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.

 

Royal Family and ministers protected from protesters by new laws

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Royal Family and ministers protected from protesters by new laws


www.rawstory.com

Rights groups said the measure was "excessive" & "It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut."

New criminal powers will make it an offence punishable by up to 6 months in jail to protest at certain buildings, and royal palaces including the Palace of Westminster.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 5-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Once again we must remember that the UK is a test-bed for USA freedom crack-downs.

Yet another brick in the wall.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by allseeingi


Once again we must remember that the UK is a test-bed for USA freedom crack-downs.



Must we?

How about, when you quote a story, you don't selectively edit it, in the manner of Fox news, so that it makes your point?

What it actually says is



New criminal powers will make it an offence punishable by up to six months in prison to break through security cordons and mount protests inside a series of sensitive government buildings, and royal palaces including the Palace of Westminster.


Which, is kind of different don't you think?

In some respects its excessive at some of the buildings mentioned, but when you have idiots climbing onto the roof of Parliament, or breaking in and throwing objects at the Prime Minister, what did anyone expect?

Or, looking at it another way, how many Americans expect to be able to get into Congress and throw stuff at the president, and just what do you think would happen to them if they did?


[edit on 5/0607/07 by neformore]

[edit on 5/0607/07 by neformore]



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by allseeingi


Once again we must remember that the UK is a test-bed for USA freedom crack-downs.

Yet another brick in the wall.



Really? Well, considering that the only "freedom" you have over us is the ability to own a gun and shoot someone, I'm not going to buy your spin. Apart from that one item, we appear to allowed to do far more than what you can get away with in the States.

As neformore said, you have deliberately misrepresented the story.

And whats this "freedom of speech suspended" rubbish about?

Tell you what, when an American citizen can throw something at the President or get in a punch up with the Vice-President, without getting shot in the process, then you can come on here with your "UK Police State" rubbish.



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Does anyone know if there are specific laws in the U.S. that prevent demonstrations near government buildings?



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Does anyone know if there are specific laws in the U.S. that prevent demonstrations near government buildings?


Of course there will be. These laws were brought in to cover the rash of "fathers for Justice" campaigns where they willingly trespassed on Government buildings (often climbing them or going into restricted area's) and in one case, throwing a bag of purple powder at the Prime Minister.

Now, tell me. What would happen if someone (providing they could get close enough) threw a bag of powder at your President? They would more than likely be shot dead. At least in our country our politicians are accessible and don't have "security bubbles" that shield them from the people they are supposed to represent.



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Here in the United Sstates, Federal buildings are open to the public for the purposes of "general daily business," and they are regulated. I did some digging, and I found that Congress was at one point looking to change Federal building security guidelines.

Protests are not allowed inside Federal structures. the law, which is referenced in the link I provided, does prohibit bringing weapons or hostile substances in to Federal buildings. In recent years, they've et up security stations and metal detectors at the entrances to most Federal structures.

Having said this, I would not be surprised to learn that increased security measures were in the planning. Many Federal managers who usedto be easily accessed by the general public are now tucked away behind locked doors or ranks of secretaries who are tasked with screening visitors. A few agencies have taken exceptional measuresto limit public contact by erecting barriers between staff and the people they serve.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
In New Zealand going to Parliament Buildings to protest is part of what it is to be a New Zealander.

The Current Minister of State Services was as younger protestor arrested for disrupting Parliament while a current opposition member was arrested for driving a tractor up the steps of the building during a farmers protest; leading to the police now having to ask permission before they arrest anyone.

But freedom is a fragile thing and the United Kingdom I suspect is reacting to the growing protests movements across Europe powered by very real concerns that people have that the democratic prosess is being shut down.

What amuses me about this small nation is how frequently one generations protestor quickly becomes the next civic or government leader. A truely beautiful example of this is the Mayor of our southern most city (who starred in the Burt Munro film-The World's Fastest Indian) Tim Shadbolt who in his younger days of protesting against the Vietnam war was jailed for saying the words "Bull#"

Politicians in England need to take a walk in the park to clear their heads.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   
You know, I often think that, when a story or link gets posted on ATS 99% of the people who respond to it haven't read it.

And the two posts above mine here prove that.

No ones right to protest has been taken away - its not even been suggested

In fact, no ones right to do anything has been removed.

What has been bought into effect is sentencing for those people who take it a bit too far. The kind of people who want to break into parliament and throw powdery substances at the Prime Minister (was talcum powder, could have been anthrax, or someone with a knife, or gun), or wake the Queen up in the middle of the night after breaking into Buckingham Palace for an unofficial audience, or climb onto a ledge on a government building and thus cause traffic to grind to a halt, streets to be closed etc in the middle of the UK's capital city.

As both Stumason and myself have already pointed out above, try getting into the Whitehouse or congress and throwing white powder at the President. See how dead it gets you.

People in the UK have a right to peaceful protest. Breaking through a recognised security cordon into someones place of work or home and assaulting them is not peaceful protest.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
.
'We' ?

' You' ?

' Us' ?

' Them' ?

My side agin your side.

My side is better.

No, MY side is.

Uh uh. MY side is.

It's a good thing politicians don't know how to access internet and/or forums, or they'd be galvanised by another of their 'genius light bulb' moments, followed by a quick call to their favourite Secret Service lackeys to suggest a 'reeely brill-yunt' way to get WW3/Armageddon/Rapture off the ground: ' Let's not p*ss around in the mid-east anymore boys ..... let's go straight for the thoat ! US against UK ! Waddya think of that ! They're rarin to go ! '

In a swiftly changing world growing ever more volatile --- WE are supposed to be on the same side .... remember ?

What year is it ?

That's right. 2007. US war of Independence has been and gone.

THEY (Congressmen, Parliamentarians, Presidents, Prime Ministers, politicians, legislators, Military-Industrial power-mongers and assorted mongrels) are our enemies --- not each other of us here.

And although I'm confident of opposition, it's my opinion that as our politicians work for and are paid by, us --- and as WE (through our ancestors' and our own hard earned money) HAVE paid and STILL pay for the piles of stone, brick and mortar edifices within which they supposedly 'work' on our behalf ........... then we not only have the right but also a responsibility to express our displeasure concerning their failure to properly fulfill the terms of their employ or any OTHER dissatisfaction we may have concerning their performance.

If we did this frequently and with vigor --- then their performance may more properly reflect the will of those whom they serve.

For example, it's my belief that Presidents and Prime Ministers and assorted 'politicians' -- particularly those of the current era --- should be nailed to flat bed trucks and driven the length and breadth of the nations they profess to serve, in order every dissatisfied employer would be provided the opportunity to pelt them with rotten eggs, tomatoes and anything else believed expressive of contempt.

Same goes for all freeloaders ('Royal' or not) who are attached to the public teat.

He who pays the organ-grinder calls the tune.

They work for us. As such, they are required to be accountable -- in the same way as other employees, but with far greater potential for unpleasant penalty, considering that the average employee does NOT presume the power to send other folks' sons off to kill and die in 'wars' orchestrated by impotent, draft-dodging, shrivelled-penis old hacks who are taking from the public purse at the same time as they are actually kissing the backsides and doing the bidding of Big Business/Big Pharma/Military Industrial demons.

Yet here WE are, bitching at each OTHER, concerning THEIR right to FAIL us, over and over again, whilst crouching and slurping largesse ---immune to our rage and laughing at us, courtesy of the protection and immunity that WE provide them -- in OUR buildings --- on OUR time --- on OUR money -- to OUR detriment.

Yep, the secret's out, I'm afraid.

They've rightly pegged us as dum-dums.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Bit bizarre allseeingi is it not. Seems to me protesting is directed to the gov and not the Royalty -- yes.
I mean, there really isn't a test bed re USA v Britain in this case, perhap's a new development in providing more safety of English citizens maybe?

Dallas



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join