Re: Fences still obstructing Parliament Square.
- From: "Doug" < itsme@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 06:37:33 GMT
On 5-Sep-2011, NotMe <mee.not.me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 5, 6:20 am, "Doug" < it...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4-Sep-2011, "Norman Wells" <h...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No Boris decided to interfered because the police refused to take action.
On 3-Sep-2011, "Norman Wells" <h...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So you agree that Boris lied and in fact the fences are there to
prevent Freedom of Assembly and Expression in an area previously
used by political protesters for several years?
The fences are there to prevent a repetition of the abuse of the
area last year. It's private property to which the owners kindly
previous access. That privilege was severely abused, and has been
withdrawn. You can hardly complain.
It's entirely up to the owners if and when they allow access again.
They're not beholden to you to give any reasons.
I am glad you agree as to the true purposes of the ugly fences.
What I've said doesn't agree with you in the slightest actually.
On the contrary you agree the fence is there to keep out protesters and
just to let the grass grow.
Who knows what the real reason is. However it is the decision of
Boris, and his hand was forced because your squalid mates decided it
was their democratic right to vandalise the place.
You need to ask yourself why the police refused to take action.
Its merely an artificially green area within a concrete jungle.
Doug, as an environmentalist, why do you support the vandalism of
You obviously know little about this. Underneath the grass is a layer of
Given the reason for them being there, do you think they will ever
I doubt it while you and your friends threaten a repeat performance of
year's behaviour. But that's not Boris's fault.
So you think the general public and visitors will have to put up with
unsightly fences indefinitely because of Boris's mistaken attempt to
suppress peaceful protest and because the police refused to do it
The fences are unsightly, but not as unsightly as your squalid mates
extra-judicially squatting on someones land, and destroying it in the
sand not soil. The whole thing is artificial and hardly subject to being
'destroyed'. Also 'someones land' has been open to the general public since
1868 but is now barred to the general public by Boris.
The present mix-up regarding public political demonstrations in the Square
is largely due to the ridiculous SOCPA legislation introduced in 2005 and
our Parliament is to blame for that.
No its mainly protesting about this country's numerous cruel wars. Stop the
Boris obviously underestimated the protesters because they are still
and always will be until this country ends its cruel wars.
If the protesters did get their way, and left, then they would be back
in a week with another thing to protest about, and camp out again.
This time they would try harder because they has already won once.
This is protesting for the sake of protesting.
wars and most of the protests will stop. Then get rid of SOCPA and the
police will be able to deal with any other protests in their usual manner.
Historically ownership of the land has been transferred several times. As I
It is unlikely that the need for public political protest will ever
It'll just have to be held elsewhere then. There's no reason why
land should be opened up specially for any particular activity unless
That so-called 'private land' was open to the general public but now is
If someone wants to let people use their land, then they are free to.
If people abuse that, then the owner will stop everyone. That seems to
have happened here.
keep on pointing out, previously the police dealt with public protests there
and elsewhere but it is Boris who decided to use the bye-laws instead and
has merely complicated the issue.
How can it be a right if it is so easily overridden?
Historically the Square has always been used for public
demonstrations but which are now being prevented by Boris.
That's the trouble with abusing privileges, Doug. They get taken
you're impotent to get them restored.
So you now agree that Freedom of Assembly and Expression is a privilege
not a right, as I keep telling you?
Peaceful freedom of assembly and expression is a right.
Nonsense! This is purely political and nothing to do with land ownership.
But there are
other rights as well, as you keep being told.
Having a right to property is also a right, as is not having being
arbitrarily deprived of it. Your mates have tried to extra-judicially
deprive Boris of his right to his property.
Eh? There are several separate protests involved. Once again you demonstrate
You still retain your rights of freedom of assembly and expression,
just not on this private property where the owner has decided he
>> want you trespassing.
And that's an end to it.
Hardly. As long as the unsightly fences remain and the Square is not
returned to its former use questions will remain.
It _is_ an end to it. There's nothing you can do except bleat. And
On the contrary, as indicated above, there is a stand-off. Either Boris
removes the fences or the protesters go away. I bet Boris didn't see
coming when he got his injunction.
I would point out yet again, political protest in Parliament Square is
customary historically and the police used to deal with it until there
became a mix up in the law due to incompetent new legislation by our
and now Boris is flying in the face of this. What do you think his
are in the long term? If anything he has provoked a response from the
protesters and made the issue even bigger than it was.
Yes there is a history of political protest in parliament square, and
at the moment your squalid mates are trying to monopolise that and
exclude others from protesting.
Why do your squalid mates think that they are the only ones who should
be allowed to protest there?
that you know nothing about this.
Let us not get involved in the unfair distribution of wealth in this country
Due to the legislative mix-up and Boris's misguided efforts we now have
square despoiled by ugly fences which are surrounded by numerous tents
banners on the pavements which the police cannot or will not move.
No, it is not the fault of Boris or parliament. It is the fault of
your squalid mates that the pavements are covered by squalid tents
full of unwashed idiots. Most people in the country don't have the
time to protest full time as they have to work. Who is keeping your
squalid mates in food and other things whilst they loiter on
pavements, would it be the taxpayer?
as you would be bound to come off worst.
"Less than 1% of the population own 70% of the land.
41,000 estates own 50% of Britain.
Multi million pound subsidies are paid by the EU's Common Agricultural
Policy to the largest landowners. The majority of small farmers recieve
nothing at all.
For example: The Duke of Westminster (3rd richest in UK) received 7 million
Euros in subsidies since 1999.
Corporations such as Nestle and Tate & Lyle are also massively subsidised by
If it wasn't for past political demonstrations, many of which were not
peaceful, such as the Suffragettes, this country would be much worse off for
those who are too busy working to protest and have to meekly accept anything
the government dishes out to them, wars and cut-backs for example. They
should be glad that their are volunteers who are prepared to stick up for
their so-called rights and who often face prison for their efforts.
I take it you are one of the meek employed who never protest about anything?
UK Radical Campaigns.
One person's democracy is another person's oligarchy,
where rights are replaced by concessions.
- Prev by Date: Re: A 36 Volt Bicycle
- Next by Date: Re: A 12 Volt Home
- Previous by thread: Re: Fences still obstructing Parliament Square.
- Next by thread: Re: Fences still obstructing Parliament Square.