Disturbing footage from outside parliament

[Wildswim]

I think this is a disturbing incident and agree with the MP for raising it in parliament (not that anyone was there to listen).

A woman was manhandled into a van by a posse of policemen. She had been peacefully protesting and not causing any disturbance.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8983215/Tory-MP-rages-police-bundle-old-woman-van-protesting-outside-Parliament.html

LastTrainEast

It is true that rights are not absolute. But they do exist, and must be taken account of (not removed) by law. So yes, if the protest had been blocking access to an ambulance, or had taken the form of the involuntary immolation of a political enemy, the right to protest would not trump the police’s duty to protect life. But this isn’t a situation like that.

age has nothing to do with it

poor little old nazi let him off because hes nearly dead-no exactly

Many men were arrested during Extinction rebellions jaunt in Sept 20 for obstructing the highway, the standard tactic is to go floppy and compel police to use 4 officers per detainee as it is safest.

Not cooperating is a tactic of protesters because it takes 4 or more officers to carry them to a van. This breaks down the line of officers and ironically means more are diverted from regular duties.

Her age is irrelevant if you have a safer method of getting an uncooperative prisoner to a cell please let me know, will make my life easier

Whodathunkit You can disagree, but it is illegal to remove this right. This is an illegal law. I am not a lawyer, however I suspect that there is no such thing as an "illegal law

No, but there are ultra vires laws and enforceability can be challenged in the courts. Its a central tenet of the separation of powers. So for instance if the ECHR Article 15 has been contravened, then the restrictions would be illegal.

What has happened is that the UK and some other countries have sought Council of Europe approval from departing from the ECHR. But I cannot say if it would stand up if challenged in court. We know that Article 15 (and relevant case law on it and the Syraceuse Principles) basically say that the ECHR rights can only be departed from in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the entire population to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, ie for as short a time as possible.

In reality, what has happened is that so many governments have departed from the ECHR that effectively any party in government not following suit would render itself unelectable. I do not really think that a virus with an average age of death of 82.4 years meets the criteria for derogating in Article 15, but we are now in a situation where human rights have been easily swept aside in favour of worst case scenario non-evidence based predictions and rather a lot of fearmongering by government and media outlets, which has been very effective in silencing effective opposition.

Very disturbing to see.

Frumpety So what is a constitutional document ? Where would you expect the Coronavirus Act 2020 to be challenged ?

Magna Carta 1215
Bill of Rights 1689
Act of Union 1707
Scotland Act 1998
Human Rights Act 1998
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010
House of Commons (Disqualification) Act 1975
along with
common law doctrines such as parliamentary sovereignty and judicial precedents, rules of procedure, international treaties and various constitutional conventions.

Not a comprehensive list, but you get the gist.

Where would you expect the Coronavirus Act 2020 to be challenged

Legislation cannot be challenged in the British courts (unlike in other countries with formal constitutions and constitutional courts).

However, decisions based on legislation may be challenged in the courts. That would be the UK courts as well as the ECHR or, for the present at least, the Court of Justice of the EU.

He is only Tory I actually agree with and who talked any sense, and Incidentally Im sure there must have been plenty of big burly blokes protesting. Why didn't they man handle one of them. Why a defenceless old lady.
I think (IRW at least) examples like this is one of the reasons a lot of people do not have respect for the Police.

I bet they're loving all this bloody Covid. Well at least it saves them from having to deal with real criminals.

@Awwlookatmybabyspider

He is only Tory I actually agree with and who talked any sense, and Incidentally Im sure there must have been plenty of big burly blokes protesting. Why didn't they man handle one of them. Why a defenceless old lady. I think (IRW at least) examples like this is one of the reasons a lot of people do not have respect for the Police. I bet they're loving all this bloody Covid. Well at least it saves them from having to deal with real criminals.

Yeah cos that's all we do all day, sit around waiting for a law breaking granny to arrest.

@greenlandthemovie I didn't realise that if it was largely old people dying that the emergency provisions that are part of the EHRC are not applicable. What average age do deaths have to be for it to be an emergency that justifies departure from the EHRC?

More British people have now died from Covid than were killed in the Blitz.

Hopoindown31 case law and Article 15 indicate that the safety of the entire population as a whole have to be in imminent danger to justify suspension of human rights. And generally a suspension should be for a short term only.

I'm not arguing about the merits of the lockdown, I'm just pointing out what the law is believed to say with regards to it. I'm also not keen on competitive death rates.

These are unprecedented times. A lot of lawyers eg Lord Sumption are very much against such a loss of civil liberties.

This book might help some of you 😂

I think you misread my post.

PP's have said that police officers just do what they want.

I'm saying thyeg are enforcing the law.

I'm a police officer btw.

I absolutely did misread your post

apologies :)