To feel uneasy about how quiet everyone is about this happening?

[Maxnon]

Here are a few articles about a new bill going through, but really there isn't enough being spoken about it in the media.

Politics.co.uk: Anti-protest bill: Freedom dies in silence "The truly frightening thing was that they didn’t even argue for it. Over two days of debate and dozens of speeches, not one government minister actually defended the anti-protest powers in the new policing bill. Only one MP did."

The Economist: An illiberal bill to suppress protest in Britain

Guardian: 'Bill that curtails ability to protest in England and Wales passes second reading' "The DUP MP Gavin Robinson said: “The loose and lazy way this legislation is drafted would make a dictator blush. Protests will be noisy, protests will disrupt and no matter how offensive we may find the issue at their heart, the right to protest should be protected.”

Opinion: The Right to Protest is important in any credible democracy. Whilst I appreciate the current covid restrictions makes protest harder, in general, this should only be temporary until the pandemic slows down and we are back to some normality. A bill making potentially permanent changes to the Right to Protest makes me feel uneasy. Is that unreasonable?

@HopelessBlue192

Yanbu. And combine that with the curtailing of judicial review? Freaking terrifying.

Whaaatt?!!!

That is very serious. Especially how quiet they are. Whomever is behind that and supporting it deserves to be stuck by lightning!

Why is the BBC and all the media not up in outcry about this? I thought they were all about freedom of press and holding those with power to account?

@SquishySquirmy

I can understand why tighter laws might be needed to prevent protests which cause "serious disruption" to lawful activities, or "serious unease, alarm and distress" (eg, protestors shouting at women and staff outside abortion clinics.) But any law like that needs to be so carefully worded, so carefully drafted, to ensure that the threshold is high and that it can't be interpreted in such a way as to clamp down on reasonable, peaceful protest. The balance is so precarious and if any further restrictions are needed then they must be as minimal as possible, IMO. (Same with free speech in general).

That balance is missing from this bill.

This bill gives the Home Secretary the power to change the legal meaning of the term "serious disruption".
The problem, (like it often is) is going to be in how certain words are defined. And in who is in charge of those definitions.

Even if you love Priti Patel and completely trust her judgement in what is "reasonable",
What about the next Home Secretary and the next government?
What about the one after that?
And the one after that?

"Even if you love Priti Patel and completely trust her judgement in what is "reasonable",

Okay... who the hell is that person? Her mother?

@PerkingFaintly

Everyone worried he might roll in a communist dictatorship so voted for Boris.

To be more accurate, voted in a clownish frontman for Dominic Cummings, the proud Leninist.

BTW, Cummings was in front of a select committee this week asking for massive increase in funding "for science", free from all that dreadful bureaucracy nonsense.

By "science" he means his special Aria project which is exempt from freedom of information requests. And by bureaucracy he means regulations which hinder him hiring his mates and People Like Us; which hinder him handing out contracts to his mates' companies; and which hinder him sticking his hand in the cookie jar of our personal data.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56427280
www.digitalhealth.net/2020/12/palantir-awarded-23m-deal-to-continue-work-on-nhs-covid-19-data-store/

Dominic, there's a reason you keep finding regulation getting in the way of what you want to do: it's that those laws were written to protect us from people like you...

I know that sounds slightly off-topic for this thread, but actually I don't think it is. I don't believe that implementing a revolutionary's wetdreams was the reason Covid-lockdown was brought in and our data shared with Palantir. But I do think Cummings was first in a panting crowd of disaster-opportunists, sweeping in with ideas they had ready and waiting but which in normal times they'd have little hope of pushing through.

This bill is more classic disaster opportunism. TempsPerdue has it exactly right.

"Everyone worried he might roll in a communist dictatorship so voted for Boris."

No one in this house voted for JOhnson/The Tories. The Sun and the right-wing press conducted a horrific smear campaign against Corbyn, and some people were ignorant enough to believe that campaign. WHich just shows the state of the UK education system. Meh.

Johnson is the only world leader with a stage name. "BOris". He's a lying, manipulative bar steward. Tesco Trump he used to be called. A nasty, nasty piece of work. Does whatever he thinks will further his career, whilst not giving a single fuck about anyone else.

@MmeLaraque "Okay... who the hell is that person? Her mother?"

Someone she bullied into submission?

In some ways you can actually see how this bill is just a more formal way for her to be a Bully. But to everyone.

Because if the plebs can be distracted by "why is the UK's death toll so bad?" and Sturgeon lying to the Scottish Parliament, we won't ask annoying questions. Why are people still watching the BBC?

@PersimmonTree

Because if the plebs can be distracted by "why is the UK's death toll so bad?" and Sturgeon lying to the Scottish Parliament, we won't ask annoying questions. Why are people still watching the BBC?

Because they claim to be neutral, because its the BBC...

This country voted for this government in their millions - if they disagree with them, the country can vote them out next time.
Sure thing... but you know the majority of voters did NOT vote Tory. We can disagree as much as we want, but under the FPTP system, we do not have proper representation, so it's not as simple as saying 'vote them out'.

I think YANBU but I cannot get worked up about it because I do not believe anything has ever been changed by peaceful protest. The Bomb was not Banned. Greenham Common was cleared by a decision of the Pentagon that owed nothing to the peace camps. Iraq was invaded and Brexit was not overturned.

On the other hand, women got the vote following a campaign that was not only against the law when it started, it actually had further laws specifically enacted against it.

Peaceful protest is much over-rated.

I think it is now our civic duty to protest.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56399860

So that's what our friendly neutral national broadcaster has to say about the silent erosion of our basic freedom to protest. Surely an issue of huge national importance. Someone find me the part of that article that mentions it...

