Thread 2: Aibu to be sick of endless protests, marches, rallies, riots?

[NameChangeMay2026]

Well, that thread filled up very quickly, so I'm starting another for those who want to continue to discuss.

Some people made the point that the right to protest is essential to democracy. It is. I never said I wanted that right taken away. @Araminta expressed it very well, so I am going to quote her:

Nobody has to remove the right to protest completely. We can have laws where you have to give X notice and can only stand in Y place without marching and disrupting others. And we can have squares allocated for that specifically. Then those who want to go see what is up can. And the police can monitor it easily. And the rest of us who do not want to be involved do not have to be! Like the OP says, this is now making people angrier.
Look in the past nobody could reach an audience of many millions instantaneously. Nobody could post etc - we all can protest extremely easily online now anyway.

To her point above, Votes for Women etc. was not the same. They couldn't rabble-rouse millions at the touch of a few buttons, and they had a clear request that could feasibly be fulfilled. These days, we can't get around our own towns and cities without the threat of violence that always comes with today's flavour of protest. I think the law should be changed so that people can gather and protest in a public space but can't gum up all the roads. It is TOO MUCH. Three in my smallish city this weekend. Bang goes any hope of enjoying my precious leisure time in the place I love, for about the millionth weekend in a row. And there are perfectly good parks where they could protest.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/amibeingunreasonable/5540672-to-be-utterly-sick-of-protests-marches-rallies-and-riots

Oh my God. I stand corrected.

Common sense would dictate that it's a crime to intentionally expose your unborn child to danger and horrific injuries (if the child is, in fact, injured.)

Common sense would also dictate that where a mother is struggling with addiction issues, no charges would be brought, because she is unwell.

Common sense would also dictate that regular people having sex would not bring about charges if a baby was born harmed by a regular STD.

You would THINK that planning the kind of event that BB is, if she is pregnant, would come under recklessly and intentionally endangering the life of the baby and that she would be liable if the baby is born injured or seriously ill from that "baby shower". That if you should reasonably have known that such an event could harm the baby, you would be liable.

Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that doing such a thing would be perfectly OK. But it is. I Googled as suggested.

Lifestyle is one thing - nobody wants a world where pregnant mothers are restricted - but having a party such as this while pregnant? Deliberately exposing the foetus to a high risk of terrible harm? Nope, you're all correct. Not illegal.

AI says: Under UK law, it is not a criminal offense for a pregnant woman to endanger her foetus, even if the baby is born injured as a result of her actions or lifestyle.

What a shit country we are.

Wrong thread - sorry!