agree though that it’s one more piece of evidence towards the slide towards authoritarian (perhaps one day a totalitarian) government.
I would feel a lot safer under this Labour Government if there was some legal guarantee to peaceful protest
I also believe that it’s healthy in a democracy that extreme fury of the crowds should be able to threaten the stability of government
but as the resignation of Margaret Thatcher following the poll tax riots shows it’s a price well worth paying.
Are you honestly saying you cannot see anything shameful in the 'those that fought and died for our freedoms' comparison by those who are currently pretending that 'our' rights and 'our' liberty to free speech and to freely express 'our' POV are being denied in this country just because of a refused permission to protest on a particular exact spot.......
You're really saying that you think it requires a member of ones' family to have been lost in (which one are we pretending there is no UN backing for this week?) Iraq or Afghanistan be able to spot how absurd and ridiculous that kind of claim is!?
Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Those families have every right to protest.
Yeah just as ridiculous you saying they are disgracing those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan
oh and btw when the Iraq War started there was no UN Mandate for it.
The UK and US ignored the UN went ahead with it anyways.
On November 8, 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences".
The resolution passed with a 15 to 0 vote, supported by Russia, China and France, and Arab countries like Syria.
This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.
the decisions can be challenged under the ECHR.
- No.
You cannot, generally, voluntarily 'give up' your rights, think about it, the idea is ridiculous as well as, potentially, deeply dangerous.
there's you, apparantly, always wanting to extol the virtues of freedoms and rights and you'd encourage a situation where a person could deny (or be encouraged to deny) their own human rights and freedoms when it suits, what sort of nightmare world would that spawn lib, huh?
A quarrel over the legality of a demonstration and/or a slight change of venue resulting from that dispute does not herald a fascist state or mean all your freedoms have been torched.
Especially when it can be demonstrated that your rights and liberties have actually been expanded by this government.
Originally posted by Liberal1984
If the European Court of Human Rights is capable of guaranteeing “the right to peaceful expression” I wonder if it could guarantee it outside parliament where the kilometre protest ban is in force?
Of course it might be that you only have a right to peaceful expression if you gain permission from the police and local council; but generally my interpretation of the word “right” is that its not subject to permission; only criteria (in this case peaceful protest being the case).
If so could much of the governments current protest restrictions be in violation of European Law?
A very nightmarish world: It would be one where the authorities couldn’t tell people not to protest outside the Labour Party Conference “because it’s unsafe”.
Context sminkey!
However I'm not happy with sane & adult people being unable to voluntarily suspend their own rights.
It's the tactics of the despot......and you'd welcome that?!
- What you mean ID cards the terms of which haven't been formally set out yet?
CCTV, like the public are demanding?
Originally posted by Liberal1984
The government is in ether violation of European Law
The Health Safety Act-this governments demands for permission to peacefully protest, have successfully infringed our rights to peaceful protest.
Sminkey if you think the terms of I.D cards haven’t been set out yet I suggest you look at this link
As for (the separate) biometric passports (which again have already been passed) news.bbc.co.uk... I agree with Spencerjohnstone earlier that “hell will sooner freeze over before the government gets their hands on my DNA-eye scan”.
if it wasn’t for them I would be unlikely to ever need the European Human Rights act anyway.
The “CCTV” I was referring to was the government’s nationwide license plate reading system. (Geovision License Plate Recognition System)
It is true that a so-called '2nd resolution' failed to attract UN support but that does not erase the fact that resolution 1441 was passed with unanimous UN support and was srongly worded about the consequences of Iraq's failure to comply with the inspections etc.
The Big Question…
(Like I said in my previous post)
Did the Labour Council fail to offer a compromise with the beginning because they were “stupid”? (with handling the media). Or were they trying to stifle political protest outside their political party’s annual conference?
Last year, Maya Evans was arrested for reading out a list of 98 British soldiers who have died in Iraq at the Cenotaph, the memorial to Britain's war dead.
The 25-year-old was found guilty of breaking rules stopping unauthorised demonstrations within 1km of Westminster and ordered to pay £100 costs.