As I don't have a TV due to not liking being held to ransom for the licence fee, I may be wrong about this and their on-screen reporting may be full of this story.. please let me know.

It was the size that people remembered 400,000 marching. Can’t see any other protest that large not ending with trouble. Yet it was trouble free.

Erm... every anti-Brexit march.

@FaceyRomford

I think YANBU but I cannot get worked up about it because I do not believe anything has ever been changed by peaceful protest. The Bomb was not Banned. Greenham Common was cleared by a decision of the Pentagon that owed nothing to the peace camps. Iraq was invaded and Brexit was not overturned.

On the other hand, women got the vote following a campaign that was not only against the law when it started, it actually had further laws specifically enacted against it.

Peaceful protest is much over-rated.

Mahatma Gandhi managed to get the British out of India using a very dedicated form of peaceful protest. If done with enough passion and strong purpose, such as the collective Indian Independence movement, then it can yield results. See also Martin Luther King. Both Gandhi and King were assassinated, but their peaceful protest techniques helped their legacies to champion Peaceful Protest.

For me it's a slippery slope. If Peaceful Protest is outlawed, then what comeback do the people have?

If Peaceful Protest is ineffective, which I do agree with to some extent in the UK for the reasons you've given, then why the need to outlaw it? Hence the slippery slope.

I can’t help but think that in a dystopian Handmaid’s Tale style future, most people would just go along with it. “Oh it’s for our safety, the government have our best interests at heart.”

@skirk64

YABU. One, because there are several threads about this already, two, because people have the right not to care, and most importantly, all this does is protect innocent people from having their lives disrupted.

People will still be allowed to protest! They will just have to do it in a way that doesn't intimidate or otherwise inconvenience people who are not protesting and are just trying to go about their business. There's nothing wrong with that idea.

If it makes a protestor think twice before supergluing themselves to a train, good. If it makes organisers think through their plans more carefully to ensure they get their message across peacefully and safely, great. If it gives authorities the power to lock up people who feel their right to cause trouble and smash property outweighs the rights of others to feel safe, fantastic.

Frankly, if you can't persuade people with calm discussion then perhaps your argument is not as strong as you think it is.

All this bill does is tip the scales slightly, to make them a little less in favour of mob rule.

I’m sure the suffragettes asked politely and quietly too.. whilst they were storming parliament. Don’t suppose you think their purpose wasn’t worth fighting for?

@Donotfeedthebears

I can’t help but think that in a dystopian Handmaid’s Tale style future, most people would just go along with it. “Oh it’s for our safety, the government have our best interests at heart.”

Holding the establishment to account is not easy. Look at how they get portrayed in the media as nut jobs. Suffragettes had the same issue: reasonable cause (women's right to vote) but name called anded derided in their day.

Also, the world has changed. Nature of work-life-balance means most people don't have time or energy to protest effectively. Unless, of course, there's a recession with high unemployment.

Ah. Maybe the government are anticipating mass protests due to higher unemployment after furlough ends?

@FaceyRomford. I think a few American civil rights leaders might disagree with you there. Perhaps in the UK we're not so good at it.. But then again, if Marcus Rashford can get nearly 1 million signatures without giving up his day job, how the hell are we letting this slide by??

“Frankly, if you can't persuade people with calm discussion then perhaps your argument is not as strong as you think it is.“

Unfortunately a lot of human rights arguments as not as strong enough to change people.

When you can’t get it through their thick head, you start a protest proving there are people who feel the same as you do to show they are wrong in their thinking

[quote PersimmonTree]@FaceyRomford. I think a few American civil rights leaders might disagree with you there. Perhaps in the UK we're not so good at it.. But then again, if Marcus Rashford can get nearly 1 million signatures without giving up his day job, how the hell are we letting this slide by??
[/quote]
Yes, the issue might be that the UK are not so good at it. Not enough passion? There's more of a stiff upper lip philosophy build into British society too.

@Maxnon I call it the brainwashed serf mentality, but stiff upper lip is another way of putting it. Either way it's pathetic.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/19/priti-patel-wanted-police-stop-people-gathering-sarah-everard-vigil

Its also to prevent any protests that may well happen when people find out in 2022/23/24/25 that they still may not get treatment despite having lost their job/home/marriage to lock down and save the NHS.

@MercyBooth

Its also to prevent any protests that may well happen when people find out in 2022/23/24/25 that they still may not get treatment despite having lost their job/home/marriage to lock down and save the NHS.

I'm not party affiliated; I vote based on who I think is right for the time.

However, I found the "Save the NHS" or "Protect the NHS" campaign by the Conservatives to be highly disingenuous. It's no wonder people didn't trust the government, when they're the same party who have been underfunding and not-saving the NHS since 2010. Felt like propaganda and Emotional Blackmail to get people into submission. I have followed the rules and been sensible, but that doesn't mean I'm not sceptical and wondering what might really be going on behind the scenes.

I sense they might actually be scared of something. For the conservatives to sacrifice the economy is not like them.

@THisbackwithavengeance Cognitive dissonance. Those of us who expressed concern a year ago about where this is going were branded selfish and Covid deniers.

OP I don't think they are sacrificing the economy

They are going to reshape it as they want it. Isn't Cummings big on the theory that it's better to destroy and then build what you want, rather than go for gradual change?

The irony of "lockdown to protect the NHS" is it's made me think I'd like to be rid of it. Cummings is clever - he might have factored that in?

Don't forget,the roadmap document specifically says we must "protect the vaccination prigramme".

Worth remembering that Tory MPs and their spouses have as much access to Mumsnet as the rest of us. I’m beginning to suspect skirk is Sarah Vine.