Re: Thou shalt not protest in London : Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:05 am  

Scooter Nik wrote:

I think it's fairly straight forward and plain to see that these measures aren't aimed at people just wanting to camp or bivvy where they want, but that they are aimed entirely at protesters
...

You keep missing the point, I'm not sure how you do it. The measures ARE aimed at people who may want to camp. the point you miss is that the only people remotely likely to do so are protesters who may wish to set up an encampment.

The point is, it is inappropriate and an abuse of the rest of the public's right to enjoy public spaces, for people to be allowed to pitch their tents and set up encampments wherever they like, at their whim. This is so, whether it is people wanting to protest about something, or the Chipping Sodbury Scouts.

Your take on it conflates protesters with people who want to camp, and that is with respect plainly untenable.

Re: Thou shalt not protest in London : Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:01 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Your take on it conflates protesters with people who want to camp, and that is with respect plainly untentable.

Re: Thou shalt not protest in London : Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:57 pm  

So this bye law means that for a time you can't protest in 2 London squares.

But you can still protest in the 1,570 square kms that is the rest of London.

Re: Thou shalt not protest in London : Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:07 pm  

Rooster Booster wrote:

So this bye law means that for a time you can't protest in 2 London squares.
.

Does it? I thought it meant you couldn't camp, fly kites or feed pigeons (inter alia). I don't believe the word "protest" is in the byelaws, but stand to be corrected?

Re: Thou shalt not protest in London : Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:06 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Does it? I thought it meant you couldn't camp, fly kites or feed pigeons (inter alia). I don't believe the word "protest" is in the byelaws, but stand to be corrected?

And a bloody big "inter alia" at that.

Re: Thou shalt not protest in London : Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:29 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Does it? I thought it meant you couldn't camp, fly kites or feed pigeons (inter alia). I don't believe the word "protest" is in the byelaws, but stand to be corrected?

....or start a fire. Nope, you are correct FA. The word protest isn't.

Have a word with the OP about the title of this thread then. Ask him to change it, as its inaccurate and maybe even a tad alarmist.

Also to Mugwump who suggested "the Olympic Games has provided them with the perfect opportunity to enact draconian laws preventing embarrassing protesters (many of whom have been let down by successive governments and harbour legitimate grievances) from occupying areas within the capital."

Sally Cinnamon: I've always found it amusing when people get upset about "protesting" being banned.

Skooter Nik: I think it's fairly straight forward and plain to see that these measures aren't aimed at people just wanting to camp or bivvy where they want, but that they are aimed entirely at protesters (although I will admit some confusion on the kite and bird feeding components). > I still feel that these protests are more to ensure that the London Authority doesn't suffer any embarassment during the Olympics rather than any real need for laws, > If i was of the type to be protesting in London, i'd be busy trying to organise two protests the day of the opening ceremony now.

And yourself, you chose to bring up protestors, when the word protest isn't mentioned in the bye law. Why did you bring it up? In fact, you chose to use the word over a dozen times on this thread.
I, or anyone, wants to go and watch, why should I or they be impeded, or have the day ruined, by protesters who have no issue with the Olympics per se, no issue with me, and no issue with the athletes, but issues with government policy? > the bigger the protest, the greater the likelihood of it, or parts of it, being commandeered by criminal elements > I entirely support the democratic right to peaceful protest, but if a protest goes far beyond being a passive event, and is additionally an active event which does not only protest, but chooses a method an/or a place of protesting that goes further, and also seriously impinges on the rights of others to a very significant degree, should be susceptible to some form of control. > the measures ARE aimed at people who may want to camp. the point you miss is that the only people remotely likely to do so are protesters who may wish to set up an encampment.

All these people that talked about "protest", which is why I pointed out, they could protest in the other 1570km2 that is the wonder that is London. You are absolutely correct though, it is not mentioned in the bye law.

Re: Thou shalt not protest in London : Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:35 pm  

Rooster Booster wrote:

All these people that talked about "protest", which is why I pointed out, they could protest in the other 1570km2 that is the wonder that is London. You are absolutely correct though, it is not mentioned in the bye law.

Sure, why don't they just protest on the outskirts of the city, or beneath Tower Bridge or in the sewers? Protesting isn't simply about sending a message - it's advisable to position yourself where you are likely to seen and heard. So far they've hardly been cutting a swathe of destruction through the city. The fact that you think they may provide some kind of terrorist opportunity to disappear amongst really isn't much of a reason to evict/arrest them. To be honest such says more about your prejudices than it does about them.

Re: Thou shalt not protest in London : Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:56 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Sure, why don't they just protest on the outskirts of the city, or beneath Tower Bridge or in the sewers? Protesting isn't simply about sending a message - it's advisable to position yourself where you are likely to seen and heard. So far they've hardly been cutting a swathe of destruction through the city. The fact that you think they may provide some kind of terrorist opportunity to disappear amongst really isn't much of a reason to evict/arrest them. To be honest such says more about your prejudices than it does about them.

Totally agree with the bit in Italic. I don't understand the need to be sarcastic with reference to your choice of locations. There really was no need. One example could be The Embankment. That famous CND march in Oct 1983 started there. I was on that believe it or not. Others could include hundreds of locations throughout Central London that aren't those 2 squares.

The bit in bold. Fact? Massive guesswork, based on nothing and very wrong. I have no prejudices against them either, nor have I mentioned terrorism.

It is interesting how people make up their minds as to how someone thinks or feels about a subject if they suspect someone has an opposing argument or view. You have actually come to a conclusion onto how I actually think. I have to inform you that you are so very, very wrong.

What this may boil down to is that you suspect that this bye law gives them "the perfect opportunity to enact draconian laws preventing embarrassing protesters". I on the other hand am not 100% convinced of that as yet as there is no real proof. Who's the prejudiced one? The one who makes the unfounded draconian law statement, or the one who has suspended any judgement until there is more evidence that that is the motive. Just so you know, if you are proven correct, I will actually be on your side as I am actually an advocate of free speech and human rights. We must have the right to protest back in the UK. But you may not think or believe that of me.

As I said earlier on this thread to you Mugwump:
Anyway like I said some people are wasting far too much energy and brain power worrying about nothing that's happened. By all means mugwump, if it does continue after the Olympics and they don't revoke these bye laws as this one does to the ones previous, then go and demonstrate. I'm behind you on that.

Re: Thou shalt not protest in London : Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:21 pm  

Rooster Booster wrote:

....or start a fire. Nope, you are correct FA. The word protest isn't.

Have a word with the OP about the title of this thread then. Ask him to change it, as its inaccurate and maybe even a tad alarmist.

Also to Mugwump who suggested "the Olympic Games has provided them with the perfect opportunity to enact draconian laws preventing embarrassing protesters (many of whom have been let down by successive governments and harbour legitimate grievances) from occupying areas within the capital."

Sally Cinnamon: I've always found it amusing when people get upset about "protesting" being banned.

Skooter Nik: I think it's fairly straight forward and plain to see that these measures aren't aimed at people just wanting to camp or bivvy where they want, but that they are aimed entirely at protesters (although I will admit some confusion on the kite and bird feeding components). > I still feel that these protests are more to ensure that the London Authority doesn't suffer any embarassment during the Olympics rather than any real need for laws, > If i was of the type to be protesting in London, i'd be busy trying to organise two protests the day of the opening ceremony now.

And yourself, you chose to bring up protestors, when the word protest isn't mentioned in the bye law. Why did you bring it up? In fact, you chose to use the word over a dozen times on this thread.
I, or anyone, wants to go and watch, why should I or they be impeded, or have the day ruined, by protesters who have no issue with the Olympics per se, no issue with me, and no issue with the athletes, but issues with government policy? > the bigger the protest, the greater the likelihood of it, or parts of it, being commandeered by criminal elements > I entirely support the democratic right to peaceful protest, but if a protest goes far beyond being a passive event, and is additionally an active event which does not only protest, but chooses a method an/or a place of protesting that goes further, and also seriously impinges on the rights of others to a very significant degree, should be susceptible to some form of control. > the measures ARE aimed at people who may want to camp. the point you miss is that the only people remotely likely to do so are protesters who may wish to set up an encampment.

All very interesting I'm sure, except utterly off the point.

The comment I was specifically replying to was

So this bye law means that for a time you can't protest in 2 London squares

I pointed out, no, it doesn't.

Rooster Booster wrote:

....All these people that talked about "protest", which is why I pointed out, they could protest in the other 1570km2 that is the wonder that is London. You are absolutely correct though, it is not mentioned in the bye law.

You've lost me. Nobody was arguing people can't protest anywhere else in London. Your quoted response seems to wrongly imply that one cannot protest in these two squares. Your grip on the wrong end of the stick is too firm.

Re: Thou shalt not protest in London : Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:25 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The comment I was specifically replying to was I pointed out, no, it doesn't.

Of your comment "I don't believe the word "protest" is in the byelaws, but stand to be corrected?"

I pointed out how many times people were referrring to an inability to protest, not something I brought up my self, but that is off the point now. Also I clearly posted not once but twice of your above comment:

Nope, you are correct FA. The word protest isn't.

and

You are absolutely correct though, it is not mentioned in the bye law.

Maybe you should read what I said rather than look for ways to twist or belittle. All very interesting I'm sure, you say. You're not another that resorts to being condescending if someone says something that you suspect is different to your belief on a matter are you? Even though I said you were correct about something. It's amazing how we judge. I'm noticing this to be a common theme amongst some on here. Try and accept that we are all different. Some people find that easy some of the time, but not others. Some people appear to believe they have "the correct end of the stick" all the time also.



I just realised you made the type on my earlier reply tiny. Is that indiciative that you feel you hold a superior, larger, more prominent position over others? One that allows you to in this case physically belittle something someone else has posted?