Any BIB at all left on this forum???
Discussion
I hate to hear politicians saying that the fuel protesters "blockaded" the fuel depots. As I understand it, they simply parked close to the depots and the drivers refused to go past them. The protesters themselves did nothing to obstruct free passage. Am I right? Yet it's very convenient to paint them as the villains so public hysteria can be whipped up against them. Spin vs. truth once more.
mojocvh said:
'cos I would like to ask for a summary of the laws brought in after tha last round of fuel protests, please.
cheers
MoJo.
No one answered MoJo because I suspect they didn't understand the question.
Cartloads of laws have been passed since the fuel protest, which are you interested in? Or do you mean laws passed as a result of and appertaining to a fuel protest? If the later, then, as far as I know/can recall, none specific as majority of law in place can be utilised to deal with matters.
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:As in twisted, distorted, abused. I fear that this government would not hesitate to use the Terrorism Act 2000 against fuel protestors (they did in the case of those protesting against the Docklands Arms Fair 2003. Section 1 of the Act provides a definition of 'terrorism' as:
'cos I would like to ask for a summary of the laws brought in after tha last round of fuel protests, please.
cheers
MoJo.
No one answered MoJo because I suspect they didn't understand the question.
Cartloads of laws have been passed since the fuel protest, which are you interested in? Or do you mean laws passed as a result of and appertaining to a fuel protest? If the later, then, as far as I know/can recall, none specific as majority of law in place can be utilised to deal with matters.
DVD
'The use or threat of action, designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, where the action
* involves serious violence against a person,
* involves serious damage to property,
* endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
* creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
* is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.'
There is enough "meat" there. Indeed the government consultation paper which led to the new pointed the finger at "Persistent animal rights and to a lesser extent environmental activists" and "[their] persistent, and destructive campaigns". It could be argued that this piece of legislation was conceived with the at least partial aim of being used against "environmental activists" such as fuel protestors. IIRC, it wasn't used in November 2000 (it was on the Statute Books in July 2000) probably because it was too soon and would look like overkill, but today ...
Lords Hansad (18 Spetember 2003) reports:
"
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain why counter-terrorism legislation was used rather than the wider public order legislation that is available in all cases?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, what is absolutely important is that appropriate action was taken ...
"
I rest my case.
Streaky
OK let me ask mojo's question another way.
Remember the last time with the TV "interview" where a senior uniformed officer (can't remember if it was CI or not) stated something along the lines of....
"We are here to uphold the law, nothing illegal is being done, therefore that is why we are observing and taking no direct action" or on those lines anyway.
Let us suppose there is another fuel protest, again 100% legal, whatever that means in Britain today. (cynical I know!)
So do we think, given similar circumstances, that such a comment / action by the forces of law & order (in the widest sense) would be repeated?
I'd like to think so, but quite frankly I'd not put a fiver on it.
FiF
Remember the last time with the TV "interview" where a senior uniformed officer (can't remember if it was CI or not) stated something along the lines of....
"We are here to uphold the law, nothing illegal is being done, therefore that is why we are observing and taking no direct action" or on those lines anyway.
Let us suppose there is another fuel protest, again 100% legal, whatever that means in Britain today. (cynical I know!)
So do we think, given similar circumstances, that such a comment / action by the forces of law & order (in the widest sense) would be repeated?
I'd like to think so, but quite frankly I'd not put a fiver on it.
FiF
I dont like paying a fortune for my fuel in tax, but what I will not tolerate is a bunch of people stopping me from buying or obtaining fuel, no matter how they do it, by blockading the main fuel distribution depots? by intimidating the tanker drivers? by blocking access onto the forecourts? by marching down the road and blocking the road? by driving slowly in convoys to block motorways?
I'ts not on, these people are restricting my freedom, they are actually more repressive themselves than the government creating the cause they support. Its a good cause for sure, but when they start to 'repress' their own fellow citizens who actually agree with them too by restricting my freedom and choice? they have lost the plot.
I was extremely inconvenienced by these people last time around, I shouldnt have to put up with it again.
Have a fuel protest by all means, and lets all support it, but no way do they have any right or entitlement to make life difficult for people by restricting public rights of way or restricting the distribution of goods or services.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
I'ts not on, these people are restricting my freedom, they are actually more repressive themselves than the government creating the cause they support. Its a good cause for sure, but when they start to 'repress' their own fellow citizens who actually agree with them too by restricting my freedom and choice? they have lost the plot.
I was extremely inconvenienced by these people last time around, I shouldnt have to put up with it again.
Have a fuel protest by all means, and lets all support it, but no way do they have any right or entitlement to make life difficult for people by restricting public rights of way or restricting the distribution of goods or services.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Balmoral Green said:
I dont like paying a fortune for my fuel in tax, but what I will not tolerate is a bunch of people stopping me from buying or obtaining fuel, no matter how they do it, by blockading the main fuel distribution depots? by intimidating the tanker drivers? by blocking access onto the forecourts? by marching down the road and blocking the road? by driving slowly in convoys to block motorways?
I'ts not on, these people are restricting my freedom, they are actually more repressive themselves than the government creating the cause they support. Its a good cause for sure, but when they start to 'repress' their own fellow citizens who actually agree with them too by restricting my freedom and choice? they have lost the plot.
I was extremely inconvenienced by these people last time around, I shouldnt have to put up with it again.
Have a fuel protest by all means, and lets all support it, but no way do they have any right or entitlement to make life difficult for people by restricting public rights of way or restricting the distribution of goods or services.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Interesting points! but I don't see how any protest that doesn't cause a certain amount of disruption is going to have any effect! Surely short term inconvenience is necessary in order to achieve the desired result!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff