In message , David
Cantrell writes
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:02:18PM +0100, Chris Read wrote:

If you're referring to the thread I started, a couple of weeks back, I'm
interested to know why you think this was 'thoroughly reactionary'. I made
it quite clear I was in favour of the right to free speech and lawful
demonstration, but that if this involved bringing central London to a
standstill most weekends, there were legitimate questions to be asked about
how the cost to London is borne. I gave my view as to who should bear that
cost, because someone has to pay.

If I'm not getting two threads confused, didn't someone say that the
demonstrators should pay? That, of course, makes certain parts of
political life the exclusive preserve of the well-off, which is a Really
Bad Idea. And I say that as someone who is in the top 10% of earners in
the country.

I'm quite happy to pay the costs of other people demonstrating, through
funding the police*,

Just for the record - and as someone whose working life can be
*spectacularly* messed up by such things, I'm not happy to pay the
costs.


through my journeys occasionally taking longer, and
through infinitesimal extra costs passed on to me by businesses that are
affected.

They may only pass "infinitesimal" costs to you. Some of those
businesses lost considerable amounts.


Even when I strongly disagree with the demonstrators I'm
willing to pay that cost.

Again, I'm not (although I concede there's little I can do about it).


That's because democracy and holding the
state to account is important.

You can do that by protesting somewhere that doesn't hold up traffic,
delay journeys and - an important point here - put people off going into
London in the first place.


I'm even happy to pay the extra costs involved because of the tiny
minority who don't just protest peacefully

Yet again, I'm not. But I suspect you'll be fed up of me saying this
by now! :-))

- those costs being extra
policing, vandalism, court time, prisons, hospital treatment, etc.
Not that whether I'm happy matters or not - those who are willing to
break laws about things like vandalism and assault are presumably also
willing to break laws about paying cash in advance for their silliness!

Indeed; this Pay As You Protest idea really *is* unworkable.
(Although I did briefly consider whether it could be paid for on
Oyster!)


* in the abstract - I certainly don't approve of their criminality,
incompetence and thuggery in recent years.

Just in case I seem thoroughly disinterested in democracy or current
affairs, I *am* interested enough to wonder what the Tamil protesters
actually want to achieve by their protests. I've not been able to work
out an answer to that yet, though.

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:15:35 -0700 (PDT), Offramp wrote:

Secondly, road closures are mostly performed by the police in response
to demonstrations, so sue them.

Why are they protesting in Whitehall? Why not protest outside the Sri
Lankan Embassy or, better still, go to Sri Lanka and protest outside
their own government house?

Also, isn't it still illegal to protest outside Parliament? (Not that
I agree with that law, but I'm surprised not to have seen it mentioned
at all in media reports, or in these Usenet threads. The police
certainly used to be very active in enforcing it.)

On 22 Apr, 08:15, Offramp wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:05*am, Doug wrote:

Firstly, public roads are not for the exclusive use of through traffic
but serve a variety of purposes.

What like?

Isn't it obvious? Or maybe not now that speeding through traffic
totally dominates our streets. Of course, motorists street garage
their cars nose to tail 24/7 but apart from that... People need to
cross roads for a variety of purposes, to socialise with neighbours or
to get to shops, or for children to play with each other. Roads are
also used to stop and deliver goods to homes, etc. Not least is the
the use of roads for processions and demonstrations. Many processions
are traditional and are part of the establishment and are responsible
for closing streets. What about the Marathon in London?

Secondly, road closures are mostly performed by the police in response
to demonstrations, so sue them.

Why are they protesting in Whitehall? Why not protest outside the Sri
Lankan Embassy or, better still, go to Sri Lanka and protest outside
their own government house?

Probably because the British use to be their colonial power and as
such is historically responsible for the situation in Sri Lanka.

In any case, I can't see any police at all in this picturehttp://www.sibernews.com/images/2009/04/london2004092.jpg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2...ri-lanka-tamil

"Tamil protesters clash with police

Thousands of protesters take to the streets of London to demonstrate
against the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka"

I repeat, it is the police who close the streets.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:12:08 +0100
asdf wrote:


On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:15:35 -0700 (PDT), Offramp wrote:

Secondly, road closures are mostly performed by the police in response
to demonstrations, so sue them.

Why are they protesting in Whitehall? Why not protest outside the Sri
Lankan Embassy or, better still, go to Sri Lanka and protest outside
their own government house?

Also, isn't it still illegal to protest outside Parliament? (Not that
I agree with that law, but I'm surprised not to have seen it mentioned
at all in media reports, or in these Usenet threads. The police
certainly used to be very active in enforcing it.)

The police should have cleared the area , but they probably know that if
they tried they'd have the full force of the islington right-on brigade
plus "community leaders" wailing about racism at full volume into any media
outlet that would listen.

Personally I'd pay a few thousand sinhalese to turn up with a counter
protest , set up a popcorn stand and watch the result.

B2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2...ri-lanka-tamil

"Tamil protesters clash with police

Thousands of protesters take to the streets of London to demonstrate
against the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka"

I repeat, it is the police who close the streets.

That video shows the police trying to get people off the road; but
they keep jumping back in.
Why don't they protest at the Sri Lankan embassy?

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Offramp wrote:

Yesterday I was trying to get home from Euston to Tooting Broadway.
Not normally the most epic of journeys. But there were major problems
on the Northern Line, so I got off at London Bridge. I took an
overground train to Charing Cross and got on a 24 to go to Victoria.

Whitehall was completely blocked off because of those protesters
again, something to do with Tamils. I think they are either for or
against them. Buses were being diverted god-knows-where. So I got off,
walked to Westminster, took a tube to Victoria, took the overground to
Balham then realised that both Balham and Tooting Broadway were shut
owing to engineering works, so I had to get a 355 bus home.

Anyway, when the French trawlermen blockaded the port recently P&O
said it was thinking of suing them. Is there some organization behind
these Parliament Square demos that might be sued by disgruntled
punters?

They weren't entirely to blame, but they didn't help.

When you get this worked out, let me know. I often my journey home
seriously obstructed by numpties who for some reason think it's okay to
drive cars in central London. I'd say it was as often as five or six days
a week, and would be very interested indeed in suing them to pieces.

tom

--
unconstrained by any considerations of humanity or decency

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:37:36 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:

Also, isn't it still illegal to protest outside Parliament? (Not that
I agree with that law, but I'm surprised not to have seen it mentioned
at all in media reports, or in these Usenet threads. The police
certainly used to be very active in enforcing it.)

Didn't the chap who has been there for years appeal against an order
that was issued for his removal and didn't the judges find that the law
contravened the Human Rights Act (or something similar)? In other words
the legislation cannot be applied. [I may be 100% wrong here!]

I thought that he won the case on the grounds that his protest had
started before the law was enacted, so he couldn't be prosecuted
because it would be a retrospective application of the law.

In article ,
lid (asdf) wrote:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:37:36 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:

Also, isn't it still illegal to protest outside Parliament? (Not that
I agree with that law, but I'm surprised not to have seen it mentioned
at all in media reports, or in these Usenet threads. The police
certainly used to be very active in enforcing it.)

Didn't the chap who has been there for years appeal against an order
that was issued for his removal and didn't the judges find that the law
contravened the Human Rights Act (or something similar)? In other words
the legislation cannot be applied. [I may be 100% wrong here!]

I thought that he won the case on the grounds that his protest had
started before the law was enacted, so he couldn't be prosecuted
because it would be a retrospective application of the law.

If you are referring to Brian Haw then that is correct. The Serious
Organised Crime Act included the ban on demos in Parliament Square
(obviously, given its title!). Its main effect seems to have been to
encourage more of them.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 24 Apr, 02:23, wrote:
In article ,



(asdf) wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:37:36 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:

Also, isn't it still illegal to protest outside Parliament? (Not that
I agree with that law, but I'm surprised not to have seen it mentioned
at all in media reports, or in these Usenet threads. The police
certainly used to be very active in enforcing it.)

Didn't the chap who has been there for years appeal against an order
that was issued for his removal and didn't the judges find that the law
contravened the Human Rights Act (or something similar)? In other words
the legislation cannot be applied. * [I may be 100% wrong here!]

I thought that he won the case on the grounds that his protest had
started before the law was enacted, so he couldn't be prosecuted
because it would be a retrospective application of the law.

If you are referring to Brian Haw then that is correct. The Serious
Organised Crime Act included the ban on demos in Parliament Square
(obviously, given its title!). Its main effect seems to have been to
encourage more of them.

That part of the Act has been under review and this repressive,
criminalising legislation ought to be repealed by government ASAP.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...s/47/4702..htm

"ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF PROTESTS

128. One of the innovations of SOCPA was the requirement for protests
to be notified in advance to the police, so that they could then be
authorised. A consequence of this approach has been the
criminalisation of peaceful protestors, such as Ms Evans and Mr Rai,
and the outlawing of spontaneous protest.[233] Elsewhere in this
Report we set out the advantages of protestors and police engaging in
dialogue, to ensure that protests run smoothly and safely. These
benefits apply equally to protest around Parliament but we are not
persuaded that a legal requirement to notify protests in advance is
necessary or proportionate to maintain access to Parliament or to
achieve any other legitimate aim. Advance notification of protest
around Parliament should be encouraged by the Metropolitan Police, in
order to facilitate safe protest, but should not be a legal
requirement and no sanction should apply to those who choose not to
notify the police of their intention to protest solely by reason of
that choice."

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

On 24 Apr, 02:23, wrote:
In article ,





(asdf) wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:37:36 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:

Also, isn't it still illegal to protest outside Parliament? (Not that
I agree with that law, but I'm surprised not to have seen it mentioned
at all in media reports, or in these Usenet threads. The police
certainly used to be very active in enforcing it.)

Didn't the chap who has been there for years appeal against an order
that was issued for his removal and didn't the judges find that the law
contravened the Human Rights Act (or something similar)? In other words
the legislation cannot be applied. * [I may be 100% wrong here!]

I thought that he won the case on the grounds that his protest had
started before the law was enacted, so he couldn't be prosecuted
because it would be a retrospective application of the law.

If you are referring to Brian Haw then that is correct. The Serious
Organised Crime Act included the ban on demos in Parliament Square
(obviously, given its title!). Its main effect seems to have been to
encourage more of them.

But bear in mind that, like pretty much all legislation introduced by
New Labour, its purpose isn't to prevent demonstrations, but to give
the authorities the freedom to do anything they like to anyone for
nothing. There is a legal basis for arresting someone for being in
Parliament Square, if they want to arrest a particular person for any
reason.

Like the anti-terror laws which are being used for precisely their
intended purpose, but not for their stated purpose.