Lawful excuse - right to protest
Discussion
Can't see a thread. Supreme court have ruled the ECHR enshrined the right to peaceful protest, which constitutes a lawful reason or excuse defence against some crimes specified in the highways act.
Upshot: XR rebellion activists get conviction quashed
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58092234
It didn't help that the arresting officer is in Romania, but basically it seems the law on blocking the highway is now toothless in the face of a planned protest.
In two minds slightly. Obviously I like being ina country where rule of law works.
But the xr protestor describes it as lying in the road for a few minutes. The police describe protestors using lock on bars that took over an hour and a half to remove. Someone is lying, and people should also be free to go about their business.
I don't know if the crime bill will tackle this: ie criminalising public nuisance means the highway act (and it's lawful excuse) becomes irrelevant.
Though obviously the ECHR right to protect *will* remain unchanged by anything done in the forthcoming crime bill.
So prosecutors will presumably find themselves in exactly the same place trying to prosecute anyone for protesting peacefully.
Ian
Upshot: XR rebellion activists get conviction quashed
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58092234
It didn't help that the arresting officer is in Romania, but basically it seems the law on blocking the highway is now toothless in the face of a planned protest.
In two minds slightly. Obviously I like being ina country where rule of law works.
But the xr protestor describes it as lying in the road for a few minutes. The police describe protestors using lock on bars that took over an hour and a half to remove. Someone is lying, and people should also be free to go about their business.
I don't know if the crime bill will tackle this: ie criminalising public nuisance means the highway act (and it's lawful excuse) becomes irrelevant.
Though obviously the ECHR right to protect *will* remain unchanged by anything done in the forthcoming crime bill.
So prosecutors will presumably find themselves in exactly the same place trying to prosecute anyone for protesting peacefully.
Ian
deeen said:
Forgive my ignorance, but if we've left the EU, why is the ECHR still relevant here?
The supreme court have a page detailing this stuff:https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/the-supreme-cour...
The right to protest is something I agree with.
I do not agree with blocking public highways and causing nuisance and holding up everyone else for your agenda.
You can peacefully protest from the pavement or at organised protests where roads have been closed in advance like they do in london.
However in ER's case specifically they want to cause hassle and disruption which is exactly why their actions need criminalising.
I do not agree with blocking public highways and causing nuisance and holding up everyone else for your agenda.
You can peacefully protest from the pavement or at organised protests where roads have been closed in advance like they do in london.
However in ER's case specifically they want to cause hassle and disruption which is exactly why their actions need criminalising.
It seems to be a strange one, as the laws stopping you blocking the roads are not there to stop protests.
The right is to protest, not to be able to protest however you want. I was affected by XR as their road closure meant my wife gave birth without me there as I got stuck in traffic. I don’t agree that the right to protest should include the right to inconvenience people like this.
It’s easy enough in London to get permission for a protest that both shows your message and is organized to allow people who need to to still get on and do what they want to do.
The right is to protest, not to be able to protest however you want. I was affected by XR as their road closure meant my wife gave birth without me there as I got stuck in traffic. I don’t agree that the right to protest should include the right to inconvenience people like this.
It’s easy enough in London to get permission for a protest that both shows your message and is organized to allow people who need to to still get on and do what they want to do.
Psycho Warren said:
The right to protest is something I agree with.
I do not agree with blocking public highways and causing nuisance and holding up everyone else for your agenda.
You can peacefully protest from the pavement or at organised protests where roads have been closed in advance like they do in london.
However in ER's case specifically they want to cause hassle and disruption which is exactly why their actions need criminalising.
What's the point of protest if you don't make an impact. I do not agree with blocking public highways and causing nuisance and holding up everyone else for your agenda.
You can peacefully protest from the pavement or at organised protests where roads have been closed in advance like they do in london.
However in ER's case specifically they want to cause hassle and disruption which is exactly why their actions need criminalising.
What gets more notice taken? A riot with burning cars.
Or a strongly worded banner. And a petition?
If you believe strongly enough surely you'd go as far as you can to make people sit up and listen?
Says me, whose only protest is quietly to myself
Sebring440 said:
Ian Geary said:
the ECHR right to protect *will* remain unchanged
What is this new form of punctuation? What do the asterisks in your *will* mean?The asterisk is not uncommon as emphasis on the internet as I understand it.
The emphasis was there because regardless of what the government does or does not put into law about protesting, the ECHR will still protect the right to peaceful protest.
So any protestor who finds themselves on the wrong side of UK law can still look to the UK supreme court to be let off (eventually).
It is quite a banana skin for the government/prosecutors, and one which I am surprised about them jumping onto.
Ian Geary said:
So the punctuation is more comment worthy than the topic?
The asterisk is not uncommon as emphasis on the internet as I understand it.
The emphasis was there because regardless of what the government does or does not put into law about protesting, the ECHR will still protect the right to peaceful protest.
So any protestor who finds themselves on the wrong side of UK law can still look to the UK supreme court to be let off (eventually).
It is quite a banana skin for the government/prosecutors, and one which I am surprised about them jumping onto.
It would probably help if you spent some time understanding what the ECHR is, how it came about, who the countries were who drove the design and implementation as a start before you get too upset about it. The asterisk is not uncommon as emphasis on the internet as I understand it.
The emphasis was there because regardless of what the government does or does not put into law about protesting, the ECHR will still protect the right to peaceful protest.
So any protestor who finds themselves on the wrong side of UK law can still look to the UK supreme court to be let off (eventually).
It is quite a banana skin for the government/prosecutors, and one which I am surprised about them jumping onto.
MustangGT said:
As far as I am concerned you have the right to peaceful protest, and I will uphold that. However, the right to peaceful protest does NOT give you the right to break other laws whilst doing so. All laws need to be upheld.
This really.I’m happy for people to protest within the legal parameters.
But stopping people getting to work or blocking roads to airports is out of order.
Extinction rebellion seem to have a very sixth form approach. A councillor I came across (through work not a sex move) the one who superglued herself to Jeremy corbyns house and argued with piers.
Anyway, MASSIVE house and a couple of high polluting cars. Apparently it’s fine to disrupt other people to make a point they need to change, but she doesn’t need to change herself. She’s doing something better, changing the system apparently, so she’s fine for carbon footprint.
The whole extinction rebellion has been a pr disaster, they are just excluded from everything for fear of being disruptive now.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff