Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Thread for discussing SOCPA lone mass demo with Mark Thomas

T

TeeJay

New Member
Seeing as the annoucement thread SOCPA lone mass demo with Mark Thomas got locked due to this rule:

This forum is strictly for announcements. If you want to debate forthcoming protests, please take it to the protest/direct action/activism forum. Any debate on threads on this forum will be deleted.
Click to expand...

...here is a thread, in the correct forum, so that people can talk about the demo/action without fucking up the thread and getting it locked. :mad:
 
I was interested in asking about this bit of the original post (it was large so I won't quote the whole thing - see the link about):

Badger Kitten said:
If you apply for permission 6 days in advance for a lone protest (ie 1 person) they cannot refuse permission
Click to expand...

I asked:

"Are you sure about this bit?"

I thought the police could refuse permission for demos within the 'exclusion zone' for a whole range of reasons including, for example, "public safety" (whatever that means)?
 
In Bloom said:
Yeah, make the police sign on the bottom of some forms. That'll show the bastards :cool:
Click to expand...
Do you think the police will actually give permission for lots of "lone protests" to be held at the same time?
 
TeeJay said:
Do you think the police will actually give permission for lots of "lone protests" to be held at the same time?
Click to expand...
They may well do.

Is there any particular reason that they shouldn't?

Edit: By which I mean, is there any reason why they should want to prevent it in this instance?
 
Badger Kitten said:
well, according to the letter of the law, they should do so.
Click to expand...
I don't see which bit of the law says the police need to give permission. Neither do I see which bit of the law says that they have a different rule for 'sole protestors' as opposed to groups. The full text is here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2005/20050015.htm (see sections 132 to 138).

The police seem to have various 'get-out clauses':

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
section 134 (Authorisation of demonstrations in designated area)
part 3:

(3) In giving authorisation, the Commissioner may impose on the persons organising or taking part in the demonstration such conditions specified in the authorisation and relating to the demonstration as in the Commissioner's reasonable opinion are necessary for the purpose of preventing any of the following-

(a) hindrance to any person wishing to enter or leave the Palace of Westminster,
(b) hindrance to the proper operation of Parliament,
(c) serious public disorder,
(d) serious damage to property,
(e) disruption to the life of the community,
(f) a security risk in any part of the designated area,
(g) risk to the safety of members of the public (including any taking part in the demonstration).

link: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2005/50015--l.htm#134

The police are also allowed to specify:

(a) the place where the demonstration may, or may not, be carried on,
(b) the times at which it may be carried on,
(c) the period during which it may be carried on,
(d) the number of persons who may take part in it,
(e) the number and size of banners or placards used,
(f) maximum permissible noise levels.

So maybe they could legally get away with specifying:

...a spot 1km away from parliament square, of a one metre square
...a very sort time period (eg 1 minute)
...one person (obviously not a problem for a 'sole protestor')
...no placards
...complete silence

Which would more or less be equivalent to not giving permission at all surely?
 
In Bloom said:
Edit: By which I mean, is there any reason why they should want to prevent it in this instance?
Click to expand...
I don't know what goes thoprugh the Met's brains, so I can't say why they may or may no choose to give authorisation.

I am asking if they are legally obliged to and what the exact legal difference is for 'sole protestors'.
 
Well, why don't we all go down there with *TV cameras and see?

Which is the *point of Mark Thomas fronting it.

I think it is a good wheeze and just attempting it is a pro-democratic thing to do, and then we can all go to the pub and laugh at loon laws.
 
Crushing futility and irrelevance makes you more like to do something?

There's an interesting attitude.
 
In Bloom said:
Crushing futility and irrelevance makes you more like to do something?

There's an interesting attitude.
Click to expand...

Sorry - possible grammar slip.

I meant:

your attitude makes me more likely to do it.
 
You organise your political activity around contradicting people on the internet? Odd way of going about things to be sure, but whatever swings your 3 wood.
 
In Bloom said:
Why bother though? It won't make a blind bit of difference one way or the other.
Click to expand...

...and contributing to a magazine that only a handful of people read, does what exactly?
 
Blagsta said:
...and contributing to a magazine that only a handful of people read, does what exactly?
Click to expand...
Not much.

I never claimed that writing a few articles would force the government to reverse entire parliamentary acts though, so what, exactly, is your fucking point?
 
My fucking point dear boy, is that all you do is slag off others for not being politically effective when you appear to do fuck all yourself.
 
TeeJay said:
I don't see which bit of the law says the police need to give permission. Neither do I see which bit of the law says that they have a different rule for 'sole protestors' as opposed to groups.
Click to expand...
My reading of the text you posted up would be that it'd be virtually impossible for them to attempt to ban a lone protestor from staging a protest under this legislation, or to impose restrictions as they'd be very hard pused to show that one protestor was capable of causing any of the following by themselves

(a) hindrance to any person wishing to enter or leave the Palace of Westminster,
(b) hindrance to the proper operation of Parliament,
(c) serious public disorder,
(d) serious damage to property,
(e) disruption to the life of the community,
(f) a security risk in any part of the designated area,
(g) risk to the safety of members of the public (including any taking part in the demonstration).

so in effect the law should pretty much guarantees that any lone demonstrator will be given permission to demonstrate (unless the police reckon they'd be likely to get out an RPG and fire it at parliament if they got too close of course:rolleyes: )

IMO, and I ain't a lawyer;)
 
But surely the "problem" doesn't have to be solely caused by the person by themselves?

For example, they could claim that someone's demo was likely to provoke "serious public disorder" by other people or that there was a "risk to the safety of members of the public (including any taking part in the demonstration)" again, arising from other people getting involved somehow.

Moreover, if the police can see that lots of people have applied for demos at the same time and place, they could argue that there was a "risk" due to the large numbers. Maybe they would give permission on a first-come-first-served basis, but deny anyone else permission to have a demo at the same time due to having already granted a number of previous permits.

The police have turned down permission for demos/marches if the route of two demos cross each other for example, or if there is something else going on in the area (eg a large public event).

I still can't see any specific law that says they have to grant permission or that a sole protestor gets any more rightsin this regard than a group of protestors.
 
TeeJay said:
But surely the "problem" doesn't have to be solely caused by the person by themselves?

For example, they could claim that someone's demo was likely to provoke "serious public disorder" by other people or that there was a "risk to the safety of members of the public (including any taking part in the demonstration)" again, arising from other people getting involved somehow.

Moreover, if the police can see that lots of people have applied for demos at the same time and place, they could argue that there was a "risk" due to the large numbers. Maybe they would give permission on a first-come-first-served basis, but deny anyone else permission to have a demo at the same time due to having already granted a number of previous permits.

The police have turned down permission for demos/marches if the route of two demos cross each other for example, or if there is something else going on in the area (eg a large public event).

I still can't see any specific law that says they have to grant permission or that a sole protestor gets any more rightsin this regard than a group of protestors.
Click to expand...

Look, instead of trying to find out why it can't happen, why don't you turn up and find out?

Anyone else thinking of doing this?
 
TeeJay said:
But surely the "problem" doesn't have to be solely caused by the person by themselves?

For example, they could claim that someone's demo was likely to provoke "serious public disorder" by other people or that there was a "risk to the safety of members of the public (including any taking part in the demonstration)" again, arising from other people getting involved somehow.

Moreover, if the police can see that lots of people have applied for demos at the same time and place, they could argue that there was a "risk" due to the large numbers. Maybe they would give permission on a first-come-first-served basis, but deny anyone else permission to have a demo at the same time due to having already granted a number of previous permits.

The police have turned down permission for demos/marches if the route of two demos cross each other for example, or if there is something else going on in the area (eg a large public event).

I still can't see any specific law that says they have to grant permission or that a sole protestor gets any more rightsin this regard than a group of protestors.
Click to expand...

you know what teejay is any of this relevant?

simple fact of the matter is that the police will say clearly fuck it... go on have your demo all off you sole protestors, if this action swamps the police and relevant parties with unmanagable papaer work even if it's to say no fuck off you cannot demo then it means they have to respond to each person this means that a significant resource is expended to the point where this legislation becomes to expensive to police at which point it's enforcment will for the large part be abandoned if it's abandoned then it wil fall into disuse and it can then after a period start the ardiuous process of removing it from statue...

whether or not people will get to have their single issue demos is irrielvent the demonstration in effect is itself the handing in of the forms after all people are just helping police with their enquires and forefilling their legal obligation, it's not a demonstration it's a que to hand in your forms...

It's about subverting the current legistlation to highlight it's stupidity...

why on earth you have decided to become all pedantic about the cause of the indiviual protests and whether they will be allowed i don't understand... you seem to have msised the point...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cm.london.30
a 30th Birthday Anniversary ride for Critical Mass London - Sunday 14/04/24
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
cm.london.30
cm.london.30
Orang Utan
Anti-Racist Counter Demos Summer 2024
2 3 4
Replies
108
Views
4K
ghost boy
ghost boy
Jeremiah18.17
Council Section 114 Lobbies and Demos
Replies
0
Views
281
Jeremiah18.17
Jeremiah18.17
hitmouse
Shut Manston down demo, Sunday 6 November
Replies
2
Views
422
hitmouse
hitmouse
furluxor
Stop Rwanda deportations demo - all UK
Replies
1
Views
471
hitmouse
hitmouse
Back
Top Bottom