to not understand why the High Court has ruled that Britain First can march in Luton today

[readingtoomuchintoit]

There have been injunctions placed on their behaviour during the march, but they can march.

Judging by their past intimidating behaviour in mosques, their online rhetoric and the very aggressive looking and sounding man and woman in charge (can't remember names), they are nothing but aggressive and hate spreading.

www.itv.com/news/anglia/update/2015-06-26/injunction-obtained-against-britain-first/

I suppose because they are not yet a banned organisation - although God knows they should be.
I'm hoping that whoever granted permission was acting within the confines of the law and had no option but to allow the march to go ahead.

Isn't it because everyone has the right of protest, association, freedom of speech etc? As a free society we can't begin to dictate who and who isn't allowed to do this.

This was debated on local radio yesterday. Apparently the police's attempt to stop them was the first time a new law has been used in this way, so I guess the court didn't agree it was an appropriate interpretation.

People in Luton are pretty sick of the constant marches from anti-Islam groups, whatever they claim their aim to be.

Their route should be kept a clear distance away from mosques, synagogues, Hindu temples or any other places of worship, or where worshippers are waiting to enter.
Also from hospitals, clinics, youth centres, DV refuges, houses etc

The right to free speech and peaceful demonstration has to be allowed, but it is not absolute and should not intrude into special areas where other people have a right to feel safe.

It's like the thread about the anti-abortion protestors: they should be allowed to demonstrate, but not around a clinic or to target individuals.

Paul golding and jayda fransen still have an injunction on them they just havent been banned from attending

We do not have unlimited free speech in this country. We are not America. The leaders of Britain First could certainly be found guilty of incitement. However, they seem to get way with it a lot.

Didn't the older group (EDL) led by Tommy Robinson die out and collapse into infighting? They used to march through Luton all the time. Hopefully, this new lot of idiots will go the same way.

Isn't it because everyone has the right of protest, association, freedom of speech etc? As a free society we can't begin to dictate who and who isn't allowed to do this.

This ^^

Free speech

If you are an advocate of free speech you can't pick and choose who it applies to no matter how hateful the bile they spew

As I understand it, free speech doesn't really exist as an absolute in the UK. Hence legislation against 'hate speech'.

Freedom of assembly is pretty important, and I don't want to see it curtailed.

This is a major issue every year in Northern Ireland, with the Orange Order. The parades commission was set up to police the marches, the route taken, the music played, etc.

As I said unlimited free speech is an American thing not a British thing. The Westboro Baptist Church would fall foul of various pieces of legislation.
When it comes to Britain First I find it amusing that they go on about protecting British culture but can't use the language.

It's the whole I don't agree with what you are saying, but believe absolutely in your right to say it thing.

Also, it's a bit like people who drive for miles with their indicator flashing are providing a fantastic visable signal that they can't really operate their vehicle and should be avoided at all costs. People on this march are providing a wonderful opportunity to the rest of us to ensure they aren't entrusted with any important decisions or positions of power/responsibility.

As a Lutonian I don't agree with them one little bit but I think allowing a restricted protest is the right thing, free speech and the right to protest are vitally important, even if that means allowing ignorant thugs the same rights.

It is disappointing that the cost of the policing seems to need to be covered locally though when many of these protesters are travelling in from all over the country - there aren't many local people who would want to take part, most of us like our town as it is.

I'm really pleased that the court overruled and stated that the ban that the Police wanted was an incorrect use of the law.

Not because I am a supporter of this particular group, but it shows that the courts are applying the law around "The right to protest" and not just granting the Police what they would like to happen.

I've taken part in demonstrations and Marches, as far back as the Poll Tax Marches (I'm in Liverpool), the Police were always overly heavy handed when the protest was against Thatchers policies.

There will be a lot of protesting, if some of the planned cuts are applied.

We need the law around demonstrating to be applied correctly and fairly.

I'm also very grateful that my adult DD is sitting on a beach in Cyprus having rejected Sousse.

Freedom of Speech.

You can't say that some groups can say what they like and others can't. That's not free speech.

They're vile, but as long as they stop short of directly inciting violence, I suppose they have to be allowed to march.

What TheNewStatesman said.

Looks like only a few of them have actually turned up anyway, what an absolute waste of everyone's time.