[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[The Clamp]

As with all laws, it’s in the application of the law that makes the difference.

Trust me, police don’t want to give someone a criminal record for wearing a mask.

They will likely apply the law alongside existing laws.

I imagine if they ask someone to remove a face covering and they refuse, officers will likely issue a section 35 and order the person to leave the area for 24 hrs. Which is what they do already, as the law already states you can’t wear a covering to threaten or intimidate law abiding protesters.

Any law around the right to protest should always be examined and monitored but what this law is designed for is to allow others to go about the lawful act of peaceful protest without being dragged into civil unrest by masked goons. And I can pretty much guarantee that’s what will happen in practise.

 

[Baldseagull]

No need to wear a mask on a March or protest if you’re not planning on doing anything illegal.

I dunno, might be why Police in riot gear often cover their faces and lapel numbers at protests, don't want to get filmed twatting people, but being on an anti capitalism march or anything a bit left wing might well get you an MI5 file. Trade Unionists and animal rights protestors have been persecuted by the state in this country, Stephen Lawrence family and supporters, and other groups seen as embarrassing or subversive by the state or Police have been snooped on and smeared. I would think Foreign states like Israel and China probably have a good look at who is attending pro Palestine demos, and pro democracy in China demos in London too.

 

[Baldseagull]

As with all laws, it’s in the application of the law that makes the difference.

Trust me, police don’t want to give someone a criminal record for wearing a mask.

They will likely apply the law alongside existing laws.

I imagine if they ask someone to remove a face covering and they refuse, officers will likely issue a section 35 and order the person to leave the area for 24 hrs. Which is what they do already, as the law already states you can’t wear a covering to threaten or intimidate law abiding protesters.

Any law around the right to protest should always be examined and monitored but what this law is designed for is to allow others to go about the lawful act of peaceful protest without being dragged into civil unrest by masked goons. And I can pretty much guarantee that’s what will happen in practise.

I wish I had your faith in the Police.

 

[clapham_gull]

So Labour dumps the £28bn eco pledge - the one policy anyone has ever heard of - and there’s not a peep from the Starmer fan boys on this thread.. funny that

Not sure who the Starmer fans boys are. The majority of people in this country want the Tories put in the freezer for ten years whilst they sort themselves out.

Somebody said to me the other day when I was criticising the Government "but want about the alternative ?"

Well the clear alternative is the Tories out which is the alternative most people want.

Personally I'd be quite happy for a Government to tread water for a decade rather than one trashing the economy, wasting billions of pounds of money and picking fights with the vulnerable.

 

[The Clamp]

I wish I had your faith in the Police.

I don’t have unwavering faith in the Met. I have a lot of faith in Sussex police. I work front line with them and I know how reluctant they are to pursue things to the point where an otherwise law abiding person ends up with a criminal record for doing something a bit daft.

But I do happen to think any law like this introduced by a Tory government needs careful monitoring.

Best case scenario;

Only those in masks who are causing genuine issues will be asked to remove them.

Worst case scenario;

A diminishing of our human rights.


Again, it’s all in the application of the laws by the police.

I hope they apply them with a fair and steady hand.

 

[Baldseagull]

I'm pretty sure no one will end up in jail for a month unless they are repeat offenders.

As clamp said, there really is no need to be covering a face during a peaceful legal protest.

Depends on the protest, and who might be upset by it.

 

[Baldseagull]

I don’t have unwavering faith in the Met. I have a lot of faith in Sussex police. I work front line with them and I know how reluctant they are to pursue things to the point where an otherwise law abiding person ends up with a criminal record for doing something a bit daft.

But I do happen to think any law like this introduced by a Tory government needs careful monitoring.

Best case scenario;

Only those in masks who are causing genuine issues will be asked to remove them.

Worst case scenario;

A diminishing of our human rights.


Again, it’s all in the application of the laws by the police.

I hope they apply them with a fair and steady hand.

Given that most major demonstrations are held in London, it is the Met you most need to worry about.
That and whatever further laws Tories put in place, and given that they are already trying to give themselves the power to say unsafe is safe, despite what a court rules, and depart from the ECHR, without hinting at what Human rights legislation to replace it might look like. We know it will be designed to remove the rights of asylum seekers, rather than protect the rights of everyone.
Restricting and diminishing the rights of protest has been a theme of the last couple of years, it makes me consider why.

 

[Lever]

So Labour dumps the £28bn eco pledge - the one policy anyone has ever heard of - and there’s not a peep from the Starmer fan boys on this thread.. funny that

What is a Labour fan boy? Do tell.......

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Depends on the protest, and who might be upset by it.

A large number of protests over the past few years would have upset someone and 99percent of people mange to go without a mask.

The met have shown they are happy to let racism/damage happen on the day and sweep it up after, anything to help with this is a good thing.

 

[The Clamp]

Given that most major demonstrations are held in London, it is the Met you most need to worry about.
That and whatever further laws Tories put in place, and given that they are already trying to give themselves the power to say unsafe is safe, despite what a court rules, and depart from the ECHR, without hinting at what Human rights legislation to replace it might look like. We know it will be designed to remove the rights of asylum seekers, rather than protect the rights of everyone.
Restricting and diminishing the rights of protest has been a theme of the last couple of years, it makes me consider why.

I agree with you.

 

[nicko31]

Can you hear us, ClemFandango?

Need a poll to guess who ClemFandango really is?

 

[Gwylan]

Great 'Whatabouttery' for your, er, 42nd post on NSC .

Do you reckon that (in true Boris style) he had two posts ready to go: the one about Labour holding back on its commitment and the other about how Labour was going to pay for its commitment?

 

[ClemFandango]

Everyone knows the Tories are screwed. They deserve the boot. Starmer only has to stay schtum to walk the election. But then what? His leadership is built on sand. Hasn’t got a single point to make about the big issues except ‘we’re not the Tories’. He’ll be toast in 18 months

 

[Stat Brother]

I see what he did there.

 

[The Clamp]

Everyone knows the Tories are screwed. They deserve the boot. Starmer only has to stay schtum to walk the election. But then what? His leadership is built on sand. Hasn’t got a single point to make about the big issues except ‘we’re not the Tories’. He’ll be toast in 18 months

He has many points about the big issues and what the Labour Party intends to do about them.

You clearly need to widen your news sources. You seem to have fallen for the “he’s got no plan” lies.

Here you go, his plans for the big issues. And crucially, the desired outcomes and how they plan to get there.

You can disagree with the policies. You can question the outcomes. But you can’t say he has no plans for the issues. In fact, here they are….

Mission-driven government – The Labour Party

Labour has a long-term plan for Britain, with five missions for national renewal.

labour.org.uk

 

[nicko31]

He has many points about the big issues and what the Labour Party intends to do about them.

You clearly need to widen your news sources. You seem to have fallen for the “he’s got no plan” lies.

Here you go, his plans for the big issues. And crucially, the desired outcomes and how they plan to get there.

You can disagree with the policies. You can question the outcomes. But you can’t say he has no plans for the issues. In fact, here they are….

Mission-driven government – The Labour Party

Labour has a long-term plan for Britain, with five missions for national renewal.

labour.org.uk

Geebies VICTIM

 

[The Clamp]

Geebies VICTIM

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Everyone knows the Tories are screwed. They deserve the boot. Starmer only has to stay schtum to walk the election. But then what? His leadership is built on sand. Hasn’t got a single point to make about the big issues except ‘we’re not the Tories’. He’ll be toast in 18 months

How do you know that, if he's not saying anything?

 

[Springal]

Jesus wept - imagine if she was black and called Diane

 

[Bodian]

Yes - but the BBC are biased. They shouldn't be allowed to ask difficult questions.