Has protest become illegal in the UK?

[Mulder]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8017896.stm

"The purpose of this contact has been to ensure that any future protest activity is carried out within the law and in a manner which respects the rights of all concerned."

This tends to confirm my impression that we are no longer i'nnocent until proved guilty' in this country. Now it seems we are all 'suspects' for 'crimes' that haven't even been thought of yet, far less committed.

[Allo Allo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8017896.stm

"The purpose of this contact has been to ensure that any future protest activity is carried out within the law and in a manner which respects the rights of all concerned."

This tends to confirm my impression that we are no longer i'nnocent until proved guilty' in this country. Now it seems we are all 'suspects' for 'crimes' that haven't even been thought of yet, far less committed.

I think its worse than this - just thinking is a crime!

So much has become illegal in the UK just in the last ten years, that if it continues, we really, really are in trouble. I would say we are in trouble now.....THIS (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25361297-7583,00.html)appeared in an an Australian paper just two days ago and its worth reading, though a bit long.
There are no concentration camps or gulags but there are thought police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.
Nikolai Bukharin claimed one of the Bolshevik Revolution's principal tasks was "to alter people's actual psychology". Britain is not Bolshevik, but a campaign to alter people's psychology and create a new Homo britannicus is under way without even a fig leaf of disguise.The people who notice state terrorism against its own people are us 'oldies'. It comes through in every aspect of life from Health and Safety idiocy, to speaking, thinking and behaving. We live in 'fear'. We are less and less free. We have even set each other upon each other by allowing 'no win, no fee' suits in our courts - we monitor ourselves so closely in case we get sued that just living has become a restricted process. We are proved guilty by current culture and shamed if we are too fat, too thin, smoke, have a 'lifestyle' illness, have a religion, smack our children, object passionately, are ugly, are genetically originally British, or eccentric....and there is much more psychological shaping that continues via regulation and Media promotion.


I think protest has become illegal in this country along with many other kinds of freedoms which my generation took as our heritage. Our ancestors who won these freedom have lived and died in vain. We are descending into a new dark age.>:-) We HAVE to resist being artificially forced to conform when our hearts and minds tell us it's lunacy!

[Trinoc]

So much has become illegal in the UK just in the last ten years, that if it continues, we really, really are in trouble. I would say we are in trouble now.....THIS (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25361297-7583,00.html)appeared in an an Australian paper just two days ago and its worth reading, though a bit long.
Is there any corroborating evidence for the anecdotes mentioned in this article? It looks horribly like a rant by a right wing nutter to me.

[chaggle]

Is there any corroborating evidence for the anecdotes mentioned in this article? It looks horribly like a rant by a right wing nutter to me.

Or left!

[Trinoc]

Or left!
Not in this case. Read the article.

[Tim the Mage]

I thought I had ownership of rightwingnutterdom on this forum? ;)

The terrorist threat has, since the 11/9/2001 events, been used as a reason for ever more control. Given that folk on here like evidence it is interesting to note that the risks associated with terrorism remain very very very small compared to a vast range of other risks to life and limb. One observer (I forget who) calculated that, for the US, a plane would have to be blown out of the sky every week for the risk to come close to equally that taken every day by the soccer mum driving her kids to school.

But government likes to scare us and to use those scares to control us and to prevent us from enquiring as to what said government is about (including protest).

[Trinoc]

But government likes to scare us and to use those scares to control us and to prevent us from enquiring as to what said government is about (including protest).
I have no doubt that the current surveillance state and what is probably coming next suck ... but in my view that article does the cause of objecting to it no good at all by exaggerating and probably making up stories that are far more over the top than the (unacceptable) reality. People like that just give ammunition to the deniers, who can simply point at the nonsense and suggest that all concerns are equally batty.

That is, of course, unless someone can show me evidence that the events did actually happen as described (hence my request), in which case I will have to concede that things are even worse than I imagined.

[Allo Allo]

I have no doubt that the current surveillance state and what is probably coming next suck ... but in my view that article does the cause of objecting to it no good at all by exaggerating and probably making up stories that are far more over the top than the (unacceptable) reality. People like that just give ammunition to the deniers, who can simply point at the nonsense and suggest that all concerns are equally batty.

That is, of course, unless someone can show me evidence that the events did actually happen as described (hence my request), in which case I will have to concede that things are even worse than I imagined.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2496605.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4886014.stm

take your pick - http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&client=pub-2070091971271392&channel=7979263543&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3A9%252E04%2520Sta rt%2520Page%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fco op%2Fintl%2Fen%2Fimages%2Fcustom_search_sm.gif%3BL H%3A65%3BLP%3A1%3BLC%3A%230000ff%3BVLC%3A%23663399 %3BGFNT%3A%230000ff%3BGIMP%3A%230000ff%3BDIV%3A%23 336699%3B&adkw=AELymgVgsfidr4Ve3Hu1H3Fc6g_6qwJAtkMn02FZAF5CV WbbPpfh6WXk_nl3udhrzKVHflvEFTTHAJQyqRDeoRzz_yAY9Lr QY5CTTJu9XYi4I0J3xdzeptI&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&q=A+Christian+home+for+retired+clergy+and+religiou s+workers+lost+a+grant+because+it+would+not+reveal +to+official+snoopers+how+many+of+the+residents+we re+homosexual.&btnG=Search&cx=partner-pub-2070091971271392%3Aougxymc6y19

http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2008/03/16/6536/is_basil_brush_racist%3F

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-553008/Muslims-fury-forces-schools-shelve-anti-homophobia-storybooks-5-year-olds.html

http://spectator.org/archives/2007/01/19/sinking-the-royal-navy/1

Why the hell I am doing this? Are you too lazy to check things out yourself?:bossy:

It took me 5 min max!

I am sure there are masses of other actions of insanity going on every day. WAKE UP!

[Mojo]

This tends to confirm my impression that we are no longer i'nnocent until proved guilty' in this country. Now it seems we are all 'suspects' for 'crimes' that haven't even been thought of yet, far less committed.

This is hardly a new idea. To quote Frog LJ in the case of R v. Haddock, reported in Herbert, A. P.: Misleading Cases in the Common Law (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-u9qWlotKr4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0) (1927) at p.42:
It is a principle of English law that a person who appears in a police court has done something undesirable, and citizens who take it upon themselves to do unusual actions which attract the attention of the police should be careful to bring these actions into one of the recognised categories of crimes and offences, for it is intolerable that the police should be put to the pains of inventing reasons for finding them undesirable.

...

It cannot be too clearly understood that this is not a free country, and it will be an evil day for the legal profession when it is. The citizens of London must realise that there is almost nothing that they are allowed to do. Prima facie all actions are illegal, if not by Act of Parliament, by Order in Council; and if not by Order in Council, by Departmental or Police Regulations, or by-laws. They may not eat where they like, drink where they like, walk where they like, drive where they like, sit where they like, or sleep where they like. And least of all may they do unusual actions 'for fun'. People must not do things for fun. We are not here for fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament. If anything is said in this Court to encourage a belief that Englishmen are entitled to jump off bridges for their own amusement the next thing to go will be the Constitution.

[Allo Allo]

This is hardly a new idea. To quote Frog LJ in the case of R v. Haddock, reported in Herbert, A. P.: Misleading Cases in the Common Law (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-u9qWlotKr4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0) (1927) at p.42:

Interesting quote - yes 'genteel' people didn't appear in court! Lord Justice Frog must have been a bit frustrated, Ha

In 1927 women hadn't yet got the vote, International War Law was still being formulated - but not human rights till 1948. The growing Labour party wanted the abolition of capital punishment, corporal punishment was taken for granted - most people were 'in service' or uneducated. Radio was the latest technology - first sound movie, Mickey Mouse animations, Lindbergh flew to Paris, first sports commentary on the BBC. Interesting.

Do you think we have just passed a 'Golden Age' of being 'free'?

[Mulder]

This is hardly a new idea. To quote Frog LJ in the case of R v. Haddock, reported in Herbert, A. P.: Misleading Cases in the Common Law (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-u9qWlotKr4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0) (1927) at p.42:

I didn't claim it was a new idea - very few are! However, what was satire in 1927 now looks horribly real!