>> I think you tend to see conspiracy where there is none. At the end of
>> the day there was no harm done. Yes a few journos were detained for a
>> few hours when perhaps they shouldn’t have been. Hardly the end of the world. The
>> police were under pressure to get the traffic moving. That the did. Nobody’s banning protest,
>> just trying to stop illegal obstruction. Mistakes are made sometimes, that’s life.
Seriously? This is not theory, conspiracy or otherwise. Conspiracy theories in the sense I suspect you mean are nonsense.
@ CGN et al as applicable.
Whilst no lasting harm may have been done in this case, harm certainly was done at the time in the arrest of people (whether because they were journalists or not) who were committing no offence, not taking part in the protest, and were (e.g.) on a public footpath. That has been rectified; and has been admitted to have been wrong so put that in your pipe:)
We now know that senior officers (plural) ordered the arrests, whether simultaneously and coincidentally on their own authority or as a result of direction from higher up. It was not therefore a procedural blunder by some ignorant but well meaning constables in the heat and excitement of the moment.
I am not just thinking of this case, nasty as it is.
The government, or part of it, wants basically to stop protest.
justice.org.uk/public-order-bill/
This is fundamental stuff, nothing to do with the views of "the liberal left" which is usually used as an insult BTW. If the liberal left (and right) are pointing this out, then maybe they are just more alert than some others.
In fact senior police officers themselves have pointed out the unacceptable limitations on civil liberties being proposed.
As it happens I am a big fan of law and order, but I don't think it helps police officers to be given draconian powers which then makes them responsible for the degree of restriction/oppression/force or whatever is at issue that should apply in a given situation.
The public are entitled to protest peacefully and to have reasonable freedom to do so. That cannot be guaranteed if the police have more or less unlimited power to decide what is OK and what is not. Equally if I were a police officer I would want to know what the rules are so that I could apply them without being expected to make instant decisions on matters that a court would take days or weeks over. I'm not going to go searching for citations but it was pretty clear in this case that at least some of the junior officers involved were unsure why they were arresting the journos and whether they should be doing it.
Freedom to protest may well exclude the right to destroy or damage property or wilfully obstruct specified activities by throwing soup about or gluing themselves to transport infrastructure but it must not for example restrict freedom of expression, and right of assembly and/or association which is what the government appears to want.
Wedge, thin end of. First they came...etc.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 24 Nov 22 at 14:51
|
