I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards....
It does seem a bit concerning if a serious allegation of wrongdoing can be proven by one persons account backed up by two people they spoke to around the time, with no other significant evidence, and nearly 30 years passing. How is anyone going to defend themselves against that? You would just be there saying 'it didn't happen', and hoping the jury/judge believes you over the complainant.
It's not remotely concerning. Concerning is how he's avoided accountability for so long.
Say someone made an allegation about something that you did 'around 1995 or 1996', and they spoke on the phone to two friends who remember it at the time, and this was the extent of the evidence. You don't know any of the people involved. There is a legal case against you based on the fact that the fact that the allegation was corroborated by two people makes it likely to have happened on the 'balance of probabilities'. Your witness statement - that you don't have any recollection of the event occuring - has no weight because of the amount of time that has passed. Would you defend yourself against it? Or would you just accept that it must be true?
Now here is the problem with that statement. You say you don't know any of the people involved and you keep repeating it after a picture is shown to you of you with that person, who you then go on to mistake for your wife, but you still claim you have never met them.
You see that is known a proveable lie.
PS you then claim the picture is blurry when it is crystal clear
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
Gandhi's lining up to be struck on the head. Even better, Thich Quan Duc's self-immolation. That's hardcore protest.
I thought Gandhi had been cancelled these days for being a little racist?
The right insist he has.
Well I am right wing by any stretch I still regard Gandhi as mostly a good man but flawed, only people I have seen that don't think that anymore now his racist side was revealed have been people who describe themselves as left.
We are all flawed in some ways and that doesn't mean we can't also do good things
Gandhi was a devout Hindu. Your Karma is an inherent belief.
Not sure what that has to do with anything.
I am referring to other peoples opinions on Gandhi
For a long time held up as an icon of good by most, lately the left wing people have turned against that view because he also had a shit views.
I take the view look at the person as a whole, all do shit stuff but you weigh that against the good...if they did more good than harm on balance they are a good person
I no longer think Keir Starmer has anything to fear.
I did find that curious. Doubtless a 200 seat Labour majority would be even better for the Tories.
This guy would probably agree with the assessment All that remains for UKIP are elected holdouts on parish and town councils, the lowest tier of local government.
The party's chairman, Ben Walker, said UKIP still has about 30 parish councillors, himself among them, after last week's local elections. "It certainly wasn't a disaster based on what we thought we'd get from these elections," he told the BBC.
Some counties will have more than a thousand parish councillors, easily. And since most are unelected you should be able to get way more than 30, if that is your goal.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
Gandhi's lining up to be struck on the head. Even better, Thich Quan Duc's self-immolation. That's hardcore protest.
I thought Gandhi had been cancelled these days for being a little racist?
The right insist he has.
Well I am right wing by any stretch I still regard Gandhi as mostly a good man but flawed, only people I have seen that don't think that anymore now his racist side was revealed have been people who describe themselves as left.
We are all flawed in some ways and that doesn't mean we can't also do good things
Gandhi was a devout Hindu. Your Karma is an inherent belief.
Not sure what that has to do with anything.
I am referring to other peoples opinions on Gandhi
For a long time held up as an icon of good by most, lately the left wing people have turned against that view because he also had a shit views.
I take the view look at the person as a whole, all do shit stuff but you weigh that against the good...if they did more good than harm on balance they are a good person
Which means you are arguing he hasn't been cancelled. Incidentally. Who does this cancelling? Is there an official body?
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards....
There wasn't.
I do not understand this as I saw the not my King demonstrators on the live coverage and indeed one of Sky's presenters had them in the background during the procession as Charles passed by
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody ever got delayed for work or school, ambulances could always sail through, and so on. Those who've used those roads regularly know that's not quite true, that long delays and blockages are common, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards....
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
Gandhi's lining up to be struck on the head. Even better, Thich Quan Duc's self-immolation. That's hardcore protest. I look forward to a Labour government and a lineup of folk on £200k willingly volunteering to be castrated because of marginal tax rates
The arguments get shitter and shitter.
What it boils down to is: I agree with the protestors and therefore their actions should be excused.
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody every got delayed for work, ambulances couldn't get through, and so on. Those who've used those roads know that's not quite true, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
I don't think that's true at all.
The Iraq War and Countryside Alliance protests, and indeed the Second Referendum protests, got masses of coverage despite being peaceful.
Disruptive acts are more sensational, sure, but they turn off more than they attract.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
Gandhi's lining up to be struck on the head. Even better, Thich Quan Duc's self-immolation. That's hardcore protest. I look forward to a Labour government and a lineup of folk on £200k willingly volunteering to be castrated because of marginal tax rates
The arguments get shitter and shitter.
What it boils down to is: I agree with the protestors and therefore their actions should be excused.
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody ever got delayed for work or school, ambulances could always sail through, and so on. Those who've used those roads know that's not quite true, that long delays and blockages are common, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
If they only are news because they are disruptive then it implies the news is the disruption and absolutely no one is interested in their cause.
If people like xr are convinced they speak for the majority lets test it, the police step back and don't protect them from the people they are disrupting....if as they claim they speak for the majority then they will be getting back slaps and congratulated....if they are talking bollocks which they surely are they will get other slaps
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards....
There wasn't.
I do not understand this as I saw the not my King demonstrators on the live coverage and indeed one of Sky's presenters had them in the background during the procession as Charles passed by
There was no evidence to justify their arrest. The police have admitted as much.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
If one is of opinion the nature of protest is changing, things should change to combat it, it’s wholly wrong to call that person and position anti protest. I am not anti protest, I am very liberal - the problem here is clearly you in claiming there had not been a lot of disruptive protest over recent years, when there clearly has been. We know PB has a problem with too many frothy mouthed libertarians posting here, it’s quite laughable it’s presented by you as left right, Conservative Labour, damned by your own post calling me a Conservative.
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody ever got delayed for work or school, ambulances could always sail through, and so on. Those who've used those roads regularly know that's not quite true, that long delays and blockages are common, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
I don't quite buy that conclusion. Otherwise there'd be no point to people campaigning on the vast majority of issues, which do not involve protests or demonstrations at all, disruptive or otherwise. Yet many campaigns succeed. Most do not, but then most political ideas don't success full stop.
It's hard to know where the line is between 'raising awareness' disruption and 'pissing people off' counter productiveness, but we can be confident the line exists as some of these groups themselves switch to new tactics when they think the previous ones have reached the end of their usefulness.
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody every got delayed for work, ambulances couldn't get through, and so on. Those who've used those roads know that's not quite true, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
I don't think that's true at all.
The Iraq War and Countryside Alliance protests, and indeed the Second Referendum protests, got masses of coverage despite being peaceful.
Disruptive acts are more sensational, sure, but they turn off more than they attract.
The protests you mention were very disruptive. Huge demonstrations. Much of Central London had to be closed to traffic, stopping normal people go about their everyday business. Wholly unacceptable, surely?
And my point was purely about getting publicity for the cause, not whether that publicity turned people off or not.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards....
There wasn't.
I do not understand this as I saw the not my King demonstrators on the live coverage and indeed one of Sky's presenters had them in the background during the procession as Charles passed by
There was no evidence to justify their arrest. The police have admitted as much.
I know but that applied to only 6 protestors
There were plenty of not my King demonstrators live on TV during the procession that I witnessed at the time
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody every got delayed for work, ambulances couldn't get through, and so on. Those who've used those roads know that's not quite true, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
I don't think that's true at all.
The Iraq War and Countryside Alliance protests, and indeed the Second Referendum protests, got masses of coverage despite being peaceful.
Disruptive acts are more sensational, sure, but they turn off more than they attract.
The protests you mention were very disruptive. Huge demonstrations. Much of Central London had to be closed to traffic, stopping normal people go about their everyday business. Wholly unacceptable, surely?
And my point was purely about getting publicity for the cause, not whether that publicity turned people off or not.
The difference being those protests were known in advance and people could plan alternative routes, not so much the case when random arseholes glue themselves to a road without prior arrangement
What the facts are that the free speech brigade are not in favour of free speech at all.
The true freedom of speech advocates are people like me.
Free speech and disruption are not the same thing.
It can be in the eye of the beholder. Is delaying a Test Match for five minutes by bellowing out tired cliches through a megaphone disruption? Sure, but it's pretty minimal and the balance should probably fall on letting them exercise their free speech for a bit rather than, to go extreme, truncheon them for it. The disruptiveness is not extreme.
Other kinds of free speech or demonstration action are more disruptive, and due to potential consequences some curtailment of the speech is justified - where the action is putting people, including possibly those involved, in harm's way perhaps.
It's a balance. But it should be tilted away from presuming disruption requires immediate corrective action, which itself becomes highly disruptive.
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody ever got delayed for work or school, ambulances could always sail through, and so on. Those who've used those roads know that's not quite true, that long delays and blockages are common, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
If they only are news because they are disruptive then it implies the news is the disruption and absolutely no one is interested in their cause.
If people like xr are convinced they speak for the majority lets test it, the police step back and don't protect them from the people they are disrupting....if as they claim they speak for the majority then they will be getting back slaps and congratulated....if they are talking bollocks which they surely are they will get other slaps
Fine. I wouldn't want to live in your world, though.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards....
There wasn't.
I do not understand this as I saw the not my King demonstrators on the live coverage and indeed one of Sky's presenters had them in the background during the procession as Charles passed by
There was no evidence to justify their arrest. The police have admitted as much.
That’s because I told them, the ones by me, in no uncertain manner they cannot make noises to startle the horses and they cannot go beyond the barricade nor block anyone’s view with their placards who came to see it as that wouldn’t be fair. If a horn or alarm frightened a horse into the crowd and killed someone, I told the republicans the horn blower would quite rightly go to prison for murder. They had no option but to listen to good guidance.
The reactions are in from the milquetoast 'Don't want him but still nervous to even obliquely criticise him' crowd. Still having to just gently plead to be done with personal drama and focus on supposed electability as the key concerns.
We're now getting some reaction from Republicans on the verdict.
Senator John Thune from South Dakota said the outcome of the trial has a "cumulative effect" on how Trump is viewed within Republican circles as a candidate.
"People are gonna have to decide whether they want to deal with all the drama," Thune told CBS News.
Senator John Cornyn from Texas said that he doesn't believe Trump can get elected as the next US president in 2024.
"You can't win a general election with just your base," he said.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
I'm 48 years old. We studied the suffragettes in GCSE history.
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody ever got delayed for work or school, ambulances could always sail through, and so on. Those who've used those roads know that's not quite true, that long delays and blockages are common, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
If they only are news because they are disruptive then it implies the news is the disruption and absolutely no one is interested in their cause.
If people like xr are convinced they speak for the majority lets test it, the police step back and don't protect them from the people they are disrupting....if as they claim they speak for the majority then they will be getting back slaps and congratulated....if they are talking bollocks which they surely are they will get other slaps
Fine. I wouldn't want to live in your world, though.
You will be doing so because ordinary people like me are getting more and more pissed off with demonstrators pulling these stunts and the police doing nothing. Remember the guy who glued himself to a train....well that will be happening more and more as we can't trust the police to take steps anymore.
Same is already happening with things like burglarly, the police wont take action so there are organised gangs moving in to protect neighbourhoods for a fee and will get your stuff back...pretty sure they don't follow pace rules
It does seem a bit concerning if a serious allegation of wrongdoing can be proven by one persons account backed up by two people they spoke to around the time, with no other significant evidence, and nearly 30 years passing. How is anyone going to defend themselves against that? You would just be there saying 'it didn't happen', and hoping the jury/judge believes you over the complainant.
It's not remotely concerning. Concerning is how he's avoided accountability for so long.
Say someone made an allegation about something that you did 'around 1995 or 1996', and they spoke on the phone to two friends who remember it at the time, and this was the extent of the evidence. You don't know any of the people involved. There is a legal case against you based on the fact that the fact that the allegation was corroborated by two people makes it likely to have happened on the 'balance of probabilities'. Your witness statement - that you don't have any recollection of the event occuring - has no weight because of the amount of time that has passed. Would you defend yourself against it? Or would you just accept that it must be true?
It depends. Am I Norman Normal or am I a hardcore misogynist with a 40 year track record of using and abusing women?
Well, as you're on PB, you are - by definition - not normal.
"John Cleese in hysterics over King Charles’s Coronation - ‘It was a Monty Python sketch!’
'I couldn't stop laughing... All these people in these silly costumes, all taking things so seriously. I thought it was a Python sketch.' John Cleese tells Andrew Doyle that he was in hysterics watching King Charles’s Coronation."
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
Gandhi's lining up to be struck on the head. Even better, Thich Quan Duc's self-immolation. That's hardcore protest.
I thought Gandhi had been cancelled these days for being a little racist?
I can't believe you're laying into him for being short.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
Gandhi's lining up to be struck on the head. Even better, Thich Quan Duc's self-immolation. That's hardcore protest.
I thought Gandhi had been cancelled these days for being a little racist?
I can't believe you're laying into him for being short.
I though heightism was still permissible judging by all the mini sunak jokes?
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody ever got delayed for work or school, ambulances could always sail through, and so on. Those who've used those roads know that's not quite true, that long delays and blockages are common, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
If they only are news because they are disruptive then it implies the news is the disruption and absolutely no one is interested in their cause.
If people like xr are convinced they speak for the majority lets test it, the police step back and don't protect them from the people they are disrupting....if as they claim they speak for the majority then they will be getting back slaps and congratulated....if they are talking bollocks which they surely are they will get other slaps
Fine. I wouldn't want to live in your world, though.
You will be doing so because ordinary people like me are getting more and more pissed off with demonstrators pulling these stunts and the police doing nothing. Remember the guy who glued himself to a train....well that will be happening more and more as we can't trust the police to take steps anymore.
Same is already happening with things like burglarly, the police wont take action so there are organised gangs moving in to protect neighbourhoods for a fee and will get your stuff back...pretty sure they don't follow pace rules
With all due respect sir, you're not an ordinary person. You're an angry person.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
If one is of opinion the nature of protest is changing, things should change to combat it, it’s wholly wrong to call that person and position anti protest. I am not anti protest, I am very liberal - the problem here is clearly you in claiming there had not been a lot of disruptive protest over recent years, when there clearly has been. We know PB has a problem with too many frothy mouthed libertarians posting here, it’s quite laughable it’s presented by you as left right, Conservative Labour, damned by your own post calling me a Conservative.
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
Well, to begin with I would hardly describe myself as opposed to all state authority ; I take a social democratic view on redistribution for instance, and I think the state always has a license to intervene if protest is violent.
The problem is that changes in the nature of protest are not category-neutral ; if new types of non-violent protest emerge, the state cannot simply hugely widen its powers without debate.
XR have sometimes focused on extending their type of non-violent protest to "disruption to infrastructure", with various degrees of success. But not only is the new law very vague and widely open to abuse in its framing of "demonstrations using pubic infrastructure", it can even be interpreted as proscribing any "disruptive" protest without describing what this is.
So there are two problems ; the state cannot simply widen its area of powers against non-violent protest without debate ; and secondly, these particular laws have been framed poorly, incompetently, and with headlines rather than due process in mind in such a way as to actually encourage the abuse of power in the future.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
Gandhi's lining up to be struck on the head. Even better, Thich Quan Duc's self-immolation. That's hardcore protest.
I thought Gandhi had been cancelled these days for being a little racist?
I can't believe you're laying into him for being short.
I though heightism was still permissible judging by all the mini sunak jokes?
Only from people the same height or shorter, like me. To be fair I am a tiny bit jealous of him.
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody ever got delayed for work or school, ambulances could always sail through, and so on. Those who've used those roads know that's not quite true, that long delays and blockages are common, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
If they only are news because they are disruptive then it implies the news is the disruption and absolutely no one is interested in their cause.
If people like xr are convinced they speak for the majority lets test it, the police step back and don't protect them from the people they are disrupting....if as they claim they speak for the majority then they will be getting back slaps and congratulated....if they are talking bollocks which they surely are they will get other slaps
Fine. I wouldn't want to live in your world, though.
You will be doing so because ordinary people like me are getting more and more pissed off with demonstrators pulling these stunts and the police doing nothing. Remember the guy who glued himself to a train....well that will be happening more and more as we can't trust the police to take steps anymore.
Same is already happening with things like burglarly, the police wont take action so there are organised gangs moving in to protect neighbourhoods for a fee and will get your stuff back...pretty sure they don't follow pace rules
With all due respect sir, you're not an ordinary person. You're an angry person.
Take a look outside most of us bottom 80% of ordinary people are angry people. With just cause most on here including the lefties are in the upper echelons and don't seem to get it.
Being 2 hours late for work and missing that pay often means the difference between missing a few meals at the end of a week....yet its dismissed and minor inconvenience. You really can't understand why that makes people fucking livid when they can't feed their children because some trust fund crustie glues himself to a road?
This is a fascinating nuanced discussion. I'm enjoying it in all its complexity on freedom and the right to not be inconvenienced. And the Monarchy. So much better than the usual Brexit and adult woman female binary shouting matches. I want to be made to think. Not to have my prejudices reinforced by the like minded. Thanks to all who are challenging me in a constructive way. It sharpens my thinking and my arguments. Very occasionally it alters my opinion.That's why I come back to this site again and again. At its best there is no better.
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody every got delayed for work, ambulances couldn't get through, and so on. Those who've used those roads know that's not quite true, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
I don't think that's true at all.
The Iraq War and Countryside Alliance protests, and indeed the Second Referendum protests, got masses of coverage despite being peaceful.
Disruptive acts are more sensational, sure, but they turn off more than they attract.
Although I would point out that those marches could easily be described as disruptive. If you wanted to cross the street to get to work, and the Countryside Alliance was marching, then good luck.
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody every got delayed for work, ambulances couldn't get through, and so on. Those who've used those roads know that's not quite true, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
I don't think that's true at all.
The Iraq War and Countryside Alliance protests, and indeed the Second Referendum protests, got masses of coverage despite being peaceful.
Disruptive acts are more sensational, sure, but they turn off more than they attract.
Although I would point out that those marches could easily be described as disruptive. If you wanted to cross the street to get to work, and the Countryside Alliance was marching, then good luck.
The point was they were planned well in advance and routes known so they could be avoided....the idiots who decide to turn up and glue themselves to a road don't do that
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
If one is of opinion the nature of protest is changing, things should change to combat it, it’s wholly wrong to call that person and position anti protest. I am not anti protest, I am very liberal - the problem here is clearly you in claiming there had not been a lot of disruptive protest over recent years, when there clearly has been. We know PB has a problem with too many frothy mouthed libertarians posting here, it’s quite laughable it’s presented by you as left right, Conservative Labour, damned by your own post calling me a Conservative.
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
Well, to begin with I would hardly describe myself as opposed to all state authority ; I take a social democratic view on redistribution for instance, and I think the state always has a license to intervene if protest is violent.
The problem is that changes in the nature of protest are not category-neutral ; if new types of non-violent protest emerge, the state cannot simply hugely widen its powers without debate.
XR have sometimes focused on extending their type of non-violent protest to "disruption to infrastructure", with various degrees of success. But not only is the new law very vague and widely open to abuse in its framing of "demonstrations using pubic infrastructure", it can even be interpreted as proscribing any "disruptive" protest without describing what this is.
So there are two problems ; the state cannot simply widen its area of powers against non-violent protest without debate ; and secondly, these particular laws have been framed poorly, incompetently, and with headlines rather than due process in mind in such a way as to actually encourage the abuse of power in the future.
Ultimately if the government wished to avoid accusations it has designed laws with the intent to enable the prevention of non-violent protest it should not have drafted the laws in such a way as to so enable that prevention.
The temptation of broad drafting is always there, since no one likes someone deserving of punishment slipping through the net due to proscriptive wording. But broadness comes with its own downsides.
Ideally this sort of thing could get sorted during the processes of passing a bill, but I don't think our system incentivises MPs to collaboratively seek to improve legislative drafting, nor governments to accept. I do worry about some of the very rushed through bills during the Brexit wrangling, as whilst they were very simple and straightforward, I worry the temptation to do so with more complex matters exists.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
If one is of opinion the nature of protest is changing, things should change to combat it, it’s wholly wrong to call that person and position anti protest. I am not anti protest, I am very liberal - the problem here is clearly you in claiming there had not been a lot of disruptive protest over recent years, when there clearly has been. We know PB has a problem with too many frothy mouthed libertarians posting here, it’s quite laughable it’s presented by you as left right, Conservative Labour, damned by your own post calling me a Conservative.
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
Well, to begin with I would hardly describe myself as opposed to all state authority ; I take a social democratic view on redistribution for instance, and I think the state always has a license to intervene if protest is violent.
The problem is that changes in the nature of protest are not category-neutral ; if new types of non-violent protest emerge, the state cannot simply hugely widen its powers without debate.
XR have sometimes focused on extending their type of non-violent protest to "disruption to infrastructure", with various degrees of success. But not only is the new law very vague and widely open to abuse in its framing of "demonstrations using pubic infrastructure", it can even be interpreted as proscribing any "disruptive" protest without describing what this is.
So there are two problems ; the state cannot simply widen its area of powers against non-violent protest without debate ; and secondly, these particular laws have been framed poorly, incompetently, and with headlines rather than due process in mind in such a way as to actually encourage the abuse of power in the future.
Now you are simply backtracking and squirming.
