Democratic right /Public eyesore?

[Marmora Man]

Walking past Parliament Square recently I was, as usual, disappointed to see the untidy tent anti war village camped on its pavements opposite the House of Commons and the unsightly fencing and security guards deemed necessary to prevent another "Democracy Village" taking over the full square.

The libertarian in me applauds the right to demonstrate in any and every way. The lover of London in me abhors the deterioration of a much visited part of London's heritage.

QUESTIONS:

1. Should the "permanent" protesters be allowed this freedom to establish camp on the pavements? Anyone else trying to set up, say, a permanent whelk stall or hot dog stand on that square would be moved on by Police & Council.

2. Does the permanent presence enhance or detract from the force of the protests? The MPs, civil servants and regular passers by are inured to their presence and probably don't reflect upon the protester's messages on passing.

3. What limits could or should be placed on democratic protest.

I am not a supporter of Labour's legislation limiting protest within 1,000 metres of the Houses of Parliament and did protest it. Nevertheless, I do not like what I see in Parliament Square, I doubt its effectiveness and I'd prefer to see the square and its surroundings available, without fencing, for the general public to wander around.

Edited to correct iPad generated errors.

[mockney piers]

well the implicit question in the title, should we have the right to remove a protest just because it's an eyesore, I would have to say no.

In terms of permanency I don't suppose anyone should have that right, there may be plenty of others who would like to use the space to air their views, so I'd be pro limited regulation for any protests lasting over a certain period of time, whatever is sensible, be it 24 hours or a week.

I have to say that I was never inured to the Tamil protests that lasted several weeks last spring. I found them deeply poignant and heart-breaking and of course ultimately futile.

Colombo had set upon a cynical and brutal strategy to end a horrible 30 odd year civil war, and nothing London was going to say was going to have any effect frankly.

In the light of Libya we (the international community) now seem surely obligated to step in whenever a government brutalises it's own people. The fact that we've fallen at the first Syrian hurdle suggests that in fact no precedent has been set, merely a blip. But I digress.

[david_carnell]

I'm pretty much in the same quandry as MM.

Whilst I have no desire to curtail protests or demonstrations, years on, this one is achieving nothing and spoling one of the capital's most pleasing aesthetics.

Yet the very fact that a man is exercising his democratic right, outside the home of democracy has a poignancy that is hard to resist.

Is Brian Haws campaigning to bring troops home? Will he leave when that happens? I'm tempted to leave him be till then and only then instigate forcible removal and perhaps consider time-limited controls on protests in that area. As MP says - perhaps a week? That would seem a sensible amount of time.

[Jeremy]

Of course it's an eyesore, but being in such a high profile location, it reminds the world that not all of the British public agree with our dubious foreign policy. So I'm in favour.