NationStates Jolt Archive

Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act in any place designated by the UK government a demonstration requires prior police authorisation.

Maya Evans was arrested and convicted for reading out names of soldier killed in Iraq in front of a war memorial link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4507446.stm)

So sensible requirements or erosion of rights.

Also I found this very funny to listen to http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/markthomas.shtml

direct listening link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/markthomas_crime)

Poll Coming

Seems to me she did not follow the proper procedures for such a protest.

Seems to me she did not follow the proper procedures for such a protest.

And I was vaguely hoping to start a debate over whether said procedures should exist:)

You need some sort of procedure otherwise everyone will be out protesting something and thus bring a danger to themselves. With such procedures in place, it ensures their protection.

So standing at a war memorial and reading out the names of those who have died in war is now a protest? I see...

"I want to march on Downing street protesting Police brutality"
"No."

Serious erosion of civil rights.

Erosion of Rights

Erosion of rights.

The right to lobby the government and express one's opinions are central to a functioning democracy. The only exception is when one advocates violence or a coup d'etat of the government, which the woman in question wasn't doing.

You need some sort of procedure otherwise everyone will be out protesting something and thus bring a danger to themselves. With such procedures in place, it ensures their protection.

All places not within Government designation seem to be fine.

So standing at a war memorial and reading out the names of those who have died in war is now a protest? I see...
My thoughts exactly.

There is simply too much room for abuse.

You need some sort of procedure otherwise everyone will be out protesting something and thus bring a danger to themselves. With such procedures in place, it ensures their protection.

Strangely it was never a problem before they put the law in.

The law was also passed to remove a specific protester - and it failed as his protest was in place before the law.



This is not really 'erosion'... more... 'a feakin' cliff falling into the ocean' of rights.

While arresting that guy was a bit over the top there is a need for such a law but only when it could lead to annoying other people. I don't want to be stopped on the way to work in my car because some people are protesting on the road, and I sure as hell don't want people shouting about how they want whatever in the middle of the night when I'm trying to sleep.

Reading out the names at a memorial should be fine unless it's at the same time as a funeral just a couple of meters away. All it takes is a little bit of common sense, really.

You need some sort of procedure otherwise everyone will be out protesting something and thus bring a danger to themselves. With such procedures in place, it ensures their protection.

Yes, the entire populace at large at once, out protesting and endangering themselves. Hmm.

I guess it really is easier to think inside the box, eh Corny?

You need some sort of procedure otherwise everyone will be out protesting something and thus bring a danger to themselves. With such procedures in place, it ensures their protection.

And people like you accuse the left of wanting a nanny state ... What if they want to risk their life to bring awareness to their cause ... plenty of brave people historically did it and it turned out to have helped a lot

And I was vaguely hoping to start a debate over whether said procedures should exist:)

Yeah exatcly what get s me is she was arretsed using the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act as a justifaction. what Serious organised crime? One lone person.

It is undoubtedly an eroison of civil liberty

While arresting that guy was a bit over the top there is a need for such a law but only when it could lead to annoying other people. I don't want to be stopped on the way to work in my car because some people are protesting on the road, and I sure as hell don't want people shouting about how they want whatever in the middle of the night when I'm trying to sleep.

Reading out the names at a memorial should be fine unless it's at the same time as a funeral just a couple of meters away. All it takes is a little bit of common sense, really.

Yeah but surly existing disturnbance of the peace, laws, or traffic laws can do the same job in the two examples you have given?

This stinks of Totalitarianism, to tell you the truth.

Maya Evans was arrested and convicted for reading out names of soldier killed in Iraq in front of a war memorial


She's lucky she wasn't in Washington DC or New York or she would have been pepper sprayed.

She's lucky she wasn't in Washington DC or New York or she would have been pepper sprayed.

She's lucky she wasn't in Paris or she would have been pepper-sprayed, gassed, beaten and perhaps even shot too.

She's lucky she wasn't in Paris or she would have been pepper-sprayed, gassed, beaten and perhaps even shot too.

I guess no country really wants a true and free democracy.

This stinks of Totalitarianism, to tell you the truth.

Ah - but with Totalitarianism comes protection, apparently. I'm none too clear on just who it's assumed is being "protected" by this, but I suggest we direct any and all inquiries to Corneliu over there - as he'll no doubt be a fountain of information.

I've never quite cottoned to the laws that say, "Fine, you can demonstrate, but it has to have a permit, you have to do it in the approved demonstration location, ...". Okay, you can't yell "Fire" in a theater, but why can't you demonstrate peacefully without a permit?

Is it a revenue thing? No demonstration without the proper amount of taxation?

I think it's time for some more civil disobedience. Read that list of names every day, until the government is shamed into repealing that regulation.

[edit]
This is just another example of how a single-purpose law, expediently passed to solve a particular problem are usually bad.

The new law was initially intended to remove Brian Haw, an anti-war protester who has camped in Parliament Square for four years.

But Mr Haw successfully fought off the latest attempt to evict him in the High Court, by arguing his protest pre-dated the legislation.


It's failed in its purpose, but now the government can use it to harass anyone.

I've never quite cottoned to the laws that say, "Fine, you can demonstrate, but it has to have a permit, you have to do it in the approved demonstration location, ...". Okay, you can't yell "Fire" in a theater, but why can't you demonstrate peacefully without a permit?

Is it a revenue thing? No demonstration without the proper amount of taxation?

I think it's time for some more civil disobedience. Read that list of names every day, until the government is shamed into repealing that regulation.
Well, this is the British government which passed the SCOPA, and shame is something they lack.

I think it's time for some more civil disobedience.


Thats what I'm talking about.

Well, this is the British government which passed the SCOPA, and shame is something they lack.
But bad publicity is something every politician hates.

I'd only support this law if it was designed for large-scale events. If you want to organise a music festival or an Orange March you have to notify the police in the interests of the safety of the participants and bystanders, so I feel the same should go for large protests (not one man demonstrations).

I'd only support this law if it was designed for large-scale events. If you want to organise a music festival or an Orange March you have to notify the police in the interests of the safety of the participants and bystanders, so I feel the same should go for large protests (not one man demonstrations).

Sometimes a small one man demonstration can easily turn into a huge protest.

Not without some element of organisation, though. Individuals in the street are unlikely to suddenly stop what they are doing to spontaneously join a protest.

What, you are not allowed to read names now?
.. how things change.. I used to like Tony Blair before the War.

People should be able to protest whatever they want.. But they should not block traffic.

What, you are not allowed to read names now?
.. how things change.. I used to like Tony Blair before the War.

People should be able to protest whatever they want.. But they should not block traffic.

That's funny, 'cause I think car drivers should be able to drive wherever they want, but they shouldn't get in the way of protestors.

I'd prefer a notification version. As long as you give, say 24 hours notice you can protest in many places (unsafe places like under a suspended piles of girders withstanding) and in return the police cannot stop your protest as long as it is not too large to hold up traffic (in that case the protest can continue for 12 hours and keep a group small enough not to hold up traffic until 24 hours after that).