Discussion
1 No I am not.
2. No I do not.
3. The batteries in your mind reading machine need replacing.
PS: disingenuous is of course just a fancy word for lying, used by those too timid to say lying, and so it is impossible to be disingenuous without knowing it. That, however, is an academic observation in the present context.
2. No I do not.
3. The batteries in your mind reading machine need replacing.
PS: disingenuous is of course just a fancy word for lying, used by those too timid to say lying, and so it is impossible to be disingenuous without knowing it. That, however, is an academic observation in the present context.
janesmith1950 said:
I wouldn't want to unnecessarily place my child of breastfeeding age into an environment where there may be an increased risk of harm. Others may have different opinions, which of course they're entitled to.
There's exercising your freedoms and there's exercising common sense. Not always the same thing!
Of course, but the post by A1VDY above about women with nursing children at demos has a whiff of the typical PH misogyny about it. Some men are bizarrely triggered by women breastfeeding in any public space. There's exercising your freedoms and there's exercising common sense. Not always the same thing!
As for attending a demo, it has to be a matter of judgment for the mother. Not much danger, for example, in taking a tiny baby on a march such as the big one in London last weekend. Maybe leave the baby with grandparents if things look likely to go to the barricades. But in some circumstances the mother may not have much choice. IIRC there may have been mothers with infants at Peterloo.
In the rather knockout Delacroix painting of Liberty guiding the people (over a pile of bodies), Lady Liberty is bare breasted, but not nursing, although I assume that she is depicted bare breasted as a metaphor innit.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 23 October 11:36
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 23 October 11:37
Breadvan72 said:
1 No I am not.
2. No I do not.
3. The batteries in your mind reading machine need replacing.
PS: disingenuous is of course just a fancy word for lying, used by those too timid to say lying, and so it is impossible to be disingenuous without knowing it. That, however, is an academic observation in the present context.
I'm not one to mince my words - if I thought you were lying I'd say so, though just mentioning Peterloo/Amritsar etc can in no way be viewed as anything other than mentioning historical events. It's disingenuous when people pretend to know less about something than they really do, so on that basis mentioning those occurrences in conjunction with modern policing (as opposed to military intervention) is comparing apples with oranges and thus fits the definition.2. No I do not.
3. The batteries in your mind reading machine need replacing.
PS: disingenuous is of course just a fancy word for lying, used by those too timid to say lying, and so it is impossible to be disingenuous without knowing it. That, however, is an academic observation in the present context.
Edited by irocfan on Wednesday 23 October 13:19
We may be at cross purposes. I was addressing the general suggestions from some above that force is an apt response to protest. I was not addressing the specific issue of policing XR.
If considering historical examples of force against protest, I suggest that it matters not greatly or at all whether the State agents that apply the force are police officers or soldiers. In the historical examples mentioned, the military acted or thought they acted in aid of the civil power. The mounted Yeomanry at Peterloo were in any event the early C19 approximation of early C21 mounted police, there being only a rudimentary police force at the time of Peterloo.
If considering historical examples of force against protest, I suggest that it matters not greatly or at all whether the State agents that apply the force are police officers or soldiers. In the historical examples mentioned, the military acted or thought they acted in aid of the civil power. The mounted Yeomanry at Peterloo were in any event the early C19 approximation of early C21 mounted police, there being only a rudimentary police force at the time of Peterloo.
Breadvan72 said:
We may be at cross purposes. I was addressing the general suggestions from some above that force is an apt response to protest. I was not addressing the specific issue of policing XR.
If considering historical examples of force against protest, I suggest that it matters not greatly or at all whether the State agents that apply the force are police officers or soldiers. In the historical examples mentioned, the military acted or thought they acted in aid of the civil power. The mounted Yeomanry at Peterloo were in any event the early C19 approximation of early C21 mounted police, there being only a rudimentary police force at the time of Peterloo.
indeed.If considering historical examples of force against protest, I suggest that it matters not greatly or at all whether the State agents that apply the force are police officers or soldiers. In the historical examples mentioned, the military acted or thought they acted in aid of the civil power. The mounted Yeomanry at Peterloo were in any event the early C19 approximation of early C21 mounted police, there being only a rudimentary police force at the time of Peterloo.
Whilst I do not think that force is the appropriate response WRT to protest in general I do feel that XR (and their May-day protest forerunners) have outstayed their welcome and as such efforts c/should be made to move them along. The issue I guess is if said protesters are not willing to be moved along - what do we (the police) do then? It would appear that asking nicely and dancing/skateboarding with the crusties isn't really working so maybe something a little more muscular is needed?
Tear/CS?A.N.other gas w/should be an absolute final resort as should breaking out the 'heavy mob' - at this point xr have be clever enough to ensure that this shouldn't be done. What happens, though, if the general public get pissed off with law breakers being allowed to flout the law?
There are lawful protests and there are unlawful protests, both can be peaceful yet it's totally understandable that the response will be different for an organised event rather than an unauthorised event.
We see protest marches all the time, large gatherings peacefully marching with a Police escort, marching along an agreed route with road-closures in place for their safety as much as to keep disruption to a minimum. There is liaison between the protest group organiser, the police and the local authorities and I would see these as being perfectly legal and authorised peaceful protests.
What ER are doing is very different, they are deliberately seeking to cause as much disruption as possible, they deliberately don't engage with the local authority or the police before the protests to maximise the level of disruption. Their protest may be peaceful, but it isn't authorised or controlled and is deliberately confrontational. In these circumstance, for me it's perfectly reasonable for the police to step-in and move them on.
We see protest marches all the time, large gatherings peacefully marching with a Police escort, marching along an agreed route with road-closures in place for their safety as much as to keep disruption to a minimum. There is liaison between the protest group organiser, the police and the local authorities and I would see these as being perfectly legal and authorised peaceful protests.
What ER are doing is very different, they are deliberately seeking to cause as much disruption as possible, they deliberately don't engage with the local authority or the police before the protests to maximise the level of disruption. Their protest may be peaceful, but it isn't authorised or controlled and is deliberately confrontational. In these circumstance, for me it's perfectly reasonable for the police to step-in and move them on.
The idea of authorised protest is a tricky one. If the rights to assemble and speak can only be exercised with prior permission of the State, you are embarked on a journey that, if you are not careful, ends you up in places where few of us want to live. Issues such as this are explored in the Barda case, above, and in an earlier case called Gallestegui. The latter went to the CA, but not to the SC.
The XR ban is currently being challenged in the Administrative Court. Hearing date not yet known.
The XR ban is currently being challenged in the Administrative Court. Hearing date not yet known.
Classic case of the need to balance. People should be allowed to protest, other should be allowed to go about their business unimpeded.
I lean towards the freedom to protest being the starting point and that only being fettered once the impingement of others goes beyond a 'one off' event or events into a course of activity.
Society has to be able to function and individuals need to be able to live, work and earn.
I lean towards the freedom to protest being the starting point and that only being fettered once the impingement of others goes beyond a 'one off' event or events into a course of activity.
Society has to be able to function and individuals need to be able to live, work and earn.
Breadvan72 said:
The idea of authorised protest is a tricky one. If the rights to assemble and speak can only be exercised with prior permission of the State, you are embarked on a journey that, if you are not careful, ends you up in places where few of us want to live. Issues such as this are explored in the Barda case, above, and in an earlier case called Gallestegui. The latter went to the CA, but not to the SC.
The XR ban is currently being challenged in the Administrative Court. Hearing date not yet known.
Given XR's stated aim of having its protesters get themselves arrested, isn't there a very strong argument that this is not truly a peaceful protest? And therefore the issue of 'authorisation' should be neither here nor there. A ban on protests by groups intent on - and with a track-record of - law-breaking en masse (even if much of it is low-level) is surely no more than proportionate pro-active law enforcement. They even have an information page on their website to support those who they know will be arrested. The XR ban is currently being challenged in the Administrative Court. Hearing date not yet known.
That alone ought to be sufficient to ban them.spikyone said:
Given XR's stated aim of having its protesters get themselves arrested, isn't there a very strong argument that this is not truly a peaceful protest? And therefore the issue of 'authorisation' should be neither here nor there. A ban on protests by groups intent on - and with a track-record of - law-breaking en masse (even if much of it is low-level) is surely no more than proportionate pro-active law enforcement. They even have an information page on their website to support those who they know will be arrested. That alone ought to be sufficient to ban them.
The Suffragettes did not have a website, because not invented yet. In other respects they acted much as XR now act. Should the Suffragettes have been banned? That alone ought to be sufficient to ban them.flashbang said:
Obstructing the queen's Highway is an offence punishable by getting ran over. 
Obstructing the King’s Horse way was in one instance punished by getting ridden over!
PS: Punishments for mangling the English verb “to run” by confusion of tenses are said to be Medieval in their severity. Harsh, but fair.
Breadvan72 said:
The Suffragettes did not have a website, because not invented yet. In other respects they acted much as XR now act. Should the Suffragettes have been banned?
Forgive me if my history is a bit off here (we did not touch 20th century history in my school days), but weren't the suffragettes a more militant form of suffragists, and specific to the UK?Given the ability of women in other nations to secure the right to vote without resorting to such lawlessness, there is an argument that the ends did not justify the suffragettes' means - and we had peaceful suffragists in the UK too. I do not disagree with the suffragist movement in any way. I do disagree with the suffragettes' tactics, as did those who broke away from the suffragettes to form a new group that practiced true civil disobedience rather than the more general "anything goes" lawlessness practiced by the suffragettes. We would have likely ended up with equality without the suffragettes' law-breaking.
So yes, there is an argument that the suffragettes should have been banned from mass protests - although whether they ever indulged in mass protests to the extent of XR, I do not know (no internet, so probably not...). As with suffragists/suffragettes there is probably a blurring of the edges between XR and genuine climate protesters, but I think the authorities would be acting perfectly reasonably in banning XR's protests.
(I am, of course, open to correction if my historical knowledge is lacking.)
irocfan said:
Breadvan72 said:
Should the Suffragettes have been banned?
so xr and the suffragettes are of equal stature in your opinion?I did not say that. On no reasonable interpretation of the post quoted could I have been taken to have said that. Please work on your debating techniques!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff