How can a March for Peace be Incompatible with a Memorial for those Killed in Wars.
- Thread starter Roy Bloom
- Start date
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,607
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
Predictable, all on the Home seretary.
Look at these pro palestinians. Oops my bad.
Look at these pro palestinians. Oops my bad.
Not yet. But there have been no restrictions placed on the right-wing counter demonstrations.
It's dependent on the police to keep the marches apart.
It looks to me as though the right wing demonstrators consist of males btween the ages of 20 and 60, many of them skinheads..
Whereas the Pro-Palestinian march consists of families. women, old people as well as the occasional male.
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 10,804
- Reaction score
- 857
- Country
The peace march hasn't started yet
Here's the right wing version of showing respect at the cenotaph. After beating back the police.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
I don’t really understand why you find this so hard to understand. It’s barely a page of text and the drafting is pretty straightforward.
There is no obligation for the organisers to communicate any restrictions to the attendees.
Of course it's not beyond the organiser's control to communicate any restrictions to the attendess, but there is no obligation for them to do so. And they will not be committing any offence for any failure to communicate those restrictions to the attendees.
If you think there is an obligation, please find it in the legislation.
What do you expect the organisers to do, take the contact details for all the attendees?
Get real. Many, maybe most will attend without knowing who are the organisers, or how to contact them.
The march may have been publicised and spread on social media without the imput or even knowledge of the organisers.
I suspect that many will not be aware of any subtleties with regard to police restrictions. They will not realise that there may be restrictions, nor know how to find out what they are, if any.
So the obligation is on the police to communicate any restrictions to the marchers. They can do that by handing out leaflets, using loudspeakers, or using social media.
If I'm marching for the first time, I doubt if I'd be aware of any such thing as restrictions, so how can I possibly be expected to have 'ought to know' about them?
If I park on a road where there are no signs warning me about restrictions, an 'ought to know' argument is nonsense.
If I drive down a road where there are no signs indicating any restrictions, I can't be expected to 'ought to know' there are restrictions.
When those restrictions are temporary, it becomes even more important for any restrictions to be communicated to the attendees, by those imposing those restrictions.
So the police have an obligation to inform the attendees of any restrictions. They can do that by handing out leaflets, using loudspeakers, or using social media.
Putting it in bold doesn't make it correct. You've misunderstood it as usual.
Sec 11 requires the organiser to notify the police in writing with sufficient notice, failure to do so is an offence both organising and attending
Sec 12 allows the police to impose restrictions, communicated in writing to the organisers. I think you may have understood this part.
Then we are on to the offences:
Nothing in the above provides a defence that the person did not know of the restriction if it was properly served. His only defence is that the circumstances were beyond his control and the burden is on him to prove that. This is confirmed in subsection 5A
He is therefore placed under obligations to take all the necessary steps that a reasonable person would take to ensure that he is aware of the conditions.
The organisers and attendees are then under a duty to comply with those restrictions and take reasonable steps to find out about them.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
. happy to discuss road traffic law with you, but its not relevant here
. which is boll@x. their obligation is to respond to the notice from the organiser in writing. thats it.
Last edited:
It's certainly come to my attention that boll@x and Roy are not strangers to each other.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
I am very close to giving up explaining it to him. I really thought this one was simple for him to get his head road. Its literally 3 sections.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
From what I read and again, not claiming expertise.. the paras and the signals were one and the same at the time the chap was serving in NI (late 60s early 70s) So he could well have been both para and signals.
216 Parachute Signal Squadron | ParaData
216 (Parachute) Squadron, Royal Signals serves with 16 Air Assault Brigade to provide telecommunications and information systems maintenance and support. The unit designation began its life following the renumbering of 16th Independent Parachute Brigade Group Signal Squadron in Aldershot on 1...
It was to ensure you were aware of it.You misunderstood it, as usual.
So there is no obligation on the organisers to communicate any restrictions to the marchers.
As I said, "Show me where there is an obligation on the organisers to inform the attendees of any restrictions".
In bold to ensure you see it.
Irrelevant.
If the person charged with an offence, which is a temprary restriction, and they were not informed of that temporary restriction, I fail to see how they could possibly be considered guilty. They can not be considered to 'ought to have known'.
That is why there is an obligation on the police to ensure the public are informed. They do this by handing out leaflets, posting it on news channels, social media, and using loudspeakers.
Which does not place any obligation on the organisers to communicate those restrictions to the attendees.
There is no obligation on any attendees to find out about any temporary restrictions.
Please show us where in the law it places any obligation on attendees to find out about any restrictions.
If that law is about temporary restrictions, there is an oblgation on the police to communicate those temporary restrictions to the public.
It was an analogy.
The police would have an obvious obligation to inform the public of any temporary restrictions.
That's reality, not your perverse interpretation of the law.
If you have any contributions to offer about the topic, feel free to make a comment.
You can't explain your perverse interpretation of the law.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
The obligation to comply is on the organisers and attendees - it's as simple as that, you've seen the text. They notify in writing, the police respond in writing and thats the end of it. Comply or commit an offence.
Last edited: