Talk

Advanced search

So, what rights are we about to lose because of the riots?

(79 Posts)
BornSicky Thu 11-Aug-11 21:33:04

Been noticing some interesting suggestions from Cameron et al as to what they think will help prevent riots in future, and it occured to me cynical, moi? that the riots might very well provide the Tories with the opportunity to bin several of our rights and invent a whole bunch of other laws that they want to implement anyway, but can now blame the rioters for the necessity of their introduction.

So far, I've heard Cameron say that he wants to ban face masks or facial coverings in public if a person is "presumed" or "potentially" involved in a criminal act... so that will be the banning of the burqa to follow then?

and now, he's talking about the police and government having (easier) access to what is currently private data from social networking companies. For anyone that's followed any of the Twitter cases or those related to Wikileaks, this is potentially a very dangerous encroachment on privacy.

So, what else are we going to lose?

The right to protest?
The right to gather in numbers in a public place?

As someone who saw the introduction of the Criminal Justice Bill, I know just how much we lost last time have never got back, so this really scares me.

GypsyMoth Thu 11-Aug-11 21:35:32

the right to wear a hoodie

meditrina Thu 11-Aug-11 21:48:07

The Tories are generally more liberal on civil rights than the other parties, and some of their reviews have been with the aim of rebalancing the "rights" between State and citizen in favour of the citizen. Also, they said so much in opposition about knee-jerk, ill-conceived legislation that it would be politically difficult for them to rush into anything now in Government.

It's still also rather early to be ascribing causes let alone prescribing remedies.

Access to data from companies is already permitted under RIPA. Suspension of mobile phone networks was used after 7/7. I am cynical about the actual function of this new working group though - I don't think it's been set up to reach a balanced view what should be done if incitement to criminality is reasonably suspected to be taking place. I think it's about finding the optimal way to shut them down and setting a RIPA-like procedure to let them do so.

DuelingFanjo Thu 11-Aug-11 21:48:16

perhaps we should all start wearing facial coverings in protest.

Pan Thu 11-Aug-11 21:48:20

the right to have a reasonable discussion on MN for a while.

usualsuspect Thu 11-Aug-11 21:49:29

What pan said

Desiderata Thu 11-Aug-11 21:51:55

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

HumphreyCobbler Thu 11-Aug-11 21:52:16

meditrina is right - The Tory party is traditionally more inclined to favour the rights of the individual than the left is. In fact I agree with the whole post, so I won't bother saying it again.

niceguy2 Thu 11-Aug-11 21:52:19

I agree with meditrina. The Tories (and the lib dems) are actually more protective of civil rights than our previous Labour government. I fear if Brown were still in charge, they'd dream up some draconian law so they can look tough.

As politics go, the banning of wearing face masks in public is pretty tame. In practice I can't see it making any difference as yobs who are intent on robbing a store are hardly going to say "Oh but I best not wear a mask as it's against the law...."

usualsuspect Thu 11-Aug-11 21:53:36

I'm pig sick of the I'm all right Jack attitudes tbh

midnightexpress Thu 11-Aug-11 21:53:41

Agree, OP, though also agree with meditrina that getting rid of our civil liberties is, sadly, not at all restricted to Tories - the Labour party have a rather shameful record on that front too in recent years. They used 'terror' as the threat, while the tories tell us they're protecting us from crims.

HumphreyCobbler Thu 11-Aug-11 21:57:15

I dislike both extremes of opinion usualsuspect.

breaktime73 Thu 11-Aug-11 22:04:14

Desiderata, your post is vile and I've reported it.

Desiderata Thu 11-Aug-11 22:09:29

Really?

I guess you lack a sense of irony, but I am, of course, referring to the looters as cunts, and not the OP.

If you have a problem with the word, you may have to erase a thousand years of British history.

Either way, either or.

breaktime73 Thu 11-Aug-11 22:10:38

oh bugger sorry Desiderata!!
I t hought you were throwing abuse at the OP <shrinks>

Desiderata Thu 11-Aug-11 22:12:30

I have already flicked a bogie at you, for which I apologize.

I believe we're all square now ... wink

breaktime73 Thu 11-Aug-11 22:13:19

tbh though I doubt the face covering ban will affect anyone actually intending to do a criminal act with face covered. 'Off to loot- oops but its' against the law to cover my face! Bugger!' Nope.

The only people who will be adversely affected are yes, women with face coverings and an awful lot of us on very cold days. It's unworkable.

OP, the right to protest will take a while but I think they'll get it...which will not stop protests, but will turn them mostly into riots....

breaktime73 Thu 11-Aug-11 22:14:22

<wipes bogie fr face>

did I really deserve that??
:D

BornSicky Thu 11-Aug-11 22:18:47

"As far as possible without surrender
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.

If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain or bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself."

Suggest a little of practice what you preach Desiderata.

BornSicky Thu 11-Aug-11 22:20:51

meditrina and niceguy

The Tories have an appalling record on the protection of civil rights and the CJB is a prime example of that.

HumphreyCobbler Thu 11-Aug-11 22:21:41

god how preachy you sound BornSicky

I am considering linking to a picture of some vomit to illustrate your name

edam Thu 11-Aug-11 22:23:05

Governments usually abuse situations like this to strip a few more civil liberties away. And I'm sure Cameron won't miss the chance. Even if he is only doing it to appease the Daily Mail (that bastion of upright values that was the biggest phone hacker according to the information commissioner).

As for the Tories being upholders of civil liberties, that's a very entertaining but sadly misplaced notion. Blair and Brown were very bad for civil liberties indeed but it's easy for Cameron to pose as a libertarian in opposition - once they are in power, politicians usually discover it's terribly handy to outlaw anything that causes them inconvenience.

Certainly Maggie declared martial law on the North during the miners' strike. She had the Met sent up from London, earning lots of lovely overtime and with instructions to kick as many heads in as they liked, and never mind who was on the receiving end. People had to call out our own local motorway cops to protect themselves from the Met. And the police set up entirely illegal road blocks and stopped anyone who looked a bit working class from travelling - one man we knew was prevented from attending his father's funeral in Nottinghamshire. There was no legal power to do that, no authority had been sought from parliament - but she told the cops to do it and they did.

I'd trust individual MPs of various parties to stick up for civil liberties - David Davis (can never remember which spelling but Halton and Howdenprice one), Peter Lilley, Bob Marshall Andrews (now sadly an ex-MP), and a few others. But you can't trust a whole party, of whatever colour.

BornSicky Thu 11-Aug-11 22:23:25

humphrey the quote is from the Desiderata.

HumphreyCobbler Thu 11-Aug-11 22:24:09

it sounds like you are only interested in blaming the tory party for this debacle rather than actually having a discussion.

Pan was right grin

CognitiveDissident Thu 11-Aug-11 22:24:29

It looks like The Human Rights Act is going to be watered down or axed. Scroll down to 12.43 in the link.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now