I went out in my SAS camouflage outfit earlier today.
Of course, no-one spotted me
Of course, no-one spotted me
How can a March for Peace be Incompatible with a Memorial for those Killed in Wars.
- Thread starter Roy Bloom
- Start date
Part of it is probably true, the publicising of restrictions, else how will anyone know about them?
I suspect it's quite true that the police do use loudspeakers, hand out leaflets, etc to notify the public about any restrictions, else how will anyone know.
The Act that you're fond of referring to (but not quoting from) says:
and
and
So if the restriction is not publicised, nor given in writing, and the person 'committing' the offence could not have known, there is no offence committed.
I suggest you look at it again.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
You have to stop skim reading and take time to absorb it.
It is of course False.
There is an obligation only to communicate the restriction in writing [subsec 3] and you missed the part where it says "ought to know". So that places a duty on the protestor to understand the conditions. The defence is limited to circumstances beyond the person's control. e.g. being pushed by the crowd in to a deviating route.
It is of course False.
There is an obligation only to communicate the restriction in writing [subsec 3] and you missed the part where it says "ought to know". So that places a duty on the protestor to understand the conditions. The defence is limited to circumstances beyond the person's control. e.g. being pushed by the crowd in to a deviating route.
which is of course boll@x
You appear to be suffering from sort of comprehension deficit.
Which part of:
is incompatible or in contradicition to, which is subsection 3 (unless you have a different one):
Public Order Act 1986
An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide...
Let me post the definition of "publicise" for you:
If it's not publicised, given in writing, or communicated by leaflets or loudspeakers, no-one will be aware of it and that is out of that person's control, then no offence has been committed.
You can't expect anyone to know about any special restrictions that have been placed on one protest march, if they haven't been communicated.
Therefore there is an obligation on the police to 'publicise' any special restrictions. It's up to them how they do it, as long as it's done.
Often, (but not always, and no obligation to use these methods):
You do talk nonsese
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
Oh dear, here we go, the dictionary is out again. Where does the act place an obligation on the police to publicise the restrictions?
The obligation is not on the police, its on the organiser and the protestor. Plod need only communicate with the organiser, its for him to publicise it to those attending and its for those who are attending such organised event to find out about the restrictions.
The obligation is not on the police, its on the organiser and the protestor. Plod need only communicate with the organiser, its for him to publicise it to those attending and its for those who are attending such organised event to find out about the restrictions.
How do we know that this bloke was attacked by peace in Gaza protesters?
Edinburgh is in Scotland and like Ulster their is a lot of anti poppy sentiment.
Poppy wreaths at war memorials in Edinburgh have been set on fire .
Myself and my dog wear poppies but I know that in some areas, the wearing of a poppy would be inviting physical violence by people who have no interest in the middle east conflict.
You're not being sensible.
If there are restrictions, the only way of knowing about these is through communication
Your right to protest - Liberty
Do I have the right to protest? Can the police limit my right to protest?
www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk
There is no obligation on the organiser to communicate these restrictions.
If there were, a perfectly legitimate defence, for anyone charged, is for the organiser to admit they forgot to communicate the restrictions.
As far as I'm aware that is not an offence.
Where does the act place an obligation on the organiser to publicise the restrictions?
And there's no way of communicating any restrictions made by the police 'on the hoof'.
You need a a reality pill.
Why do you say that? He wasn't in that regiment going by the sources I have read.
Don't know about the legal right to wear it, but it does suggest a Walter Mitty type personality.
If it is illegal for him to wear it that would be something I have learned today.
You mean anti-English sentiment directed towards people wearing a poppy - they need to be reminded of the deeds done by the Ulster Division or the 51st Highland Division in two World Wars.
uh-oh...
Large groups are preparing to travel to London to “confront” a pro-Palestine march on Armistice Day that organisers predict will be one of the biggest demonstrations ever seen in Britain, the Metropolitan police has said.
The counter-protest groups would be permitted to be at the Cenotaph where the pro-Palestine marchers are banned, he added, because the former’s “sole purpose and their intention is to protect the sanctity of the Cenotaph and Remembrance. So I don’t anticipate there will be any disorder from that group.”
Ben Jamal, the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), a lead organiser of the march, said he understood that people would be travelling from all over the UK to march on Saturday from Park Lane towards the US embassy in Nine Elms, south-west London.
The Met said 1,850 officers would be on duty with about 780 officers being called up from outside London. Public order units and other response sections of the Met have had leave cancelled.
fightforyourrights@theGrunadia
Large groups are preparing to travel to London to “confront” a pro-Palestine march on Armistice Day that organisers predict will be one of the biggest demonstrations ever seen in Britain, the Metropolitan police has said.
The counter-protest groups would be permitted to be at the Cenotaph where the pro-Palestine marchers are banned, he added, because the former’s “sole purpose and their intention is to protect the sanctity of the Cenotaph and Remembrance. So I don’t anticipate there will be any disorder from that group.”
Ben Jamal, the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), a lead organiser of the march, said he understood that people would be travelling from all over the UK to march on Saturday from Park Lane towards the US embassy in Nine Elms, south-west London.
The Met said 1,850 officers would be on duty with about 780 officers being called up from outside London. Public order units and other response sections of the Met have had leave cancelled.
fightforyourrights@theGrunadia
I belive it is, but as I said, the military police may not be interested, or even have no jurisdiction over civilians.
And i can't see civvy police being bothered, even if they're aware of it.
I belive the penalties are fixed, but I would suspect any judge, magistrate or whoever, ridiculing the presentation of any case, as a waste of time.
Unless, of course, the wearing of the uniform is intentional and in line with committing a worse offence.
Last edited:
thanks to Cruella Trumperman
- 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.You're not being sensible.
If there are restrictions, the only way of knowing about these is through communication
Your right to protest - Liberty
Do I have the right to protest? Can the police limit my right to protest?
There is no obligation on the organiser to communicate these restrictions.
If there were, a perfectly legitimate defence, for anyone charged, is for the organiser to admit they forgot to communicate the restrictions.
As far as I'm aware that is not an offence.
Where does the act place an obligation on the organiser to publicise the restrictions?
And there's no way of communicating any restrictions made by the police 'on the hoof'.
You need a a reality pill.
You want to organise a legal protest march. You communicate with the police. The police write to you giving their restrictions. You commit an offence if you fail to comply. Unless such failure was beyond your control. It is not beyond your control to communicate with the people who are joining your protest. It is after all you who are communicating with them to organise the march. Pretty simple.
Then look at you as a person wanting to attend the march. The obligation is on you to find out where it is and if there are any restrictions. A reasonable person who intends to join a march, will need to find out where and when it is. They will therefore be told about any restrictions by the organisers if the organisers want to be lawful.
So any failure to communicate between the organisers and the attendees will result in one or both being guilty of an offence. Unless there are factors beyond their control.
Pretty simple. You may have spotted that this legislation was only recently updated. The small changes make a massive difference. Simply inserting “ought to know” places a duty on the person at the level of a reasonable person to find out.
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.
