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

[BornSicky]

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.

The government is only discussing possibilities at this stage.

I agree that it may potentially discriminate against Muslim women, but only as a blunt and unenforceable legality. From an emotional POV, I have to say that I couldn't care less about it. I simply don't understand why a woman would want to cover her face, and I never will. Cultural considerations bedamned! It's bloody madness.

That said, the likelihood that a genuine Muslim female would be involved in rioting is remote, and I'm sure the police would take that into account anyway. In fact, I hardly think it's worth mentioning.

It is already illegal to enter a bank wearing a full-faced helmet/balaclava, etc. Further riots will not deter people from covering their faces, but with the appropriate legislation in place, it will add another crime to their rap-sheet.

And I'm all for that.

I see what you mean Edam. I was rather protesting about the tendency to conflate the terms rightwing and authoritarian, which the OP is definitely doing. The philosophical postition of the right tends to favour the rights of the individual over the rights of the state, you are correct that actual governments do not always follow true to this.

cognitive Exactly what I'm talking about.

humphrey i'm not blaming the tories for what has happened, but I am suggesting that the riots do give them the opportunity, with all the public outrage, to slide through any measures/new laws/restrictions of rights that they would never normally have the chance to.

I can't believe that Edam is still bringing up the miners' strike.

I do believe that you should chose a mouldier cheese for your monika, m'dear.

There was no martial law during the miners' strike. Though I agree with you about the roadblocks (I was caught up in one - and I assure you they were stopping EVERYONE regardless of class) as it broke the basic premise that people go about their business unless there is reasonable grounds for suspicion (and this is still in use - and extended by the powers brought in under the anti-terrorism legislation to stop anyone, even without reasonable suspicion, in designated areas.

Which Criminal Justice Act are posters referring to, BTW - 1988, 1991 or 2003?

Police already have powers to demand removal of facial covering if believed to be linked to violence and disorder.
It needs authority but it is a power already available.

meditrina

that would be the 1994 revisions, commonly known as the CJB, which made the following controversial changes which attracted substantial protests:

** Sections 34-39, which substantially changed the right to silence of an accused person, allowing for inferences to be drawn from their silence.

** Sections 54-59, which gave the police greater rights to take and retain intimate body samples.

** Section 60, which increased police powers of unsupervised "stop and search".

** Section 80, which repealed the duty imposed on councils by the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to provide sites for gypsy and traveller use. Grant aid for the provision of sites was also withdrawn.

** The whole of Part V which covered collective trespass and nuisance on land and included sections against raves (63-67, including the "repetitive beats" definition[1]) and further sections against disruptive trespass, squatters, and unauthorised campers ? most significantly the criminalisation of previously civil offences. This affected many forms of protest including hunt sabotage and anti-road protests.

Wikipedia

Desiderata, a poster claimed the Tories are good old boys who would never dream of taking civil liberties away. I pointed out that it's not true, and gave an example. Entirely relevant.

Medi, no, martial law wasn't officially declared, but the police had clearly been told to act as if it was. The class thing - the people I know who were stopped from traveling all had broad Yorkshire accents and the police would have labelled them as working class. None of them were miners, as it happened, but that didn't make any difference.

scurryfunge I saw a letter in The Telegraph saying the same thing, but didn't post that point as I couldn't remember which Act brought it in. I think (cynically again) that as the power already exists, mentioning it in this way is just a little bit of "let's sound tough" spin, rather than substance.

that is a slight paraphrase of what was said Edam.

You'll notice in my post, I said "generally" - one example of an operational policing decision does not invalidate that.

My (rather posh) mother was also stopped - she nearly ran a copper over as it was dark - no way could they have been targeting on the basis of perceived class or accent when they couldn't see the occupants. They stopped everyone.

Agree, it is a "let's sound tough". These powers have been available for a long time. I know it as a s.60 but will look it up

just occured to you at 9.30pm?

< bumps tw@t thread>

Medi, did they let her go on her way eventually? Or was she actually turned back? The man we knew who was on his way to his Dad's funeral was turned back, and missed the whole thing.

But I've never thought you understood the Tories, edam.

Traditionally, (and I am a very traditional Tory), they believe in laissez faire. Less government, and not more.

The Left are quite the opposite, of course. It is at the very core of them that they interfere in every aspect of a citizen's life.

The Labour Party have still not grasped that the world is in economic meltdown; that we need to spend less, and not more; that old, dated economic systems need to be put to bed. They still insist that we need to throw money at problems, despite the fact that almost every other country on the planet has realized that the opposite is true.

They are old-fashioned, and currently irrelevant. And I think, as an intelligent woman, you do yourself a disservice by constantly making reference to Maggie Thatcher.

History will judge her according to her lights. And History will judge her well.

And if you think the Labour Party would have been digging coal out of the seams in the 1990s, then you're mistaken.

Allowed to proceed, as she was on her way home, but had to present at a police station the next day to prove her home address.

I think if you go around acting like a twat and if you look like a twat then you probably are a twat - Hellospoons book of logic paragraph 2

As someone who lived in a mining area as a student during the miners' strikes it makes me laugh that everyone thinks Margaret Thatcher single-handedly destroyed the union. Iirc Arthur Scargill played an equal role.

I was stopped at police roadblocks. Didn't bother me in the slightest.

At the risk of sounding a bit conspiracy theorist, I agree that the government will likely be looking for ways to further curtail our liberties and push through unpopular legislation as a result of all this.

Anyone read Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine'? It examines natural disasters and wars, and how after every single one, governments and private companies make sure they profit/make big changes which the electorate would never accept whilst not in a state of fear.

Well said edam and BornSicky < says she sleepily >

Incidentally in 94 I was at a ( totally non - violent) protest against the changes to the Criminal Justice act outside the Tory conference & we were all kettled for a substantial amount of time - hadn't encountered that before .

macaroona tis a fine read that book.

labour did it post 9/11 and 7/7 and now the tories get their chance once more.

I'm at a loss with your post, Mac.

You seem to be suggesting that civil liberties involve burning people's homes down, and stealing X-Boxes from Dixons.

Thatchers grandchildren

you reap what you sow

Yawn.

Your name is very apt.

innit