Vigil for Sarah Everard

[Sephiroth]

"'m not suggesting that this will happen)"

oh I wouldn't say we have to eat long for that to be on the agenda. with plenty on here supporting it

[DuncanW]

Priti Patel was a longstanding advocate on reinstating the death penalty. She changed her public position, and would have been under pressure to do so as her political career progressed but who knows what she really thinks about this.

[diable rouge]

There's a direct correlation between the hard right Brexit we ended up with and what we're seeing now and likely to see more of in the coming years. It's laughable (or else you'll cry) seeing some Brexit voters express shock at this Bill passing. What did they expect would happen after clapping and cheering through all the stuff that happened in order to ''get Brexit done'' including the unlawful proroguing of Parliament? These Brexit voters scoffed when it was said this is how authoritarianism can come about, yet here we are, another step down that road.

We can also put to bed this idea that Johnson is a 'liberal at heart' and that once Brexit is done we'll see 'the real Boris'. He's a political opportunist, it paid him to appeal to the liberal London demographic when running for Mayor, it now pays him to pander to the nationalistic/populist right.

And in case you didn't already know this, we've also learnt from this Bill that the so-called 'libertarians' on the right are nothing of the sort, and the same applies to the 'free-speechers', not a squeak from them. Where were 'freedom-loving' Tory backbenchers like Steve Baker who were opposed to lockdown saying it was an infringement of civil liberties?

I think most rational and pragmatic people understood why we had to lockdown and that it's only a temporary measure to get on top of the virus spread. Yet when we have an actual permanent loss of a civil liberty, they say nothing.

A lot of things were ignored/dismissed under the umbrella of 'get Brexit done' and this does feel like a similar exercise, this time under the umbrella of Covid/Lockdown. The Gov are fully aware of this, they have never liked scrutiny of any kind, hence the rush to get it through quickly.

The optimist in me says that this Bill will only be properly tested and opposed once lockdown ends and the vaccine effect kicks in, and we get back to some sense of normality. It could easily become this Gov's Poll Tax moment, but equally it could get clapped and cheered through by the cap doffers...

[JohnL]

He chose brexit loyalists above talent for his cabinet - and I don't think anybody has been sacked whatever they do.

[JohnL]

Oh sorry - I forgot Cummings and Caine were sacked - but that was by Carrie.

[Jules-and-Boo]

yes - they have free reign to do what they want, with very little accountability. It's very worrying.

I hope that we at least get a non Tory mayor, to prevent a full dictatorship

[TheCat]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Bill has passed which takes away right to

> protest and makes it illegal.

>

> Where is the outrage ?

It doesnt really do that though, does it? I think if one is outraged or not depends on if you think that clauses like 'severe annoyance' are the thin end of the wedge to further limits to protest. It definitely is too vague a term for my liking, and I am not a fan of the protest aspects of the bill. But I imagine the lack of outrage from many people is that tey feel that if used responsibly (a big if of course) then they are supportive of not having groups like XR completely disrupt people's lives while they go about their protest....

[TheCat]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There's a direct correlation between the hard

> right Brexit we ended up with and what we're

> seeing now and likely to see more of in the coming

> years. It's laughable (or else you'll cry) seeing

> some Brexit voters express shock at this Bill

> passing.

You're right, it is laughable...that you have found a way to conflate these two entirely unrelated things.....

[JohnL]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> that clauses like 'severe annoyance' are the thin

> end of the wedge to further limits to protest. It

That's the "Get Steve Bray" part of the bill - he had an amplifier in yesterdays tweet :)

I remember one guy protested in a tent (about the war) all they way through Blairs PMship and then Gordon Brown had him removed within days.

[Jules-and-Boo]

yes - I think it's the opening for much more restriction.

There is a difference between a peaceful protest and a riot.

Our right of protest should not be reduced on the back of the other.

There is a fine balance and one group can change the dynamics, just as the police can.

It doesn't mean that all protests should be covered, just because one person may find them annoying.

[TheCat]

[Blah Blah]

The problem with the protest aspects of the bill is that it opens the door to a subjective interpretation of the law. Police already had the powers to shut down protest, with the use of section and dispersal orders. They were just always slow to use them. And if the government thinks this Bill will stop the kinds of protest they don't like, they are dreaming. BLM and XR are led by hardened and very organised activists, who don't care one bit about the law on protest and disruption. And when government starts the process of clawing back money ot pay of the debt, the unions will be back to organising the protests that attract tens of thousands. Try telling people in those kinds of numbers where they can march and protest. Police don't have the numbers to stop those.

So who will these new rules be effective against exactly? The lone protesters that makes themselves a regular feature outside Parliament, that's who. Smaller protest groups that have to break the rules in order to get noticed.

This is a dog whistle move from government. The nonsense around statues and memorials is a prime example. Vandalism is already covered under criminal damage legislation. Four people would not be currently being prosecuted for the Bristol Statue toppling if that were not the case. Patel makes the mistake of thinking long sentences deter people who act in the heat of the moment. She couldn't be more wrong.

As for the death penalty, Ian Hislop roasted Patel on that one when she made the same stupid argument around deterrence. This is how she thinks sadly.

[Chick]

Thanks, loved that vid!

[malumbu]

Aghh, if that wasn't bad enough it led me onto watching Hislop interview Katie Hopkins. How on earth will I get to sleep tonight..... (nightmares not fantasies....)