You need to be more open minded about adjusting law to combat evolving challenges, you cannot achieve effective and fair balance in law without at all times maintaining an open mind that you may need to make changes, that is where you are clearly wrong, when you were so clearly taking an irresponsible “shock jock” type stance.
We cannot have a closed mind or adopt an anti position to law amendment when faced with evolving nature of protest - the intention of law amendment is not to prevent protest, but protect lives and save business and commercial concern, this includes life and well being of protestors themselves. You cannot achieve this if you have such a closed mind to making a change or making a new change work.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
If one is of opinion the nature of protest is changing, things should change to combat it, it’s wholly wrong to call that person and position anti protest. I am not anti protest, I am very liberal - the problem here is clearly you in claiming there had not been a lot of disruptive protest over recent years, when there clearly has been. We know PB has a problem with too many frothy mouthed libertarians posting here, it’s quite laughable it’s presented by you as left right, Conservative Labour, damned by your own post calling me a Conservative.
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
Well, to begin with I would hardly describe myself as opposed to all state authority ; I take a social democratic view on redistribution for instance, and I think the state always has a license to intervene if protest is violent.
The problem is that changes in the nature of protest are not category-neutral ; if new types of non-violent protest emerge, the state cannot simply hugely widen its powers without debate.
XR have sometimes focused on extending their type of non-violent protest to "disruption to infrastructure", with various degrees of success. But not only is the new law very vague and widely open to abuse in its framing of "demonstrations using pubic infrastructure", it can even be interpreted as proscribing any "disruptive" protest without describing what this is.
So there are two problems ; the state cannot simply widen its area of powers against non-violent protest without debate ; and secondly, these particular laws have been framed poorly, incompetently, and with headlines rather than due process in mind in such a way as to actually encourage the abuse of power in the future.
Now you are simply backtracking and squirming.
You need to be more open minded about adjusting law to combat evolving challenges, you cannot achieve effective and fair balance in law without at all times maintaining an open mind that you may need to make changes, that is where you are clearly wrong, when you were so clearly taking an irresponsible “shock jock” type stance.
We cannot have a closed mind or adopt an anti position to law amendment when faced with evolving nature of protest - the intention of law amendment is not to prevent protest, but protect lives and save business and commercial concern, this includes life and well being of protestors themselves. You cannot achieve this if you have such a closed mind to making a change or making a new change work.
Christ, if that was a shock jock style response I dread to think what an actual shock jock says.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
If one is of opinion the nature of protest is changing, things should change to combat it, it’s wholly wrong to call that person and position anti protest. I am not anti protest, I am very liberal - the problem here is clearly you in claiming there had not been a lot of disruptive protest over recent years, when there clearly has been. We know PB has a problem with too many frothy mouthed libertarians posting here, it’s quite laughable it’s presented by you as left right, Conservative Labour, damned by your own post calling me a Conservative.
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
Well, to begin with I would hardly describe myself as opposed to all state authority ; I take a social democratic view on redistribution for instance, and I think the state always has a license to intervene if protest is violent.
The problem is that changes in the nature of protest are not category-neutral ; if new types of non-violent protest emerge, the state cannot simply hugely widen its powers without debate.
XR have sometimes focused on extending their type of non-violent protest to "disruption to infrastructure", with various degrees of success. But not only is the new law very vague and widely open to abuse in its framing of "demonstrations using pubic infrastructure", it can even be interpreted as proscribing any "disruptive" protest without describing what this is.
So there are two problems ; the state cannot simply widen its area of powers against non-violent protest without debate ; and secondly, these particular laws have been framed poorly, incompetently, and with headlines rather than due process in mind in such a way as to actually encourage the abuse of power in the future.
Ultimately if the government wished to avoid accusations it has designed laws with the intent to enable the prevention of non-violent protest it should not have drafted the laws in such a way as to so enable that prevention.
The temptation of broad drafting is always there, since no one likes someone deserving of punishment slipping through the net due to proscriptive wording. But broadness comes with its own downsides.
Ideally this sort of thing could get sorted during the processes of passing a bill, but I don't think our system incentivises MPs to collaboratively seek to improve legislative drafting, nor governments to accept. I do worry about some of the very rushed through bills during the Brexit wrangling, as whilst they were very simple and straightforward, I worry the temptation to do so with more complex matters exists.
The whole passing of bills process needs reforms. Currently its far too technical. I would like to see bills passed as "This is what the bill is intended to do"...parliamentary debate then focus's on use cases such as "what should be the outcome in this situation"....after that civil servants can draft the legal speak and the use cases can be used to inform cases in courts. I doubt most non lawyers even comprehend the majority of what most green or white papers say
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody every got delayed for work, ambulances couldn't get through, and so on. Those who've used those roads know that's not quite true, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
I don't think that's true at all.
The Iraq War and Countryside Alliance protests, and indeed the Second Referendum protests, got masses of coverage despite being peaceful.
Disruptive acts are more sensational, sure, but they turn off more than they attract.
Although I would point out that those marches could easily be described as disruptive. If you wanted to cross the street to get to work, and the Countryside Alliance was marching, then good luck.
The point was they were planned well in advance and routes known so they could be avoided....the idiots who decide to turn up and glue themselves to a road don't do that
Fair point.
Personally, I think people should be allowed to glue themselves to roads, so long as:
(a) the adhesive is between the skin and the tarmac (b) the glue is really, really strong
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
If one is of opinion the nature of protest is changing, things should change to combat it, it’s wholly wrong to call that person and position anti protest. I am not anti protest, I am very liberal - the problem here is clearly you in claiming there had not been a lot of disruptive protest over recent years, when there clearly has been. We know PB has a problem with too many frothy mouthed libertarians posting here, it’s quite laughable it’s presented by you as left right, Conservative Labour, damned by your own post calling me a Conservative.
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
Well, to begin with I would hardly describe myself as opposed to all state authority ; I take a social democratic view on redistribution for instance, and I think the state always has a license to intervene if protest is violent.
The problem is that changes in the nature of protest are not category-neutral ; if new types of non-violent protest emerge, the state cannot simply hugely widen its powers without debate.
XR have sometimes focused on extending their type of non-violent protest to "disruption to infrastructure", with various degrees of success. But not only is the new law very vague and widely open to abuse in its framing of "demonstrations using pubic infrastructure", it can even be interpreted as proscribing any "disruptive" protest without describing what this is.
So there are two problems ; the state cannot simply widen its area of powers against non-violent protest without debate ; and secondly, these particular laws have been framed poorly, incompetently, and with headlines rather than due process in mind in such a way as to actually encourage the abuse of power in the future.
Ultimately if the government wished to avoid accusations it has designed laws with the intent to enable the prevention of non-violent protest it should not have drafted the laws in such a way as to so enable that prevention.
The temptation of broad drafting is always there, since no one likes someone deserving of punishment slipping through the net due to proscriptive wording. But broadness comes with its own downsides.
Ideally this sort of thing could get sorted during the processes of passing a bill, but I don't think our system incentivises MPs to collaboratively seek to improve legislative drafting, nor governments to accept. I do worry about some of the very rushed through bills during the Brexit wrangling, as whilst they were very simple and straightforward, I worry the temptation to do so with more complex matters exists.
The whole passing of bills process needs reforms. Currently its far too technical. I would like to see bills passed as "This is what the bill is intended to do"...parliamentary debate then focus's on use cases such as "what should be the outcome in this situation"....after that civil servants can draft the legal speak and the use cases can be used to inform cases in courts. I doubt most non lawyers even comprehend the majority of what most green or white papers say
Given it is not unheard of for official government guidance on what an Act provides for to be incorrect in parts, I would not be all that confident of the lawyers comprehending either.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
If one is of opinion the nature of protest is changing, things should change to combat it, it’s wholly wrong to call that person and position anti protest. I am not anti protest, I am very liberal - the problem here is clearly you in claiming there had not been a lot of disruptive protest over recent years, when there clearly has been. We know PB has a problem with too many frothy mouthed libertarians posting here, it’s quite laughable it’s presented by you as left right, Conservative Labour, damned by your own post calling me a Conservative.
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
Well, to begin with I would hardly describe myself as opposed to all state authority ; I take a social democratic view on redistribution for instance, and I think the state always has a license to intervene if protest is violent.
The problem is that changes in the nature of protest are not category-neutral ; if new types of non-violent protest emerge, the state cannot simply hugely widen its powers without debate.
XR have sometimes focused on extending their type of non-violent protest to "disruption to infrastructure", with various degrees of success. But not only is the new law very vague and widely open to abuse in its framing of "demonstrations using pubic infrastructure", it can even be interpreted as proscribing any "disruptive" protest without describing what this is.
So there are two problems ; the state cannot simply widen its area of powers against non-violent protest without debate ; and secondly, these particular laws have been framed poorly, incompetently, and with headlines rather than due process in mind in such a way as to actually encourage the abuse of power in the future.
Ultimately if the government wished to avoid accusations it has designed laws with the intent to enable the prevention of non-violent protest it should not have drafted the laws in such a way as to so enable that prevention.
The temptation of broad drafting is always there, since no one likes someone deserving of punishment slipping through the net due to proscriptive wording. But broadness comes with its own downsides.
Ideally this sort of thing could get sorted during the processes of passing a bill, but I don't think our system incentivises MPs to collaboratively seek to improve legislative drafting, nor governments to accept. I do worry about some of the very rushed through bills during the Brexit wrangling, as whilst they were very simple and straightforward, I worry the temptation to do so with more complex matters exists.
The whole passing of bills process needs reforms. Currently its far too technical. I would like to see bills passed as "This is what the bill is intended to do"...parliamentary debate then focus's on use cases such as "what should be the outcome in this situation"....after that civil servants can draft the legal speak and the use cases can be used to inform cases in courts. I doubt most non lawyers even comprehend the majority of what most green or white papers say
Given it is not unheard of for official government guidance on what an Act provides for to be incorrect in parts, I would not be all that confident of the lawyers comprehending either.
To simplify what I said I guess
Parliament should define the spirit of the law
Civil service to write the letter of the law
Courts to interpret the law according to the spirit
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody every got delayed for work, ambulances couldn't get through, and so on. Those who've used those roads know that's not quite true, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
I don't think that's true at all.
The Iraq War and Countryside Alliance protests, and indeed the Second Referendum protests, got masses of coverage despite being peaceful.
Disruptive acts are more sensational, sure, but they turn off more than they attract.
Although I would point out that those marches could easily be described as disruptive. If you wanted to cross the street to get to work, and the Countryside Alliance was marching, then good luck.
The point was they were planned well in advance and routes known so they could be avoided....the idiots who decide to turn up and glue themselves to a road don't do that
Fair point.
Personally, I think people should be allowed to glue themselves to roads, so long as:
(a) the adhesive is between the skin and the tarmac (b) the glue is really, really strong
Interestingly we are always told snow ploughs are not worth having as we don't get much snow, we could increase usage for removing protestors so glued
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Well, there's disrupted and there's disruptred.
If they were holding placards saying "not my King" or somesuch, that's one thing.
But if they - for example - set off loud sirens with the intention of getting the horses to bolt, then that's another.
The problem is, of course, that we're giving the police a great deal of latitude to decide (in advance of any actual disruption) what kind of threat people pose.
During the early Countryside Alliance marches which were peaceful, it was interesting to hear professional protestors saying they felt “intimidated”, “threatened” and “this must be stopped”. A couple even commented that the people marching were supposed to be afraid of them ( the pro protestors) and seeing them confidently marching through London was upsetting The Order Of Things.
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody every got delayed for work, ambulances couldn't get through, and so on. Those who've used those roads know that's not quite true, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
I don't think that's true at all.
The Iraq War and Countryside Alliance protests, and indeed the Second Referendum protests, got masses of coverage despite being peaceful.
Disruptive acts are more sensational, sure, but they turn off more than they attract.
Although I would point out that those marches could easily be described as disruptive. If you wanted to cross the street to get to work, and the Countryside Alliance was marching, then good luck.
I had several client meetings in town on the day of Maggie Thatcher’s funeral. Boy that was disruptive - the cops wouldn’t let me cross The Strand, the sods.
Surprised by this. HardTalk on BBC News channel is discussing it atm.
"Seychelles: The island paradise held prisoner by heroin
Some 10% of the local population in the tropical island nation of Seychelles is dependent on heroin in what is now an epidemic, according to the country's government. Even being locked away offers no protection for those dependent on the drug. BBC Africa Eye gained rare access to the main jail to witness the sharp end of a problem threatening to overwhelm the country."
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
It’s strange how some constitutional rights can be radically changed in a few months, yet some bloke can get to sit on a throne due to a millennium-old outdated law.
You are wilfully conflating two separate things. It’s bad enough making a sudden judgement about a law on the cozza security alone, not just the M25 sniffers etc. you want to imply the whole way our monarchy is woven into the fabric of our society can be unpicked with simple law change?
What the facts are that the free speech brigade are not in favour of free speech at all.
The true freedom of speech advocates are people like me.
Free speech and disruption are not the same thing.
It occurs to me hat I have probably demonstrated (ha!) more commitment to free speech than many. While a student I helped organise demonstrations whose object I was politically and personally opposed to.
As an officer of the union, I conceived it my duty to help organise the various student demos so that the students survived, and did so mostly un-arrested.
The Black Blok scum wanted violence and quite frankly, the TSG were welcome to them.
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody every got delayed for work, ambulances couldn't get through, and so on. Those who've used those roads know that's not quite true, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
I don't think that's true at all.
The Iraq War and Countryside Alliance protests, and indeed the Second Referendum protests, got masses of coverage despite being peaceful.
Disruptive acts are more sensational, sure, but they turn off more than they attract.
Although I would point out that those marches could easily be described as disruptive. If you wanted to cross the street to get to work, and the Countryside Alliance was marching, then good luck.
The point was they were planned well in advance and routes known so they could be avoided....the idiots who decide to turn up and glue themselves to a road don't do that
Fair point.
Personally, I think people should be allowed to glue themselves to roads, so long as:
(a) the adhesive is between the skin and the tarmac (b) the glue is really, really strong
As with the Iraq demos, the early Countryside marches were highly organised and coordinated with the police. The routes were carefully designed and crossing points organised. The marches for both causes were (to an extent) planned and implemented *with* the police
They were closer to the London Marathon in nature than a deliberate attempt to fuck stuff up.
The difficulty that Twitter has compared to YouTube is that it knows bugger all about its users. This makes it a pretty rubbish platform to advertise on, relative to YouTube (which is Google, and which knows everything).
If you have a high blood pressure pill to push, then on YouTube you can make sure that it's people with high blood pressure that see it. On Twitter, you can only target based on what people Tweet about and who they follow. It means Twitter probably gets one fifth the advertising revenue per impression of Google/YouTube. (And it doesn't help that the team at Twitter that was building a platform that would work with other sites - like PB - to collect information about users to enable better targeting was let go early in Musk's reign.)
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
If one is of opinion the nature of protest is changing, things should change to combat it, it’s wholly wrong to call that person and position anti protest. I am not anti protest, I am very liberal - the problem here is clearly you in claiming there had not been a lot of disruptive protest over recent years, when there clearly has been. We know PB has a problem with too many frothy mouthed libertarians posting here, it’s quite laughable it’s presented by you as left right, Conservative Labour, damned by your own post calling me a Conservative.
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
Well, to begin with I would hardly describe myself as opposed to all state authority ; I take a social democratic view on redistribution for instance, and I think the state always has a license to intervene if protest is violent.
The problem is that changes in the nature of protest are not category-neutral ; if new types of non-violent protest emerge, the state cannot simply hugely widen its powers without debate.
XR have sometimes focused on extending their type of non-violent protest to "disruption to infrastructure", with various degrees of success. But not only is the new law very vague and widely open to abuse in its framing of "demonstrations using pubic infrastructure", it can even be interpreted as proscribing any "disruptive" protest without describing what this is.
So there are two problems ; the state cannot simply widen its area of powers against non-violent protest without debate ; and secondly, these particular laws have been framed poorly, incompetently, and with headlines rather than due process in mind in such a way as to actually encourage the abuse of power in the future.
Now you are simply backtracking and squirming.
You need to be more open minded about adjusting law to combat evolving challenges, you cannot achieve effective and fair balance in law without at all times maintaining an open mind that you may need to make changes, that is where you are clearly wrong, when you were so clearly taking an irresponsible “shock jock” type stance.
We cannot have a closed mind or adopt an anti position to law amendment when faced with evolving nature of protest - the intention of law amendment is not to prevent protest, but protect lives and save business and commercial concern, this includes life and well being of protestors themselves. You cannot achieve this if you have such a closed mind to making a change or making a new change work.
I do feel I've attempted to listen to your point of view on this, Moonrabbit, but I'm afraid I think what you're ultimately suggesting here comes down to an entirely quantitative rather than qualitative approach to changing laws against non-violent protest. It's not sustainable in a democracy, because part of the threats it also has to manage are also those to all our freedom.
"At the most basic level the news you consume is a lie. A lie of the stealthiest and most insidious kind. Facts have been witheld on purpose. Along with proportion and perspective. You are being manipulated."
My gods this man has no sense of shame. He literally talks about people being fired and the dangers of not being allowed to say what you think is true, when the Dominion case had hard evidence he was saying things he knew were not true, because he mocked or criticised it, but was saying it anyway because of the effect on the company's performance.
Maybe he should have just stuck with this line (So Mr Carlson won't get mad the context is him describing the media withholding facts to mislead, not himself)
The difficulty that Twitter has compared to YouTube is that it knows bugger all about its users. This makes it a pretty rubbish platform to advertise on, relative to YouTube (which is Google, and which knows everything).
If you have a high blood pressure pill to push, then on YouTube you can make sure that it's people with high blood pressure that see it. On Twitter, you can only target based on what people Tweet about and who they follow. It means Twitter probably gets one fifth the advertising revenue per impression of Google/YouTube. (And it doesn't help that the team at Twitter that was building a platform that would work with other sites - like PB - to collect information about users to enable better targeting was let go early in Musk's reign.)
(Which, by the way, is a challenge for Tucker. He can make 5x the money on YouTube - possibly a lot more if he benefits from the increased reach too - but then he'll be bound by their stricter moderation policies.)
As a closing point before I go to bed, and another sort of conclusion to to my post below, I have to mention that the role of a democratic state isn't only to manage threats against commercial life, or even the physical health and safety, or even lives of protestors themselves. One of its main responsibilities is also to constantly manage threats against democratic rights themselves. This is really what I've meant when I've said that changes in response to protest can't only be quantitative, they have to be qualitatively judged too.
The difficulty that Twitter has compared to YouTube is that it knows bugger all about its users. This makes it a pretty rubbish platform to advertise on, relative to YouTube (which is Google, and which knows everything).
If you have a high blood pressure pill to push, then on YouTube you can make sure that it's people with high blood pressure that see it. On Twitter, you can only target based on what people Tweet about and who they follow. It means Twitter probably gets one fifth the advertising revenue per impression of Google/YouTube. (And it doesn't help that the team at Twitter that was building a platform that would work with other sites - like PB - to collect information about users to enable better targeting was let go early in Musk's reign.)
(Which, by the way, is a challenge for Tucker. He can make 5x the money on YouTube - possibly a lot more if he benefits from the increased reach too - but then he'll be bound by their stricter moderation policies.)
Thinking about it, there's another challenger for Tucker launching on Twitter:
His audience won't be able to watch his show on TV. Pretty much everyone has YouTube on their TV these days. Indeed, I mostly watch YouTube on TV.
And I get the feeling that his demographic - older people - is very much a TV watching one, rather than a laptop watching one.
If people like xr are convinced they speak for the majority lets test it, the police step back and don't protect them from the people they are disrupting....if as they claim they speak for the majority then they will be getting back slaps and congratulated....if they are talking bollocks which they surely are they will get other slaps
Agree. Providing youre consistent in the application of this new rule.
Ie if people who disagree with your post above can firebomb your house and you’re ok for the police step back and don’t protect you from the people you’re disrupting….
"At the most basic level the news you consume is a lie. A lie of the stealthiest and most insidious kind. Facts have been witheld on purpose. Along with proportion and perspective. You are being manipulated."
My gods this man has no sense of shame. He literally talks about people being fired and the dangers of not being allowed to say what you think is true, when the Dominion case had hard evidence he was saying things he knew were not true, because he mocked or criticised it, but was saying it anyway because of the effect on the company's performance.
Maybe he should have just stuck with this line (So Mr Carlson won't get mad the context is him describing the media withholding facts to mislead, not himself)
I get the feeling that the alt-Right phenomenon, and its later manifestations, is suddenly starting to eat itself.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
If one is of opinion the nature of protest is changing, things should change to combat it, it’s wholly wrong to call that person and position anti protest. I am not anti protest, I am very liberal - the problem here is clearly you in claiming there had not been a lot of disruptive protest over recent years, when there clearly has been. We know PB has a problem with too many frothy mouthed libertarians posting here, it’s quite laughable it’s presented by you as left right, Conservative Labour, damned by your own post calling me a Conservative.
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
Well, to begin with I would hardly describe myself as opposed to all state authority ; I take a social democratic view on redistribution for instance, and I think the state always has a license to intervene if protest is violent.
The problem is that changes in the nature of protest are not category-neutral ; if new types of non-violent protest emerge, the state cannot simply hugely widen its powers without debate.
XR have sometimes focused on extending their type of non-violent protest to "disruption to infrastructure", with various degrees of success. But not only is the new law very vague and widely open to abuse in its framing of "demonstrations using pubic infrastructure", it can even be interpreted as proscribing any "disruptive" protest without describing what this is.
So there are two problems ; the state cannot simply widen its area of powers against non-violent protest without debate ; and secondly, these particular laws have been framed poorly, incompetently, and with headlines rather than due process in mind in such a way as to actually encourage the abuse of power in the future.
Now you are simply backtracking and squirming.
You need to be more open minded about adjusting law to combat evolving challenges, you cannot achieve effective and fair balance in law without at all times maintaining an open mind that you may need to make changes, that is where you are clearly wrong, when you were so clearly taking an irresponsible “shock jock” type stance.
We cannot have a closed mind or adopt an anti position to law amendment when faced with evolving nature of protest - the intention of law amendment is not to prevent protest, but protect lives and save business and commercial concern, this includes life and well being of protestors themselves. You cannot achieve this if you have such a closed mind to making a change or making a new change work.
I've attempted to listen to your point of view, Moonrabbit, but I'm afraid I think what you're ultimately suggesting here comes down to an entirely quantitative rather than qualitative approach to changing laws against non-violent protest. It's not sustainable in a democracy, because part of the threats it also has to manage are also to all our freedom.
So you claim to maintain have an open mind about making change, and know from measurements and evaluation within just 6 days the current change is wrong and never going to work effectively and fairly in how it’s actually intended? How do you think embedding in new policy and procedures and having proper evaluation process is supposed to happen?
“part of the threats it also has to manage are also to all our freedom.”
I do actually get that. That is what I am saying. As it stands at the moment you are not proven wrong, in threat to freedom, by any means, but you don’t have nearly enough quantitive or qualitative measurement and evaluation to support so much light and sound against the law. If it’s proven to be as bad as you say, I will stand with you and demand change. So you got my position completely wrong, its the most moderate, cool headed open minded position of all. I’m speaking as the government, not Rishi’s or another one, but my government. That’s what I’m trying to represent here. What would a very good government be doing? And the wrong thing would be too reactive.
I’m only called Conservative on PB to try and get under my skin. Losers 😇
Occasionally, you read of intelligent responses to disruptive demonstrations. Decades ago, for example, there was a civil rights demonstration in, as I recall, downtown Baltimore. The demonstrators sat down in a main road, blocking traffic, but were otherwise peaceful. (They wanted TV to show the cops dragging them away.)
It was a hot day, and the officer in charge, probably the police chief, came up with an clever tactic. He routed traffic around them, and let them sit, and sit, and sit, in the hot sun, until they gave up, after an hour or two.
(I have no idea whether something similarly clever could have been done at your coronation. I have not even seen a map of the events. But it is worth thinking about.)
Though the magic is mostly gone now, it's fascinating to behold what a political phenomenon Nigel Farage was back in the day. Tice, Fox etc. - none of his current imitators are anywhere near that league.
Occasionally, you read of intelligent responses to disruptive demonstrations. Decades ago, for example, there was a civil rights demonstration in, as I recall, downtown Baltimore. The demonstrators sat down in a main road, blocking traffic, but were otherwise peaceful. (They wanted TV to show the cops dragging them away.)
It was a hot day, and the officer in charge, probably the police chief, came up with an clever tactic. He routed traffic around them, and let them sit, and sit, and sit, in the hot sun, until they gave up, after an hour or two.
(I have no idea whether something similarly clever could have been done at your coronation. I have not even seen a map of the events. But it is worth thinking about.)
Nah, The Mall is only one lane of traffic in each direction.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
If one is of opinion the nature of protest is changing, things should change to combat it, it’s wholly wrong to call that person and position anti protest. I am not anti protest, I am very liberal - the problem here is clearly you in claiming there had not been a lot of disruptive protest over recent years, when there clearly has been. We know PB has a problem with too many frothy mouthed libertarians posting here, it’s quite laughable it’s presented by you as left right, Conservative Labour, damned by your own post calling me a Conservative.
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
Well, to begin with I would hardly describe myself as opposed to all state authority ; I take a social democratic view on redistribution for instance, and I think the state always has a license to intervene if protest is violent.
The problem is that changes in the nature of protest are not category-neutral ; if new types of non-violent protest emerge, the state cannot simply hugely widen its powers without debate.
XR have sometimes focused on extending their type of non-violent protest to "disruption to infrastructure", with various degrees of success. But not only is the new law very vague and widely open to abuse in its framing of "demonstrations using pubic infrastructure", it can even be interpreted as proscribing any "disruptive" protest without describing what this is.
So there are two problems ; the state cannot simply widen its area of powers against non-violent protest without debate ; and secondly, these particular laws have been framed poorly, incompetently, and with headlines rather than due process in mind in such a way as to actually encourage the abuse of power in the future.
Now you are simply backtracking and squirming.
You need to be more open minded about adjusting law to combat evolving challenges, you cannot achieve effective and fair balance in law without at all times maintaining an open mind that you may need to make changes, that is where you are clearly wrong, when you were so clearly taking an irresponsible “shock jock” type stance.
We cannot have a closed mind or adopt an anti position to law amendment when faced with evolving nature of protest - the intention of law amendment is not to prevent protest, but protect lives and save business and commercial concern, this includes life and well being of protestors themselves. You cannot achieve this if you have such a closed mind to making a change or making a new change work.
I've attempted to listen to your point of view, Moonrabbit, but I'm afraid I think what you're ultimately suggesting here comes down to an entirely quantitative rather than qualitative approach to changing laws against non-violent protest. It's not sustainable in a democracy, because part of the threats it also has to manage are also to all our freedom.
So you claim to maintain have an open mind about making change, and know from measurements and evaluation within just 6 days the current change is wrong and never going to work effectively and fairly in how it’s actually intended? How do you think embedding in new policy and procedures and having proper evaluation process is supposed to happen?
“part of the threats it also has to manage are also to all our freedom.”
I do actually get that. That is what I am saying. As it stands at the moment you are not proven wrong, in threat to freedom, by any means, but you don’t have nearly enough quantitive or qualitative measurement and evaluation to support so much light and sound against the law. If it’s proven to be as bad as you say, I will stand with you and demand change. So you got my position completely wrong, its the most moderate, cool headed open minded position of all. I’m speaking as the government, not Rishi’s or another one, but my government. That’s what I’m trying to represent here. What would a very good government be doing? And the wrong thing would be too reactive.
I’m only called Conservative on PB to try and get under my skin. Losers 😇
The difficulty that Twitter has compared to YouTube is that it knows bugger all about its users. This makes it a pretty rubbish platform to advertise on, relative to YouTube (which is Google, and which knows everything).
If you have a high blood pressure pill to push, then on YouTube you can make sure that it's people with high blood pressure that see it. On Twitter, you can only target based on what people Tweet about and who they follow. It means Twitter probably gets one fifth the advertising revenue per impression of Google/YouTube. (And it doesn't help that the team at Twitter that was building a platform that would work with other sites - like PB - to collect information about users to enable better targeting was let go early in Musk's reign.)
Tucker on Twitter is massive. Multiple consequences
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Well, there's disrupted and there's disruptred.
If they were holding placards saying "not my King" or somesuch, that's one thing.
But if they - for example - set off loud sirens with the intention of getting the horses to bolt, then that's another.
The problem is, of course, that we're giving the police a great deal of latitude to decide (in advance of any actual disruption) what kind of threat people pose.
During the early Countryside Alliance marches which were peaceful, it was interesting to hear professional protestors saying they felt “intimidated”, “threatened” and “this must be stopped”. A couple even commented that the people marching were supposed to be afraid of them ( the pro protestors) and seeing them confidently marching through London was upsetting The Order Of Things.
I'm betting this "couple" is actually a figment of your imagination.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
If one is of opinion the nature of protest is changing, things should change to combat it, it’s wholly wrong to call that person and position anti protest. I am not anti protest, I am very liberal - the problem here is clearly you in claiming there had not been a lot of disruptive protest over recent years, when there clearly has been. We know PB has a problem with too many frothy mouthed libertarians posting here, it’s quite laughable it’s presented by you as left right, Conservative Labour, damned by your own post calling me a Conservative.
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
Well, to begin with I would hardly describe myself as opposed to all state authority ; I take a social democratic view on redistribution for instance, and I think the state always has a license to intervene if protest is violent.
The problem is that changes in the nature of protest are not category-neutral ; if new types of non-violent protest emerge, the state cannot simply hugely widen its powers without debate.
XR have sometimes focused on extending their type of non-violent protest to "disruption to infrastructure", with various degrees of success. But not only is the new law very vague and widely open to abuse in its framing of "demonstrations using pubic infrastructure", it can even be interpreted as proscribing any "disruptive" protest without describing what this is.
So there are two problems ; the state cannot simply widen its area of powers against non-violent protest without debate ; and secondly, these particular laws have been framed poorly, incompetently, and with headlines rather than due process in mind in such a way as to actually encourage the abuse of power in the future.
Now you are simply backtracking and squirming.
You need to be more open minded about adjusting law to combat evolving challenges, you cannot achieve effective and fair balance in law without at all times maintaining an open mind that you may need to make changes, that is where you are clearly wrong, when you were so clearly taking an irresponsible “shock jock” type stance.
We cannot have a closed mind or adopt an anti position to law amendment when faced with evolving nature of protest - the intention of law amendment is not to prevent protest, but protect lives and save business and commercial concern, this includes life and well being of protestors themselves. You cannot achieve this if you have such a closed mind to making a change or making a new change work.
I've attempted to listen to your point of view, Moonrabbit, but I'm afraid I think what you're ultimately suggesting here comes down to an entirely quantitative rather than qualitative approach to changing laws against non-violent protest. It's not sustainable in a democracy, because part of the threats it also has to manage are also to all our freedom.
So you claim to maintain have an open mind about making change, and know from measurements and evaluation within just 6 days the current change is wrong and never going to work effectively and fairly in how it’s actually intended? How do you think embedding in new policy and procedures and having proper evaluation process is supposed to happen?
“part of the threats it also has to manage are also to all our freedom.”
I do actually get that. That is what I am saying. As it stands at the moment you are not proven wrong, in threat to freedom, by any means, but you don’t have nearly enough quantitive or qualitative measurement and evaluation to support so much light and sound against the law. If it’s proven to be as bad as you say, I will stand with you and demand change. So you got my position completely wrong, its the most moderate, cool headed open minded position of all. I’m speaking as the government, not Rishi’s or another one, but my government. That’s what I’m trying to represent here. What would a very good government be doing? And the wrong thing would be too reactive.
I’m only called Conservative on PB to try and get under my skin. Losers 😇
I really should be in bed Moonrabbit, but you've tempted me back one final time ;..)
I don't personally believe one should be open-minded about whether the widening of powers, or vaguely new worded new powers, lead to abuse of powers, because history has proven that always to be correct.
So in that case, the only important assessment to make is : is the situation extreme enough to warrant changes that will almost certainly lead to new abuses, too ; and secondly, has one done everything possible from the beginning to mitigate that in the wording of this particular legislation. The answers to that, in this case and from any standard liberal point of view are no, and no.
With legal changes, safeguards should be built in from the beginning, rather than after a period of experimentation, because of the risks of failure on people's liberty, and the millennia-old history of human nature when faced with increased power.
And with that, this time, my friends, a genuine goodnight ;..)
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
If one is of opinion the nature of protest is changing, things should change to combat it, it’s wholly wrong to call that person and position anti protest. I am not anti protest, I am very liberal - the problem here is clearly you in claiming there had not been a lot of disruptive protest over recent years, when there clearly has been. We know PB has a problem with too many frothy mouthed libertarians posting here, it’s quite laughable it’s presented by you as left right, Conservative Labour, damned by your own post calling me a Conservative.
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
Well, to begin with I would hardly describe myself as opposed to all state authority ; I take a social democratic view on redistribution for instance, and I think the state always has a license to intervene if protest is violent.
The problem is that changes in the nature of protest are not category-neutral ; if new types of non-violent protest emerge, the state cannot simply hugely widen its powers without debate.
XR have sometimes focused on extending their type of non-violent protest to "disruption to infrastructure", with various degrees of success. But not only is the new law very vague and widely open to abuse in its framing of "demonstrations using pubic infrastructure", it can even be interpreted as proscribing any "disruptive" protest without describing what this is.
So there are two problems ; the state cannot simply widen its area of powers against non-violent protest without debate ; and secondly, these particular laws have been framed poorly, incompetently, and with headlines rather than due process in mind in such a way as to actually encourage the abuse of power in the future.
Now you are simply backtracking and squirming.
You need to be more open minded about adjusting law to combat evolving challenges, you cannot achieve effective and fair balance in law without at all times maintaining an open mind that you may need to make changes, that is where you are clearly wrong, when you were so clearly taking an irresponsible “shock jock” type stance.
We cannot have a closed mind or adopt an anti position to law amendment when faced with evolving nature of protest - the intention of law amendment is not to prevent protest, but protect lives and save business and commercial concern, this includes life and well being of protestors themselves. You cannot achieve this if you have such a closed mind to making a change or making a new change work.
I've attempted to listen to your point of view, Moonrabbit, but I'm afraid I think what you're ultimately suggesting here comes down to an entirely quantitative rather than qualitative approach to changing laws against non-violent protest. It's not sustainable in a democracy, because part of the threats it also has to manage are also to all our freedom.
So you claim to maintain have an open mind about making change, and know from measurements and evaluation within just 6 days the current change is wrong and never going to work effectively and fairly in how it’s actually intended? How do you think embedding in new policy and procedures and having proper evaluation process is supposed to happen?
“part of the threats it also has to manage are also to all our freedom.”
I do actually get that. That is what I am saying. As it stands at the moment you are not proven wrong, in threat to freedom, by any means, but you don’t have nearly enough quantitive or qualitative measurement and evaluation to support so much light and sound against the law. If it’s proven to be as bad as you say, I will stand with you and demand change. So you got my position completely wrong, its the most moderate, cool headed open minded position of all. I’m speaking as the government, not Rishi’s or another one, but my government. That’s what I’m trying to represent here. What would a very good government be doing? And the wrong thing would be too reactive.
I’m only called Conservative on PB to try and get under my skin. Losers 😇
Monarchism = Toryism
This is all far more complex than that. Is authoritarian v libertarian party political in UK politics, is it clearly right v left?
On PB we don’t delve into the authoritarian v libertarian nature of politics enough. It seemed to me, when covid restrictions broke out, leading comment writers on the mainstream, which is Tory dominated, media became neatly split. The telegraph for example, we come to know the comment writers as pro Conservative, but in response to lock down and other restrictions a clear split between authoritarian and libertarian positions emerged. The same thing reflected in the House of Commons, the Tory awkward squad voting against Boris covid restrictions were libertarians, whilst the Lib Dem’s voted with this awkward squad.
Bearing this in mind My incoming government, headed by me, would wish to throw out the garbage and keep everything of value to govern well. But it needs to be evaluated in the strongest way first to achieve this.
The difficulty that Twitter has compared to YouTube is that it knows bugger all about its users. This makes it a pretty rubbish platform to advertise on, relative to YouTube (which is Google, and which knows everything).
If you have a high blood pressure pill to push, then on YouTube you can make sure that it's people with high blood pressure that see it. On Twitter, you can only target based on what people Tweet about and who they follow. It means Twitter probably gets one fifth the advertising revenue per impression of Google/YouTube. (And it doesn't help that the team at Twitter that was building a platform that would work with other sites - like PB - to collect information about users to enable better targeting was let go early in Musk's reign.)
Tucker on Twitter is massive. Multiple consequences
Twitter's total advertising revenue is only about $650m a quarter, because of the difficulty of targeting adverts.
I'm sure he'll get millions of views per video, maybe even 10 million.
But that's dramatically fewer than he'd get on YouTube, and he'll get less revenue per view.
The difficulty that Twitter has compared to YouTube is that it knows bugger all about its users. This makes it a pretty rubbish platform to advertise on, relative to YouTube (which is Google, and which knows everything).
If you have a high blood pressure pill to push, then on YouTube you can make sure that it's people with high blood pressure that see it. On Twitter, you can only target based on what people Tweet about and who they follow. It means Twitter probably gets one fifth the advertising revenue per impression of Google/YouTube. (And it doesn't help that the team at Twitter that was building a platform that would work with other sites - like PB - to collect information about users to enable better targeting was let go early in Musk's reign.)
Tucker on Twitter is massive. Multiple consequences
Surely Carlson can't still be a thing - by now even the most entrenched Trump goon must realize he's a con artist.
Sunil - I was perhaps less clear than I should have been. I am suggesting that the police should have looked for some clever tactic(s), not that they should have copied what was done in Baltimore. There may not be any such tactics, but since similar protests are likely, your police should be thinking about the problem.
(As I recall, attendance at UK soccer matches was made less dangerous by changing to assigned seats, rather than open seating.)
The difficulty that Twitter has compared to YouTube is that it knows bugger all about its users. This makes it a pretty rubbish platform to advertise on, relative to YouTube (which is Google, and which knows everything).
If you have a high blood pressure pill to push, then on YouTube you can make sure that it's people with high blood pressure that see it. On Twitter, you can only target based on what people Tweet about and who they follow. It means Twitter probably gets one fifth the advertising revenue per impression of Google/YouTube. (And it doesn't help that the team at Twitter that was building a platform that would work with other sites - like PB - to collect information about users to enable better targeting was let go early in Musk's reign.)
Tucker on Twitter is massive. Multiple consequences
Twitter's total advertising revenue is only about $650m a quarter, because of the difficulty of targeting adverts.
I'm sure he'll get millions of views per video, maybe even 10 million.
But that's dramatically fewer than he'd get on YouTube, and he'll get less revenue per view.
Do they care? Carlson turned down $100m offers for this
The Irish are tying themselves in knots over this.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
It’s been well known for decades, that the UK provides QRA cover over Irish airspace, Shannon FIR, to chase Bears away and escort unresponsive civil aircraft.
So what’s new? Is it that the agreement now also covers responses to domestic Irish threats?
I did read somewhere that quid pro quo has changed recently.
Also that there have been an increase of Russian aircraft violating UK and Irish airspace and there is no time for the RAF to inform the Irish.
Now if you're Sinn Fein then the latter is the Brits violating Irish sovereignty again.
Hmm, interesting. Perhaps this is more to do with routine air (and possibly sea) patrols then, rather than specific responses to events as they occur.
So the ‘public’ agreement is for a ‘QRA’ emergency service, but actually there’s UK mil flights over and around RoI on a daily basis.
The way I read it the Irish government (both main parties) are ok with it all but nobody wants to have the conversation with the public, speaking to my Irish friends, they seem fine with it all but acknowledge some people would have issues with it.
Well the Irish have three choices. 1. Status quo, as amended. whatever that may be. 2. A formal agreement for the British to patrol Irish airspace. 3. The Irish to put their hands deep into their pockets, and get themselves an Air Force.
It’s understandable that the Irish don’t want to open up unnecessary old sectarian wounds, given the increasingly difficult security environment, but can also understand why that can be politically sensitive information.
4. Do nothing and don't worry about it.
MoD would hate 2. as it's a long way west from both of the QRA stations (The Miramar of the Fens and Lossie). They'd need more tankers or would have to put a QRA flight into Valley or maybe St. Mawgan.
The difficulty that Twitter has compared to YouTube is that it knows bugger all about its users. This makes it a pretty rubbish platform to advertise on, relative to YouTube (which is Google, and which knows everything).
If you have a high blood pressure pill to push, then on YouTube you can make sure that it's people with high blood pressure that see it. On Twitter, you can only target based on what people Tweet about and who they follow. It means Twitter probably gets one fifth the advertising revenue per impression of Google/YouTube. (And it doesn't help that the team at Twitter that was building a platform that would work with other sites - like PB - to collect information about users to enable better targeting was let go early in Musk's reign.)
Tucker on Twitter is massive. Multiple consequences
Twitter's total advertising revenue is only about $650m a quarter, because of the difficulty of targeting adverts.
I'm sure he'll get millions of views per video, maybe even 10 million.
But that's dramatically fewer than he'd get on YouTube, and he'll get less revenue per view.
Do they care? Carlson turned down $100m offers for this
Elon and Tucker are making something new
He cares.
He has a lifestyle to support, and private jets to take. And he'll have a staff.
I wonder if Twitter has guaranteed him $20m a year.
The Irish are tying themselves in knots over this.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
It’s been well known for decades, that the UK provides QRA cover over Irish airspace, Shannon FIR, to chase Bears away and escort unresponsive civil aircraft.
So what’s new? Is it that the agreement now also covers responses to domestic Irish threats?
I did read somewhere that quid pro quo has changed recently.
Also that there have been an increase of Russian aircraft violating UK and Irish airspace and there is no time for the RAF to inform the Irish.
Now if you're Sinn Fein then the latter is the Brits violating Irish sovereignty again.
Hmm, interesting. Perhaps this is more to do with routine air (and possibly sea) patrols then, rather than specific responses to events as they occur.
So the ‘public’ agreement is for a ‘QRA’ emergency service, but actually there’s UK mil flights over and around RoI on a daily basis.
The way I read it the Irish government (both main parties) are ok with it all but nobody wants to have the conversation with the public, speaking to my Irish friends, they seem fine with it all but acknowledge some people would have issues with it.
Well the Irish have three choices. 1. Status quo, as amended. whatever that may be. 2. A formal agreement for the British to patrol Irish airspace. 3. The Irish to put their hands deep into their pockets, and get themselves an Air Force.
It’s understandable that the Irish don’t want to open up unnecessary old sectarian wounds, given the increasingly difficult security environment, but can also understand why that can be politically sensitive information.
4. Do nothing and don't worry about it.
MoD would hate 2. as it's a long way west from both of the QRA stations (The Miramar of the Fens and Lossie). They'd need more tankers or would have to put a QRA flight into Valley or maybe St. Mawgan.
Forgot there was a 5.
5. Get an EU Air Policing mission based at Baldonnell. France and Spain would like this.
The difficulty that Twitter has compared to YouTube is that it knows bugger all about its users. This makes it a pretty rubbish platform to advertise on, relative to YouTube (which is Google, and which knows everything).
If you have a high blood pressure pill to push, then on YouTube you can make sure that it's people with high blood pressure that see it. On Twitter, you can only target based on what people Tweet about and who they follow. It means Twitter probably gets one fifth the advertising revenue per impression of Google/YouTube. (And it doesn't help that the team at Twitter that was building a platform that would work with other sites - like PB - to collect information about users to enable better targeting was let go early in Musk's reign.)
Tucker on Twitter is massive. Multiple consequences
Twitter's total advertising revenue is only about $650m a quarter, because of the difficulty of targeting adverts.
I'm sure he'll get millions of views per video, maybe even 10 million.
But that's dramatically fewer than he'd get on YouTube, and he'll get less revenue per view.
Do they care? Carlson turned down $100m offers for this
Elon and Tucker are making something new
He cares.
He has a lifestyle to support, and private jets to take. And he'll have a staff.
I wonder if Twitter has guaranteed him $20m a year.
Carlson is worth $500m already
He get 3-4m viewers per show on Fox
Twitter has 450 MILLION users
It’s easy to see how Carlson could triple or quintuple his viewing figures on Twitter. They will surely find a way to monetise this. Meanwhile Twitter starts poaching mainstream cable news talent
"At midday on Saturday, Charles Windsor ceased to be a human being. As, hidden by a screen, anointing oil marked his breast, head and hands, he was invisibly and entirely transformed. Clad in the vestments of a cleric, crowned as a monarch, blessed as a living symbol of the Divine, he is the last of his kind. For 10,000 years priest-kings, the Rex Nemorensis, representing men to gods and gods to men, preserved in death and life the health of their people and the bounty of their land." (£)
The difficulty that Twitter has compared to YouTube is that it knows bugger all about its users. This makes it a pretty rubbish platform to advertise on, relative to YouTube (which is Google, and which knows everything).
If you have a high blood pressure pill to push, then on YouTube you can make sure that it's people with high blood pressure that see it. On Twitter, you can only target based on what people Tweet about and who they follow. It means Twitter probably gets one fifth the advertising revenue per impression of Google/YouTube. (And it doesn't help that the team at Twitter that was building a platform that would work with other sites - like PB - to collect information about users to enable better targeting was let go early in Musk's reign.)
Tucker on Twitter is massive. Multiple consequences
Twitter's total advertising revenue is only about $650m a quarter, because of the difficulty of targeting adverts.
I'm sure he'll get millions of views per video, maybe even 10 million.
But that's dramatically fewer than he'd get on YouTube, and he'll get less revenue per view.
Do they care? Carlson turned down $100m offers for this
Elon and Tucker are making something new
He cares.
He has a lifestyle to support, and private jets to take. And he'll have a staff.
I wonder if Twitter has guaranteed him $20m a year.
Carlson is worth $500m already
He get 3-4m viewers per show on Fox
Twitter has 450 MILLION users
It’s easy to see how Carlson could triple or quintuple his viewing figures on Twitter. They will surely find a way to monetise this. Meanwhile Twitter starts poaching mainstream cable news talent
It’s ballsy and audacious
I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with you here. Yes, sure he'll get viewers on Twitter. But 3-4m is nothing in the Internet world.
Heck, I have videos that got hundreds of thousands of views.
Twitter has tried with video streaming. It bought the Internet rights to a bunch of sports. People chatting about football on Twitter while watching the game.
No brainer, right?
But it was a disaster.
There's a reason why GBNews is on YouTube. It's because it drives traffic. I don't believe that Carlson is going to get the reach he thinks he will.
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody ever got delayed for work or school, ambulances could always sail through, and so on. Those who've used those roads regularly know that's not quite true, that long delays and blockages are common, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
If you had been held up for hours and gmhours because of these protests you would see things differently.
The reactions are in from the milquetoast 'Don't want him but still nervous to even obliquely criticise him' crowd. Still having to just gently plead to be done with personal drama and focus on supposed electability as the key concerns.
We're now getting some reaction from Republicans on the verdict.
Senator John Thune from South Dakota said the outcome of the trial has a "cumulative effect" on how Trump is viewed within Republican circles as a candidate.
"People are gonna have to decide whether they want to deal with all the drama," Thune told CBS News...
Yes, 'people' like you, John. Desperate for others to break ranks and criticise him, but terrified to be one of them. Pathetic.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
If one is of opinion the nature of protest is changing, things should change to combat it, it’s wholly wrong to call that person and position anti protest. I am not anti protest, I am very liberal - the problem here is clearly you in claiming there had not been a lot of disruptive protest over recent years, when there clearly has been. We know PB has a problem with too many frothy mouthed libertarians posting here, it’s quite laughable it’s presented by you as left right, Conservative Labour, damned by your own post calling me a Conservative.
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
Well, to begin with I would hardly describe myself as opposed to all state authority ; I take a social democratic view on redistribution for instance, and I think the state always has a license to intervene if protest is violent.
The problem is that changes in the nature of protest are not category-neutral ; if new types of non-violent protest emerge, the state cannot simply hugely widen its powers without debate.
XR have sometimes focused on extending their type of non-violent protest to "disruption to infrastructure", with various degrees of success. But not only is the new law very vague and widely open to abuse in its framing of "demonstrations using pubic infrastructure", it can even be interpreted as proscribing any "disruptive" protest without describing what this is.
So there are two problems ; the state cannot simply widen its area of powers against non-violent protest without debate ; and secondly, these particular laws have been framed poorly, incompetently, and with headlines rather than due process in mind in such a way as to actually encourage the abuse of power in the future.
Now you are simply backtracking and squirming.
You need to be more open minded about adjusting law to combat evolving challenges, you cannot achieve effective and fair balance in law without at all times maintaining an open mind that you may need to make changes, that is where you are clearly wrong, when you were so clearly taking an irresponsible “shock jock” type stance.
We cannot have a closed mind or adopt an anti position to law amendment when faced with evolving nature of protest - the intention of law amendment is not to prevent protest, but protect lives and save business and commercial concern, this includes life and well being of protestors themselves. You cannot achieve this if you have such a closed mind to making a change or making a new change work.
Except those who drafted and passed the new legislation aren't accepting any criticism of it - even when, as this weekend, it was clearly used to prevent protest.
People give the impression that until XR and Just Stop Oil etc. came along, the M25, the Dartford Tunnel and central London roads were free-flowing nirvanas where nobody ever got delayed for work or school, ambulances could always sail through, and so on. Those who've used those roads regularly know that's not quite true, that long delays and blockages are common, and the protests haven't made a huge difference to traffic problems.
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
If you had been held up for hours and gmhours because of these protests you would see things differently.
The difficulty that Twitter has compared to YouTube is that it knows bugger all about its users. This makes it a pretty rubbish platform to advertise on, relative to YouTube (which is Google, and which knows everything).
If you have a high blood pressure pill to push, then on YouTube you can make sure that it's people with high blood pressure that see it. On Twitter, you can only target based on what people Tweet about and who they follow. It means Twitter probably gets one fifth the advertising revenue per impression of Google/YouTube. (And it doesn't help that the team at Twitter that was building a platform that would work with other sites - like PB - to collect information about users to enable better targeting was let go early in Musk's reign.)
Tucker on Twitter is massive. Multiple consequences
Twitter's total advertising revenue is only about $650m a quarter, because of the difficulty of targeting adverts.
I'm sure he'll get millions of views per video, maybe even 10 million.
But that's dramatically fewer than he'd get on YouTube, and he'll get less revenue per view.
I’ve just been listening to some interesting discussion about Tucker. It appears that Fox has him in handcuffs, such that he can’t work for anyone else until January 2025, are still paying him his salary, and intend to throw a lot of lawyers at keeping him under their contract but with no show. There’s a rumour that the pulling of his show, was a condition of the agreement between Fox and Dominion.
Just about the only platform he has, is his personal Twitter account, so he approached Musk and he’s going to be the pilot user for Twitter’s attempts to monetise video on the platform. Musk will likely cover his production costs, and give him the lion’s share of the advertising revenue for the next two years. Apparently there’s no contract in place, because Carlson can’t sign one, just the Twitter terms of service that will apply to everyone who wants to use the new video platform.
Are these numbers meaningful? Not being funny, and I can't recall exactly how many tweets are sent a day, but given the ginormous numbers of social media is 10m significant? Does "a view" mean that a living person watched all of the video?
Comments
You see that is known a proveable lie.
PS you then claim the picture is blurry when it is crystal clear
(Geraldo's crowning career moment, for those who don't know:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mystery_of_Al_Capone's_Vaults
Took him about thirty years to live that down...)
I am referring to other peoples opinions on Gandhi
For a long time held up as an icon of good by most, lately the left wing people have turned against that view because he also had a shit views.
I take the view look at the person as a whole, all do shit stuff but you weigh that against the good...if they did more good than harm on balance they are a good person
All that remains for UKIP are elected holdouts on parish and town councils, the lowest tier of local government.
The party's chairman, Ben Walker, said UKIP still has about 30 parish councillors, himself among them, after last week's local elections. "It certainly wasn't a disaster based on what we thought we'd get from these elections," he told the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65538114
Some counties will have more than a thousand parish councillors, easily. And since most are unelected you should be able to get way more than 30, if that is your goal.
Incidentally. Who does this cancelling? Is there an official body?
I'll only add that the problem with non-disruptive protests is that they receive no media coverage whatsoever. Perhaps if our free media paid more attention to peaceful, non-disruptive demonstrations advocating specific causes, the need for disruption would diminish.
https://time.com/6277591/anti-monarchy-protesters-arrested-king-charles-coronation/
What it boils down to is: I agree with the protestors and therefore their actions should be excused.
The Iraq War and Countryside Alliance protests, and indeed the Second Referendum protests, got masses of coverage despite being peaceful.
Disruptive acts are more sensational, sure, but they turn off more than they attract.
Please elaborate.
If people like xr are convinced they speak for the majority lets test it, the police step back and don't protect them from the people they are disrupting....if as they claim they speak for the majority then they will be getting back slaps and congratulated....if they are talking bollocks which they surely are they will get other slaps
As the header says, this is a serious question, you have answered wrong because it is and issue about striking the effective and fair balance between state authority and individual freedom. Not as you believe, state authority always wrong, or others say individual freedom in this case is wrong, the question to answer is simply about striking effective and fair balance when faced with evolving challenges.
Now you see why you are utterly wrong, nailing yourself to a banner opposed to all change in the law to combat evolving challenges, when you cannot oppose making a change in this situation.
It's hard to know where the line is between 'raising awareness' disruption and 'pissing people off' counter productiveness, but we can be confident the line exists as some of these groups themselves switch to new tactics when they think the previous ones have reached the end of their usefulness.
And my point was purely about getting publicity for the cause, not whether that publicity turned people off or not.
There were plenty of not my King demonstrators live on TV during the procession that I witnessed at the time
Other kinds of free speech or demonstration action are more disruptive, and due to potential consequences some curtailment of the speech is justified - where the action is putting people, including possibly those involved, in harm's way perhaps.
It's a balance. But it should be tilted away from presuming disruption requires immediate corrective action, which itself becomes highly disruptive.
We're now getting some reaction from Republicans on the verdict.
Senator John Thune from South Dakota said the outcome of the trial has a "cumulative effect" on how Trump is viewed within Republican circles as a candidate.
"People are gonna have to decide whether they want to deal with all the drama," Thune told CBS News.
Senator John Cornyn from Texas said that he doesn't believe Trump can get elected as the next US president in 2024.
"You can't win a general election with just your base," he said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-65502076
I don't think this is a new thing.
Same is already happening with things like burglarly, the police wont take action so there are organised gangs moving in to protect neighbourhoods for a fee and will get your stuff back...pretty sure they don't follow pace rules
So, by a process of elimination...
'I couldn't stop laughing... All these people in these silly costumes, all taking things so seriously. I thought it was a Python sketch.' John Cleese tells Andrew Doyle that he was in hysterics watching King Charles’s Coronation."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8-Rqv5Rcag
The problem is that changes in the nature of protest are not category-neutral ; if new types of non-violent protest emerge, the state cannot simply hugely widen its powers without debate.
XR have sometimes focused on extending their type of non-violent protest to "disruption to infrastructure", with various degrees of success. But not only is the new law very vague and widely open to abuse in its framing of "demonstrations using pubic infrastructure", it can even be interpreted as proscribing any "disruptive" protest without describing what this is.
So there are two problems ; the state cannot simply widen its area of powers against non-violent protest without debate ; and secondly, these particular laws have been framed poorly, incompetently, and with headlines rather than due process in mind in such a way as to actually encourage the abuse of power in the future.
Being 2 hours late for work and missing that pay often means the difference between missing a few meals at the end of a week....yet its dismissed and minor inconvenience. You really can't understand why that makes people fucking livid when they can't feed their children because some trust fund crustie glues himself to a road?
So much better than the usual Brexit and adult woman female binary shouting matches.
I want to be made to think. Not to have my prejudices reinforced by the like minded.
Thanks to all who are challenging me in a constructive way. It sharpens my thinking and my arguments. Very occasionally it alters my opinion.That's why I come back to this site again and again.
At its best there is no better.
The temptation of broad drafting is always there, since no one likes someone deserving of punishment slipping through the net due to proscriptive wording. But broadness comes with its own downsides.
Ideally this sort of thing could get sorted during the processes of passing a bill, but I don't think our system incentivises MPs to collaboratively seek to improve legislative drafting, nor governments to accept. I do worry about some of the very rushed through bills during the Brexit wrangling, as whilst they were very simple and straightforward, I worry the temptation to do so with more complex matters exists.
You need to be more open minded about adjusting law to combat evolving challenges, you cannot achieve effective and fair balance in law without at all times maintaining an open mind that you may need to make changes, that is where you are clearly wrong, when you were so clearly taking an irresponsible “shock jock” type stance.
We cannot have a closed mind or adopt an anti position to law amendment when faced with evolving nature of protest - the intention of law amendment is not to prevent protest, but protect lives and save business and commercial concern, this includes life and well being of protestors themselves. You cannot achieve this if you have such a closed mind to making a change or making a new change work.
Personally, I think people should be allowed to glue themselves to roads, so long as:
(a) the adhesive is between the skin and the tarmac
(b) the glue is really, really strong
Parliament should define the spirit of the law
Civil service to write the letter of the law
Courts to interpret the law according to the spirit
Surprised by this. HardTalk on BBC News channel is discussing it atm.
"Seychelles: The island paradise held prisoner by heroin
Some 10% of the local population in the tropical island nation of Seychelles is dependent on heroin in what is now an epidemic, according to the country's government. Even being locked away offers no protection for those dependent on the drug. BBC Africa Eye gained rare access to the main jail to witness the sharp end of a problem threatening to overwhelm the country."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-64785171
https://twitter.com/tuckercarlson/status/1656037032538390530
As an officer of the union, I conceived it my duty to help organise the various student demos so that the students survived, and did so mostly un-arrested.
The Black Blok scum wanted violence and quite frankly, the TSG were welcome to them.
They were closer to the London Marathon in nature than a deliberate attempt to fuck stuff up.
If you have a high blood pressure pill to push, then on YouTube you can make sure that it's people with high blood pressure that see it. On Twitter, you can only target based on what people Tweet about and who they follow. It means Twitter probably gets one fifth the advertising revenue per impression of Google/YouTube. (And it doesn't help that the team at Twitter that was building a platform that would work with other sites - like PB - to collect information about users to enable better targeting was let go early in Musk's reign.)
My gods this man has no sense of shame. He literally talks about people being fired and the dangers of not being allowed to say what you think is true, when the Dominion case had hard evidence he was saying things he knew were not true, because he mocked or criticised it, but was saying it anyway because of the effect on the company's performance.
Maybe he should have just stuck with this line
(So Mr Carlson won't get mad the context is him describing the media withholding facts to mislead, not himself)
And with that, a good night to all ! ;.)
His audience won't be able to watch his show on TV. Pretty much everyone has YouTube on their TV these days. Indeed, I mostly watch YouTube on TV.
And I get the feeling that his demographic - older people - is very much a TV watching one, rather than a laptop watching one.
Ie if people who disagree with your post above can firebomb your house and you’re ok for the police step back and don’t protect you from the people you’re disrupting….
"UKIP on brink of wipeout after losing all seats in local elections"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65538114
“part of the threats it also has to manage are also to all our freedom.”
I do actually get that. That is what I am saying. As it stands at the moment you are not proven wrong, in threat to freedom, by any means, but you don’t have nearly enough quantitive or qualitative measurement and evaluation to support so much light and sound against the law. If it’s proven to be as bad as you say, I will stand with you and demand change. So you got my position completely wrong, its the most moderate, cool headed open minded position of all. I’m speaking as the government, not Rishi’s or another one, but my government. That’s what I’m trying to represent here. What would a very good government be doing? And the wrong thing would be too reactive.
I’m only called Conservative on PB to try and get under my skin. Losers 😇
It was a hot day, and the officer in charge, probably the police chief, came up with an clever tactic. He routed traffic around them, and let them sit, and sit, and sit, in the hot sun, until they gave up, after an hour or two.
(I have no idea whether something similarly clever could have been done at your coronation. I have not even seen a map of the events. But it is worth thinking about.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Leadership
I don't personally believe one should be open-minded about whether the widening of powers, or vaguely new worded new powers, lead to abuse of powers, because history has proven that always to be correct.
So in that case, the only important assessment to make is : is the situation extreme enough to warrant changes that will almost certainly lead to new abuses, too ; and secondly, has one done everything possible from the beginning to mitigate that in the wording of this particular legislation. The answers to that, in this case and from any standard liberal point of view are no, and no.
With legal changes, safeguards should be built in from the beginning, rather than after a period of experimentation, because of the risks of failure on people's liberty, and the millennia-old history of human nature when faced with increased power.
And with that, this time, my friends, a genuine goodnight ;..)
On PB we don’t delve into the authoritarian v libertarian nature of politics enough. It seemed to me, when covid restrictions broke out, leading comment writers on the mainstream, which is Tory dominated, media became neatly split. The telegraph for example, we come to know the comment writers as pro Conservative, but in response to lock down and other restrictions a clear split between authoritarian and libertarian positions emerged. The same thing reflected in the House of Commons, the Tory awkward squad voting against Boris covid restrictions were libertarians, whilst the Lib Dem’s voted with this awkward squad.
Bearing this in mind My incoming government, headed by me, would wish to throw out the garbage and keep everything of value to govern well. But it needs to be evaluated in the strongest way first to achieve this.
I'm sure he'll get millions of views per video, maybe even 10 million.
But that's dramatically fewer than he'd get on YouTube, and he'll get less revenue per view.
Lord Pearson.
That Henry bloke with the young girlfriend.
(As I recall, attendance at UK soccer matches was made less dangerous by changing to assigned seats, rather than open seating.)
They could be almost double the annual figure before Brexit !
Elon and Tucker are making something new
MoD would hate 2. as it's a long way west from both of the QRA stations (The Miramar of the Fens and Lossie). They'd need more tankers or would have to put a QRA flight into Valley or maybe St. Mawgan.
He has a lifestyle to support, and private jets to take. And he'll have a staff.
I wonder if Twitter has guaranteed him $20m a year.
5. Get an EU Air Policing mission based at Baldonnell. France and Spain would like this.
That's the value of knowing your users.
He get 3-4m viewers per show on Fox
Twitter has 450 MILLION users
It’s easy to see how Carlson could triple or quintuple his viewing figures on Twitter. They will surely find a way to monetise this. Meanwhile Twitter starts poaching mainstream cable news talent
It’s ballsy and audacious
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2023/05/civil-war-never-ended
"The civil war that never ended
Our new Carolingian age is taking us back to the 17th century.
By Madoc Cairns"
Heck, I have videos that got hundreds of thousands of views.
Twitter has tried with video streaming. It bought the Internet rights to a bunch of sports. People chatting about football on Twitter while watching the game.
No brainer, right?
But it was a disaster.
There's a reason why GBNews is on YouTube. It's because it drives traffic. I don't believe that Carlson is going to get the reach he thinks he will.
EDIT: except she was deputy leader.
Diane James was the leader, briefly.
Desperate for others to break ranks and criticise him, but terrified to be one of them.
Pathetic.
Just about the only platform he has, is his personal Twitter account, so he approached Musk and he’s going to be the pilot user for Twitter’s attempts to monetise video on the platform. Musk will likely cover his production costs, and give him the lion’s share of the advertising revenue for the next two years. Apparently there’s no contract in place, because Carlson can’t sign one, just the Twitter terms of service that will apply to everyone who wants to use the new video platform.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1656037032538390530
Elon’s reply to Tucker has 21m views
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1656079504778092544