Britain enacts blanket ban on protests

[stockholmer]

Source: Independent UK via Press TV

The British government has applied a blanket ban on all kind of marches and protest gatherings in London amid fears of violence and disorder.


The Home Office announced the blanket ban on all marches in five London boroughs for 30 days starting from September 2, the Independent reported.

Home Secretary Theresa May banned all marches in Tower Hamlets, east London, and four neighbouring boroughs in the capital for a 30-day period following a request from Scotland Yard Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin. The move comes amid fears of violence and disorder if the marches were allowed to go ahead.

"Having carefully considered the legal tests in the Public Order Act and balanced rights to protest against the need to ensure local communities and property are protected, I have given my consent to a ban on all marches in Tower Hamlets and four neighbouring boroughs for a 30-day period”, said the Home Secretary.

"I know that the Metropolitan Police are committed to using their powers to ensure communities and properties are protected”, added Theresa May.


snip

Read more: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/196108.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Oh that will go well... NOT

[roguevalley]

11. Truly. I remember the apartheid riots in trafalgar square every

night for years. Go, Brits!

[dipsydoodle]

48. Then you've either got a bad memory

or you've been reading too many comics.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. OMG! The shiny leather boot of fascism steps on the head of the UK!

Be curious to see how this goes over. Expecting a lead balloon.

[JDPriestly]

3. Fascists!

[RKP5637]

4. Gee, I guess that solves everything. Time to move onto the next problem, getting

the Tower of London back in shape for torture and horrible inflictions upon the body of one who might dare protest against TPTB. They've had a lot of experience in that, time to dig out the old manuals, I guess.

[TheWraith]

5. Somebody needs to tell them V for Vendetta is not an instructional manual.

Seriously, the UK could find their picture in the encyclopedia article for "creeping fascism."

[OHdem10]

6. Not good.

[Recursion]

7. Let me guess: the five poorest boroughs?

Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Newham... check

[dipsydoodle]

49. Unassociated

Tower Hamlets has a high Bangladeshi community amongst immigrant groups which is why the EDL target it. The adjacent Boroughs are by association.

[Jefferson23]

8. Protest's are not going to happen? hmmm.

The ban will also affect London's most important protest against the arms trade called “Disarm DSEi,” which has been organized by anti-war activists to urge the government to shut down the world's largest arms fair on September 13.

London is to host the world's biggest arms fair, Defense & Security Equipment International (DSEi), on 13-16 September at the ExCeL centre in East London's Docklands.

The fair holds every two years in London, this year more than 1200 arms companies will exhibit their deadly products to 25,000 buyers from across the world, including repressive and human rights abusing regimes.

“Europe Against Austerity” protest on October 1 would also be involved in the Home Office's blanket ban plan.

Leading British trade unions, social movements and progressive organisations have decided to stage a protest at European Conference against Austerity and Privatisation.

[Melinda]

38. Well, how fucking convenient!

...this is not going to end well.

[cui bono]

56. Thanks for that info, will be interesting to see what happens.

I hope it all stays peaceful but I fear the ban will make people more angry. Hope they keep it in check so that TPTB can't say that's why they had to ban protests.

[GoneOffShore]

9. Yet another reason to avoid the UK. Security cameras everywhere is another.

[rpannier]

10. Time to start an office pool

Day and hour the first protest/march will happen

I think they should have an "Ironic March"
They march on Sep 2 in favour of the new law

[Ken Burch]

44. They could have a "Riot For Order!"

n/t.

[drokhole]

12. "In moments of crisis, democratic nations act like the totalitarian...

...forgetting their democracy and forcing man to conform." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[Arctic Dave]

13. Well now I see why the were so helpful in trying to "free" the Libyans.

LOL, the irony is almost debilitating.

I wonder if the Libyans/Syrians/Egytians/Tunisians are feeling uncomfortable now that they see how their "saviors" treat their people the same when they protest. I wonder what kind of police crackdown they will have if they have a march?

[blkmusclmachine]

14. Soon to be exported to the US:

Freedumb isn't free!

[dipsydoodle]

54. Amazing

Didn't realise the UK's Public Order Act could be enforced in the USA. :sarcasm:

Come to that perhaps you'd like to give a full diseration here on our Public Order Act for the general benefit of all here who have no grasp of it.

[No Elephants]

81. Enacting a law like that would not be that difficult. Look how quickly the Patriot Act passed.

[bemildred]

15. Fools. nt

[Fearless]

16. They are foolish. I hope they've bitten off more than they can chew this time.

[aggiesal]

17. Hello England,...

this is Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

Why didn't I think of that? I'm sure it would have
worked as beautifully in Egypt as I'm sure it will
work in your country England.

[originalpckelly]

18. And now they have set the bellows to the fire, it is stoked, and it will burn brightly.

The rebellion will have a new legitimacy, and it will spread beyond people who were just trying to get what they deserved. It will move on to those who have some of what they want, but scoff at such lunacy.

[wxgeek7]

19. WTF?

Hmmm...wikpedia search on her...

oh...she's a conservative. I see now.

What an idiot.

[DeSwiss]

20. K&R

- They never learn.......

[christx30]

21. So what happens if 10,000 people

show up in force and have a non violent protest? Sure you'll have the fake violent protestors, the people that are practically hired guns that will start breaking stuff for no reason, to show their "anger" or whatever. But for the vast majority of people, the ones that show up to express their outrage at the fascism that their once great country has sunk to, what happens when 10,000 or 100,000 of them show up, in numbers that totally overwhelm the ability of the police to deal with the issue?
I think something like that is what is going to be required to push back fascism that is plaguing many countries. I don't think Britain is going to go to Mubarak route with mass slaughters of protestors and other innocents. They will probably arrest people by the hundreds, but that will pale in comparison to the rest of the protestors.

[Amonester]

29. If they have to arrest 1 million people, where will they bring them?

How about 2 million? Scotland Yard?

HEY! UK PEOPLE! HOW DO YOU LIKE BEING RULED BY THE FASCI$T con$ervative$ IN cahoot$ WITH mudeR-och & son$????

HOW ABOUT bank$teR$???

[christx30]

37. The reason the banksters

and the politicians have been getting way with their crimes for so long is that the people of the world have not stood up and said "NO!" in a single, clear voice, defying them.
We truly outnumber them. A few hundred thousand of them vs BILLIONS of us. All we have to do is stand. They can't arrest everyone.

[Melinda]

39. Outstanding post. n/t

[dipsydoodle]

58. We're not talking about people of the world here.

We're talking about the UK's general public in five ethnicly diverse London Boroughs who far outnumber both the EDL and the opposing counter group who wanted to march at the same time and the UK's Public Order Act which is there to protect the general public.

Whenever there is match up here like that the marches are banned if only to prevent some ultra serious head busting if nothing else. Simple searches would confirm that for you.

Perhaps you would rather the marches went ahead and the police stayed out of it completely in which case you could guarantee Mr Stanley would be there.

[DocMac]

22. There is nothing good to say!

Let the people decide who the assholes are...and weigh their fate.
So let the people decide who hangs from lamp posts. I've lost any feeling for the thieves of hearts and minds.

[ProgressoDem]

23. I don't really see the big deal...

They had quite a big problem with the violent protests. Some people on this board seem to be buying into the same slippery-slope logic that Santorum uses to get from gay people in love to man-dog relations.

[wickerwoman]

28. Except banning peaceful demonstrations isn't the top of a slippery slope...

it's 90% to the bottom.

A well-worn chestnut, but I guess you haven't heard it before: "Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little safety will end up with neither liberty nor safety."

[ProgressoDem]

60. I have heard that quote.

But I find it foolish. We already sacrifice a little liberty for safety in many areas of our lives. For example, speed limits. Or seatbelt laws. Or just about any protective regulation.

What you're giving me is a false choice.

[wickerwoman]

70. Driving as fast as you want and not wearing seatbelts aren't fundamental human rights.

Peaceful demonstration is. See the UN Declaration of Human Rights articles 18 and 20.

[No Elephants]

82. None of those involve Constitutional liberties, though.

[Hosnon]

92. The actual quote is not a false choice:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"Essential" and "temporary" are important qualifiers.

[Melinda]

40. See post #8

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4976202#4976219

[Occulus]

42. Go eat a bag of dicks. n/t

[ProgressoDem]

61. Haha, awesome.

Sounds delicious.

[defendandprotect]

24. Interference with Right to free assembly .... ?

[former9thward]

26. They don't have a First amendment in Britain.

[defendandprotect]

34. Oh - OK, then --- let them go to it -- !!!

[former9thward]

57. Obviously not my point.

With a 1st A you have protection, without one you don't. Apparently that concept is lost on you.

[No Elephants]

83. Are you saying statutes can't give protection. UK freedom of assembly is protected by

the Human Rights Act. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/946400.stm

Granted, it takes less to repeal a statute than to amend a Constitution, but I would not want to be the legislators who repeal the Human Rights Act, any more than I would want to be the legislators who pass a bill about amendment the Constitution to eliminate the Bill of Rights.

[mwooldri]

93. Human Rights Act would be very hard to repeal - period.

This Act had to be put into place as part of a European treaty. If the Human Rights Act was repealed, membership of the EU would have to be repealed too.

[dipsydoodle]

94. Not that this has anything much to do with the human rights act

Its the Public Order Act.

Mrs May said: "Having carefully considered the legal tests in the Public Order Act and balanced rights to protest against the need to ensure local communities and property are protected, I have given my consent to a ban on all marches in Tower Hamlets and four neighbouring boroughs for a 30-day period.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-secretary-bans-edl-march-2344538.html

You're from here so at least understand the situation as opposed to some of the half witted comments from those in the USA with no understanding whatsoever of the subject accompanied by an apparent complete inability to at least research the subject before making daft remarks.

If the choice was yours would you let the marches go ahead , given that the general public would stay well clear and as such no police presence would be necessary because there would be any public order to maintain ? Do please allow for the fact that at least Millwall's and Luton's firms would be out in force and I have a feeling you may well know who Mr Stanley is.

[Ken Burch]

45. How could they? In order to have a First Amendment

you actually have to have a constitution.

I wonder if they BBC will restore the "14 day rule" as well?

[bvar22]

59. We don't really have one in the USA anymore either.

Renmember the "First Amendment Compounds Zones"?



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[former9thward]

62. We have one of those in the city I live in.

It is a small square in front of the library, no shade (Phoenix weather).

[lovuian]

25. The more they oppress a people the more they will

revolt

it only will confirm that England is going toward Martial Law

[No Elephants]

84. Agree, but I wonder why that doesn't seem to hold true in the US?

[TygrBright]

27. um, yeah. That's gonna work... n/t

[AsahinaKimi]

30. Expect them..

[marmar]

31. ........

Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.

[LuvNewcastle]

33. This year's Guy Fawkes Day might be interesting.

If such a protest does occur, a solidarity protest here in the U.S. would be in order.

[Melinda]

41. Chilling.

[grahamhgreen]

32. "They hate our freedoms" - GWB - "Americans are asking ``Why...

Bush on 9-20-01

"Americans are asking ``Why do they hate us?''

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. "

[LetTimmySmoke]

35. Here's David Cameron's speech on the matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q-6H4xOUrs

[SnakeEyes]

36. totalitarianism... joy.

[Ghost Dog]

43. BBC: English Defence League march in London is blocked

Plans by the English Defence League (EDL) to march through five London boroughs have been blocked for 30 days by the home secretary, Theresa May.

The EDL wanted to demonstrate in Tower Hamlets, Newham, Waltham Forest, Islington and Hackney on 3 September.

The Metropolitan (Met) Police feared there could be violence and disorder if the marches went ahead.

Mrs May says all rallies, not just those by the EDL, are banned, to protect "communities and property".

/... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14684704


Fact is, the PressTV report looks to be rather more comprehensive than the BBC's at this point in time...

[dipsydoodle]

47. Here's the full original Independent link

which is dated Friday 26th - this isn't LBN as such. Press mentioned The Independent but didn't provide the link which is here :

Home Secretary bans EDL march.

"Legitimate protest is healthy. Violence and intimidation are not."

Scotland Yard said later that the request to ban marches had come from the rank below Mr Godwin.

A spokeswoman said: "The commander for the event makes a request to the assistant commissioner, who makes a written request to the Home Secretary.

"The authority to make this request can be delegated from the Commissioner to an assistant commissioner under section 15 of the Public Order Act 1986."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-secretary-bans-edl-march-2344538.html

Press subverted the headline : not the BBC's which was accurate.

A simple search will show similar bans in the past in Telford, Luton etc - all with the sole intention of preventing EDL marches. Here for example : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-14506941 Luton is quite common - I have a feeling their football firm is headed by an EDL member.

This only affects 5 of the London Boroughs, all in the east end, and actually makes sense to prevent a large EDL get together.

The alternative may have been to not impose the ban and not police the march either - just ask the public to stay off the streets. This "re-enactment" will provide a simple illustration of what the outcome of that might be. Just assume that both of these firms plus some London firms are all on the same side instead of being at each others throats just for a change. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APb7TeeN8Tg

Given the choice I'd go with the ban.

[Ghost Dog]

52. Yes, I agree. This is not at all uncommon,

and the PressTV headline is, to say the least, exaggerated, or, if you prefer, "sexed up".

[Ken Burch]

46. Will Ed Miliband allow the Labour MP's to attack this measure in the commons

or will he continue his "we promise not to ever stand for anything!" strategy?

The greatest irony here, of course, is that the Liberal Democrats, the party that used to claim to be the party of civil liberties(when their ideological forebears weren't jailing anti-World War One protesters or forcefeeding suffragettes on hunger strike)are part of this government and Nick Clegg, their leader, will probably order them to defend this.

[dipsydoodle]

50. The ban was at the request of Tower Hamlets own Mayor

Tower Hamlets: Met applies to prohibit EDL march.

The campaign to have a march planned by the English Defence League through one of London's most ethnically-diverse boroughs banned looks to have been successful. The Metropolitan Police has announced that it is "in the process of applying to the Home Secretary for authority to prohibit a march in five London boroughs for a period of thirty days." It will be effective from 2 September. More details of the application are promised later, including the names of the boroughs affected, one of which is undoubtedly Tower Hamlets. The application, which is highly unlikely to be turned down, applies to all marches in the boroughs concerned, including a planned counter-march against the EDL.

Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman has applauded the decision of acting Met commissioner Tim Godwin, thanked the "thousands of people" who supported the campaign and asked those who had planned "to march in support of our cause to stand down." He added, "You have helped us achieve our aim and we no longer need a mass show of support." Tower Hamlets borough police commander Paul Rickett is understood to be fully in support of the measure, although as an East London Advertiser report indicates, the possibility remains of rallies or static demonstrations taking place.

The EDL's eagerness to parade in Tower Hamlets arises from a false belief that the borough is seething with Muslim extremists plotting to infiltrate political institutions and destroy English cultural traditions. This is, of course, a ludicrous distortion of reality based on a fantasy version of the East End and its history. Sadly, it is hardly contradicted by selective, exaggerated and simplistic reporting by some journalists. The area has even been described as an "Islamic Republic," when it is plainly no such thing.

These are sensationalist simplifications of an extremely complex picture. They may generate marketable media product, but by neglecting such crucial factors as the wider story of Bangladeshi Londoners' long-running community struggles, the role of competing groups within the Tower Hamlets Labour Party and the intricacies of local Muslims' social and political activism they obscure far more than they claim to reveal. They also do more harm than good to a part of the capital that has many social problems and where maintaining what are generally good community relations can require considerable subtlety and skill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2011/aug/25/met-police-apply-to-prohibit-edl-tower-hamlets-march

[JackRiddler]

55. Well it's okay, it's not like that's Assad or Gaddafi banning protests. Long as it's the UK!

[heliarc]

51. Waiting....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bDY0DfEjmo&feature=related

[JackRiddler]

53. It's okay, it's the UK. It's not like it's Egypt or China or somewhere.

I'm sure they have their legitimate reasons for a dictatorship to protect their superior, democratic rule of law.

[lunatica]

63. Well that'll surely fix the root causes of the protest marches

Just make it illegal to object and everything will be fine.

[dipsydoodle]

64. Would you prefer them to go ahead then ?

Before you answer you may care to look into some of the background above.

OK for them to go ahead without police presense too and if so what should be done about Mr Stanley ?



Trust me - everything you have ever seen or read about out football firms understates the situation. Some of those firms have got EDL either leading them or in them.

[lunatica]

65. I was talking about the root causes

What are you talking about?

[dipsydoodle]

66. You said

"making it illegal to object"

As is the case with most here you attempting to discuss a subject on which you have little or no knowledge spurred on by a subverted headline which Press changed from its original.

[lunatica]

67. My, you have a superiority complex

Obviously making it illegal to object must be OK with you. You have a right to your opinion.

[dipsydoodle]

73. Nope

but I am English and so may understand the situation better than you.

The actual object here was stopping the EDL from marching at the same time as their opposition in the ethnically sensitive area of Tower Hamlets. Such marches have been stopped on all other occasions mainly to protect their opposition from harm which I believe to be for the overall good.

[Xithras]

68. See, here's the thing...

Have a protest over something I don't care about, and I'm going to ignore it and go about my daily business.

Have the government tell you that you're not allowed to protest, and I'm going to be there with my torch, pitchfork, and all the friends I can convince to come with me (and I'll be trying REALLY hard). Even if I don't care about...or even DISAGREE WITH...the thing you're protesting.

The most important protests to attend are those that the government tells you you're not permitted to attend.

[TalkingDog]

69. Ruh-Roh

[Odin2005]

71. The UK is the most authoritarian state in Western Europe.

[dipsydoodle]

72. And you know that how ?

Been reading comics ?

[Odin2005]

75. Because it's the truth.

[StarsInHerHair]

74. well technically then, they should protest on the Queen's front lawn

wherever she is at that moment. No ban on that

[dipsydoodle]

89. Take care of what you wish.

Off street so no risk to the public, nothing to loot or vandalise on open private land and no need for police presence.

Just let the English Defense League and their many groups of opposors fight it out in the old fashioned way with fists, clubs and knives whatever. :sarcasm:

The EDL would get a real kick out of that.

[krabigirl]

76. holy crap. the UK is going full-on Orwellian.

[Ken Burch]

77. Well, that was Orwell's home country

And remember...Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia!

[No Elephants]

85. Eastasia.

[Ken Burch]

90. Them, too.

n/t.

[Unvanguard]

78. So is there a source for this other than Press TV? n/t

[dipsydoodle]

80. See post #47

Press got it from The Independent, didn't provide a cross link and changed the headline giving an initial impression it was the whole of the UK - its not, its not even a quadrant of London. Its part of London which is more ethnically diverse than the rest and so gets targeted by the English Defense Leaque for marches to wind people up and cause trouble.

[Unvanguard]

88. Thanks. I missed that when I looked through the thread.

You're right, the Press TV article is clearly distorted.

[ZombieHorde]

79. I wonder what the result will be.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

86. Perhaps a ban on mob violence and vandalism would help ...

It might even be almost as effective as our "War on Drugs".

:hi:

[dipsydoodle]

87. Just to give you a clue

this film clip depicts a pre-arranged fight between two football firms http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APb7TeeN8Tg

Green Street was based on fact - for GSE read ICF. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_City_Firm
Everything you may have read about our football firms understates the situation. Now imagine those two firms are on the same side and at least another 3 firms join them. Then match that lot against those opposing the English Defence League and remove police presence. What do think the result would be ?
If you wonder why I say "remove police presence" you can't have it both ways.

The background to the ban is prevent the EDL and their opposers both marching in a sensitive area of London and its adjacent boroughs. Its' not a nationwide ban although it is a common event whenever EDL marches are involved.

[truthisfreedom]

91. Love, reign o'er me...

sigh.