WHO THE BLINKING FLIP IS guy?

B*gg*r! You've just made me spit coffee all over my keyboard.

Didn't think you could build houses on Parliament Square these days...

FFS

Wow. A second pimple on the arrse of the forum, which is so totally devoid of any discernable point, it's off to my foes bin.

I'm sure the political class are privately overjoyed that the Olympic Games has provided them with the perfect opportunity to enact draconian laws preventing embarrassing protesters (many of whom have been let down by successive governments and harbour legitimate grievances) from occupying areas within the capital. Of course, the true test will be whether such laws are repealed after the Olympics - or will some other trumped up pretext materialise out of nowhere to replace it?

Are you a gambler Mugwump?

I'm still trying to work out how terrorists would even possibly conceive to smuggle explosive making material into a tent, concoct their little bomb and then use it in an area where there are more than one or two Police officers. I'm sure if this was even a slightly likely scenario then there would be sniffer dogs at the very least, same as they have used on 'Occupy' camps for drugs.

That really has been post of the week for me

I agree that governments have an appalling record of sneaking in what turns out to be permanent legislation by the back door; also for using legislation for spurious purposes for which it was plainly never intended.

But there are in the case of the Olympics conflicting issues. The actual event itself is a forum for the world's ultimate athelets to compete, and a chance for lesser mortals to watch. That fundamentally is it. Most of these athletes devote their lives to excellence in their chosen event. If the athletes want to go and compete, and I, or anyone, wants to go and watch, why should I or they be impeded, or have the day ruined, by protesters who have no issue with the Olympics per se, no issue with me, and no issue with the athletes, but issues with government policy?

Of course, the reason such events are chosen is because of the media attention any disruption would attract. But the problem to me is that in some cases (depending on the nature, venue and likely course of a 'protest') it is dangerously close to becoming more akin to blackmail: "change your policies on X, otherwise we will ruin your Y".

The second issue is that the bigger the protest, the greater the likelihood of it, or parts of it, being commandeered by criminal elements, who take advantage of the stretching of police resources and the weight of numbers to engage in pure criminality.

I entirely support the democratic right to peaceful protest, but if a protest goes far beyond being a passive event, and is additionally an active event which does not only protest, but chooses a method an/or a place of protesting that goes further, and also seriously impinges on the rights of others to a very significant degree, should be susceptible to some form of control.

There cannot be a universal right to do whatever you want, wherever you want to do it, as long as you're carrying a protest banner.

You said "You can't see what goes on inside a tent" not "Tents in certain places, like Parliament Square, could be dangerous"

If we're talking Parliament Square, "You can't see what goes on inside Middlesex Guildhall and there's a risk - however small - that someone could be making a bomb inside "

FFS

Not just the buildings mate, they'd better expose the cellars too, especially the one under The Palace of Westminster. I believe it has some previous in the bomb making stakes.

That's pretty poor, now what's your real reason?


This is true.
Trafalgar Sqare used to slippy with pigeon shiittt everywhere, kids would be clarted-up with the stuff.
Banning the feeding of birds there was a simple public health issue and that byelaw has been in place for at least a decade.

Moving on ...

I see that one of the things that is banned is the making of any public speech or addressing a crowd (quite apart from the rules about amplification, which are separate).
That is worthy of opposition.
Trafalgar Square has been the historical venue for many a speech, some of which I agreed with and many of which I didn't.
I see this byelaw as a restriction of what should be anyone's right.