Critical mass cyclists free to screw up London
Discussion
This has really made my blood boil...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
Police have no Public Order Act powers to control Critical Mass cycle ride, Law Lords rule
The police have no Public Order Act powers to control the monthly Critical Mass cycle ride through the streets of London, the Law Lords ruled today.
By Daily Telegraph Reporter
Last Updated: 1:07PM GMT 26 Nov 2008
The House of Lords allowed an appeal by cyclist Des Kay against a Court of Appeal ruling that the Metropolitan Police had the right to demand prior notice of the ride's date, time and route and the names and addresses of the organisers.
Cyclists who gather on the South Bank and ride through the city to celebrate safe cycling have in the past been handed written notices by the police stating that the event was unlawful because no advance notice was given.
But the Law Lords held that the event, which had no organisers or set route and proceeded on a "follow my leader" basis, was not governed by section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Friends of the Earth Rights and Justice Centre, which acted for Mr Kay, hailed the ruling as "an important victory for the right to peaceful protest and for cyclists to take part in this monthly celebration of cycling".
Mr Kay, described by the Lords as an environmental educator and performing artist, said: "I'm thrilled with this judgment.
"This was a very important case for people like me who have cycled with Critical Mass for many years.
"More importantly, I hope that it will encourage other cyclists to join the monthly rides."
The Critical Mass rides are part of a global phenomenon in which cyclists in more than 400 cities worldwide take to the streets once a month in celebration of safe cycling.
The London Critical Mass ride has taken place on the last Friday of every month since April 1994.
The main legal issue in the appeal was whether the monthly rides were "commonly or customarily held", in which case they were exempt from the notification requirements of the Public Order Act 1986.
The legal action was a result of a leaflet handed out by police at the Critical Mass ride in September 2005, stating: "These cycle protests are not lawful because no organiser has provided police with the necessary notification. Your participation in this event could render you liable to prosecution."
Police lawyers had argued that the rides were not "commonly or customarily held" because, although they started at the same time from the same place on the South Bank, they did not follow the same route.
Therefore, police were entitled to advance notice of the route for the avoidance of public disorder and traffic disruption.
But Lord Phillips ruled today that the ride was a "customary procession", even though it did not follow the same route.
And the evidence showed the Met were usually able to police the ride without difficulty.
Lord Phillips added that an offence under Section 11 of the Act was only committed if the organisers of an event failed to comply with a prior obligation to give details of an intention to hold a "public procession".
Since Critical Mass had no organisers and there was no such obligation, the rides were not unlawful.
The police contended that, if a similar event were to be started elsewhere in the UK, it would be unlawful without prior notice of the route.
Lord Phillips said the Green and White Papers which led to the 1986 Public Order Act were at pains to underline the importance of the right to hold processions and the need for any restrictions to respect that right.
"It is inconceivable that Parliament could have intended, by a sidewind, to outlaw events such as Critical Mass," he said.
Lords Rodger, Carswell and Brown and Baroness Hale also allowed Mr Kay's appeal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
Police have no Public Order Act powers to control Critical Mass cycle ride, Law Lords rule
The police have no Public Order Act powers to control the monthly Critical Mass cycle ride through the streets of London, the Law Lords ruled today.
By Daily Telegraph Reporter
Last Updated: 1:07PM GMT 26 Nov 2008
The House of Lords allowed an appeal by cyclist Des Kay against a Court of Appeal ruling that the Metropolitan Police had the right to demand prior notice of the ride's date, time and route and the names and addresses of the organisers.
Cyclists who gather on the South Bank and ride through the city to celebrate safe cycling have in the past been handed written notices by the police stating that the event was unlawful because no advance notice was given.
But the Law Lords held that the event, which had no organisers or set route and proceeded on a "follow my leader" basis, was not governed by section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Friends of the Earth Rights and Justice Centre, which acted for Mr Kay, hailed the ruling as "an important victory for the right to peaceful protest and for cyclists to take part in this monthly celebration of cycling".
Mr Kay, described by the Lords as an environmental educator and performing artist, said: "I'm thrilled with this judgment.
"This was a very important case for people like me who have cycled with Critical Mass for many years.
"More importantly, I hope that it will encourage other cyclists to join the monthly rides."
The Critical Mass rides are part of a global phenomenon in which cyclists in more than 400 cities worldwide take to the streets once a month in celebration of safe cycling.
The London Critical Mass ride has taken place on the last Friday of every month since April 1994.
The main legal issue in the appeal was whether the monthly rides were "commonly or customarily held", in which case they were exempt from the notification requirements of the Public Order Act 1986.
The legal action was a result of a leaflet handed out by police at the Critical Mass ride in September 2005, stating: "These cycle protests are not lawful because no organiser has provided police with the necessary notification. Your participation in this event could render you liable to prosecution."
Police lawyers had argued that the rides were not "commonly or customarily held" because, although they started at the same time from the same place on the South Bank, they did not follow the same route.
Therefore, police were entitled to advance notice of the route for the avoidance of public disorder and traffic disruption.
But Lord Phillips ruled today that the ride was a "customary procession", even though it did not follow the same route.
And the evidence showed the Met were usually able to police the ride without difficulty.
Lord Phillips added that an offence under Section 11 of the Act was only committed if the organisers of an event failed to comply with a prior obligation to give details of an intention to hold a "public procession".
Since Critical Mass had no organisers and there was no such obligation, the rides were not unlawful.
The police contended that, if a similar event were to be started elsewhere in the UK, it would be unlawful without prior notice of the route.
Lord Phillips said the Green and White Papers which led to the 1986 Public Order Act were at pains to underline the importance of the right to hold processions and the need for any restrictions to respect that right.
"It is inconceivable that Parliament could have intended, by a sidewind, to outlaw events such as Critical Mass," he said.
Lords Rodger, Carswell and Brown and Baroness Hale also allowed Mr Kay's appeal.
Heard a programme on the Radio about this a month or so ago - interesting listening, but I am afraid the stereotypes of the cyclists came shining through. Interesting legal positions on each side, but the cyclists just came across as anti-establishment and only interested in enforcing their brand of environmental direct action on the unsuspecting public!
Maybe it was careful editing, but that is how it came across and it looks like we are stuck with this!
Maybe it was careful editing, but that is how it came across and it looks like we are stuck with this!
off_again said:
Heard a programme on the Radio about this a month or so ago - interesting listening, but I am afraid the stereotypes of the cyclists came shining through. Interesting legal positions on each side, but the cyclists just came across as anti-establishment and only interested in enforcing their brand of environmental direct action on the unsuspecting public!
Maybe it was careful editing, but that is how it came across and it looks like we are stuck with this!
How long then before monthly becomes weekly and then daily?Maybe it was careful editing, but that is how it came across and it looks like we are stuck with this!
Brilliant, another reason to post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAOHhV1EFe4
I'm happy that they are allowed to protest
and that others are also allowed to protest
Do not take aware their right, the gov't seems keen enough to remove out rights and a;; of us should uphold teh right to hold peaceful protests, even if we disagree with their views.
and that others are also allowed to protest
Do not take aware their right, the gov't seems keen enough to remove out rights and a;; of us should uphold teh right to hold peaceful protests, even if we disagree with their views.
old_dead_dude said:
I disagree with their view, but I'll defend with my life their right to air it, or something similar.
Mon Ami Mate said:
off_again said:
Heard a programme on the Radio about this a month or so ago - interesting listening, but I am afraid the stereotypes of the cyclists came shining through. Interesting legal positions on each side, but the cyclists just came across as anti-establishment and only interested in enforcing their brand of environmental direct action on the unsuspecting public!
Maybe it was careful editing, but that is how it came across and it looks like we are stuck with this!
How long then before monthly becomes weekly and then daily?Maybe it was careful editing, but that is how it came across and it looks like we are stuck with this!
Is it just because its people on bikes which the PH masses seem to hate?
t job if it's meant to be making a pointMon Ami Mate said:
off_again said:
Heard a programme on the Radio about this a month or so ago - interesting listening, but I am afraid the stereotypes of the cyclists came shining through. Interesting legal positions on each side, but the cyclists just came across as anti-establishment and only interested in enforcing their brand of environmental direct action on the unsuspecting public!
Maybe it was careful editing, but that is how it came across and it looks like we are stuck with this!
How long then before monthly becomes weekly and then daily?Maybe it was careful editing, but that is how it came across and it looks like we are stuck with this!
IME, Critical Massers are indeed the mentalist lentalist type, often seen riding recumbents ("they're so efficient, don't you know"), and their demos are most annoying if you get caught in one.
That said, since NuLab seem intent on turning England into a prison, I find myself in support of anything which sticks it to the government and/or reinforces our right to protest.
AbarthChris said:
Mon Ami Mate said:
off_again said:
Heard a programme on the Radio about this a month or so ago - interesting listening, but I am afraid the stereotypes of the cyclists came shining through. Interesting legal positions on each side, but the cyclists just came across as anti-establishment and only interested in enforcing their brand of environmental direct action on the unsuspecting public!
Maybe it was careful editing, but that is how it came across and it looks like we are stuck with this!
How long then before monthly becomes weekly and then daily?Maybe it was careful editing, but that is how it came across and it looks like we are stuck with this!
Is it just because its people on bikes which the PH masses seem to hate?
AbarthChris said:
Is it just because its people on bikes which the PH masses seem to hate?
Close.Its because they will generally be pious sanctimonious gits who hate drivers and think that just because they choose to get pissing wet and miserable on their commute while ignoring all the rules of the road, that we should too. As Pistonheaders, this sort of attitude from the millitant wing of the cyclist bretherin should be mocked and derided at all times.
Mon Ami Mate said:
AbarthChris said:
Mon Ami Mate said:
off_again said:
Heard a programme on the Radio about this a month or so ago - interesting listening, but I am afraid the stereotypes of the cyclists came shining through. Interesting legal positions on each side, but the cyclists just came across as anti-establishment and only interested in enforcing their brand of environmental direct action on the unsuspecting public!
Maybe it was careful editing, but that is how it came across and it looks like we are stuck with this!
How long then before monthly becomes weekly and then daily?Maybe it was careful editing, but that is how it came across and it looks like we are stuck with this!
Is it just because its people on bikes which the PH masses seem to hate?
Alternatively, loads of tiny tin-tacks or finely crushed glass in strategic places, along with a van charging £60 for a puncture repair kit...
Only joking!
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff