MPs have JUST approved the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment)

https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1272616344010309633

Democracy over?

(1) During the emergency period, unless paragraph (2) applies, no person may participate in a gathering which takes place in a public or private place—

(a)outdoors, and consists of more than six persons, or

(b)indoors, and consists of two or more persons.


It is now in law.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/558/regulation/2/made

Give the protestors a contract they will then be able to protest under para 2
you reference above
..



the person concerned is fulfilling a legal obligation or participating in legal proceedings

Legal proceeding is an activity that seeks to invoke the power of a tribunal in order to enforce a law.

Two weeks late but finally here to get violent thugs who attack police, pull down statues and deface our heros off the streets.

I know what legal proceedings are the important part is the "or" in
front of legal proceeding.

Thin end of the wedge I have always been sceptical about this from the start.
What does it say we have to go to bed?

It says it is now actually illegal to have an outdoor gathering of over 6 people.

Unprecedented in our history and slightly concerning on our freedoms.

Not sure how this ends.

'the person concerned is fulfilling a legal obligation or participating in legal proceedings;'

I do not think this will be a get out for turning up in large groups and ripping down statues and fighting the police.

If a large group have a legal obligation they would appear to have right to congregate under the law.

Jun 15, 2020 -- 10:59PM, ----you-have-to-laugh--- wrote:

If a large group have a legal obligation they would appear to have right to congregate under the law.

good luck with that

Give the protestors a contract they will then be able to protest under para 2
you reference above
..



the person concerned is fulfilling a legal obligation or participating in legal proceedings

A bit like saying I can carry a blade with me if one of my mates gives me a contract saying I need one for work purposes.

Well it's not the same as knives are covered by a different law and that will state what
Exemptions exist. If you require one for work you may well get an exemption to carry one
off a person who may be named under relevant act.


Fear not I am not intending to arm a squad of demonstrators with
Contracts to be on a march.



Had the argument last week that the marches were legal, and clearly this new law proves
They were legal under the law, as it existed, and this is another attempt to close
a law they missed last time.

It is the same.

Both the legislation on offensive weapons and the one here have a defence of reasonable excuse. They both include cirumstances which would be considered as reasonable excuse. Both include the circumstance where you are required to for work. Only an idiot would suggest that if someone gives a contract to me to be a joiner at 1am it would be a defence if I was carrying a knife in the pub or if they gave me a contract to "work" around Parliament square at 1am it would be a defence and considered a reasonable excuse. You seem to think though that giving someone a contract to protest would be reasonable excuse.

Reasonable excuse comes down to circumstance and context. It's not a defence just to say I've contrived a situation that I think is a defence under the legislation.

I don't think this does show that they were legal last week. This has simply clarified the law. Being threatening and abusive to someone has always been illegal. It doesn't follow that when hate crime legislation was introduced to expand the law and to create aggravations that it was previously legal to racially abuse someone.

Snuck through the back door again

Basically you may not protest the state, the end of any free speech

And all done for a virus that has existed for centuries, ie the flu bug

has always been illegal

I'll clarify that to mean in recent times in the the UK before someone says it wasn't 2000 years ago in Angola.

Yeah, like an eye test on your wife's birthday with kiddy in the back.

Misbehaving on a protest is always misbehaving even if the
protest is legal.

The right to peaceful protest last weekend existed, I do not
think it exists next weekend.

So the next time thousands of people protest technically it wont be legal. Like anyone will give a toss. This is something people on forums can discuss but nobody else is going to lose any sleep over.

they could have had their 1st test case today outside the Nike shop in Oxford Street

I am sure it will be tested, fairly soon.

I doubt anybody on the forum will lose any sleep either.

a Primark sale may be most interesting

Yeah, like an eye test on your wife's birthday with kiddy in the back.

What does this mean (if it is directed at me)?

Misbehaving on a protest is always misbehaving even if the
protest is legal.

The right to peaceful protest last weekend existed, I do not
think it exists next weekend.


The right to peaceful protest existed last weekend but gatherings were not as per this weekend. That has been the case since 26th March.

Not sure some on this forum do sleep. I think some are here 24 hours a day.

The cummings defence, a contrived defence, example thereof.

Again I'm not even sure if this is aimed at me.  The cummings defence, a contrived defence, example thereof.

I agree with you. I think it was contrived. Does this mean you are talking **** just becuase you have presumed anyone who disagrees with you must think Cummings had a valid defence?

Eh no!

I made a point, you went off at a tangent, self dismissed your own argument and in so doing assumed you had proven something of merit.

You havnt.

donny what do you make of these 100% proven lockdown rule breakers?
Are they more or less guilty than Cummings iyo?

All broke lockdown rules with NO DOUBTS they should all get the bullet

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11608940/labour-mp-breaks-lockdown-rules-chips-picnic/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/29/stephen-kinnock-targeted-by-police-for-visiting-father-neil

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8183617/Up-100-mourners-including-Labour-MP-ignore-coronavirus-lockdown.html

https://order-order.com/2020/05/19/mps-coronavirus-centenary-celebration/

eah, like an eye test on your wife's birthday with kiddy in the back.

Maybe you can elaborate on your point then.

You seem to have been making posts about Dominic Cummings in your last few posts on this thread whilst not actually using them to reply to anyone or providing any context on how that relates to the thread topic. Then ignoring anything a person says relevant to the thread topic. Conflating arguements  usually means you have nothing pertinent to say.

Who is this Cummings denzil, you claimed not to know him?

You are conflating arguments shrewd dude

And inventing arguments to argue against



Makes it difficult when that happens

No wonder you are confused

Jun 16, 2020 -- 12:18AM, ----you-have-to-laugh--- wrote:

Who is this Cummings denzil, you claimed not to know him?

No I didn't please don't make things up,you have a bee in your bonnet about this Cummings guy is what he did worse than those 4 or not?

I even had to explain to you what the word "and" means when
You were abusive to me.

You are conflating arguments shrewd dude

And inventing arguments to argue against

Sorry, but you are so full of ****. You can't even answer why when we were talking about legislation you brought up Dominic Cummings. Even when I agreed with you, you can't even answer why you brought it up and who this was in response to. You clearly stereotype everyone that disagress with you, throw **** at them and hope they agree with your stereotype so that you can validate your opinion, then when it turns out they are actually in agreement with some of your view points stop replying to anything relevant to the topic being discussed. .

Jun 16, 2020 -- 12:24AM, ----you-have-to-laugh--- wrote:

I even had to explain to you what the word "and" means whenYou were abusive to me.

Stop deflecting I explained the terms of that thread a bona fide link had to be posted and you couldn't provide one whereas everyone else did,saying you should get an eyetest to you after you mocked Cummings for his isn't abusive it was sarchastic banter I even posted a wink after.

Are they more or less guilty than Cummings iyo?

Lol

Shrewd dude

You invented an argument to self dismiss.

Not sure what you are going on about after that.

Maybe read the thread slowly.

I ain't deflecting denzil

You're the one that can't actually respond to anything anybody says.

Anyway my mates just hired me to stand in Parliament square as a bodyguard for Winston Churchill's statue. He says I must carry knife so that's my "reasonable excuse" if the police turn up.

Jun 16, 2020 -- 12:34AM, ----you-have-to-laugh--- wrote:

I ain't deflecting denzil

I've asked you several times and you won't answer.
I've provided evidence that is established fact and comparable.
I believe you know what they did was worse and you'd be livid if they were tory calling for their heads.

Your beliefs may be wrong, who knows?

You'd make a politician you might've missed your call

You clearly have misread what I said shrewd dude.

Or missed who said what...

Maybe try reading thread slowly, and look at who said what.

That might solve your confusion.

Jun 15, 2020 -- 11:48PM, ----you-have-to-laugh--- wrote:

Misbehaving on a protest is always misbehaving even if theprotest is legal. The right to peaceful protest last weekend existed, I do notthink it exists next weekend.

Hence my point about not questioning the state, its now illegal and there's no way it can be spun

They are using a virus to hide it but its essentially locking down people's right to question and peacefully protest the very people who have implemented it

On the day the law is passed Manchester Police admit they cannot stop illegal raves....

Greater Manchester illegal raves: 'Almost impossible' to stop

Two illegal "quarantine raves" at the weekend were "almost impossible" to stop after venues were changed at the last minute, a chief constable said.

About 6,000 people went to raves at Daisy Nook Country Park, Failsworth, and Carrington, Greater Manchester.

A 20-year-old man died of a suspected drug overdose at the Daisy Nook rave while a woman was raped and three people stabbed in Carrington.

Greater Manchester Police's Ian Hopkins said some behaviour was "appalling".

Both events late on Saturday were illegal under coronavirus restrictions but Greater Manchester Police restricted its involvement to what they called "careful monitoring".

....

under current government guidelines for England, groups of up to six people from different households can gather outside in parks or private gardens.

Paul Carroll, who lives near the Failsworth site, said: "Police were passively driving up and down and occasionally moving people on but when you have 4,000 people and 20 to 30 police it was never going to be enforcement.

"I was still awake at three o'clock in the morning with people sniffing nitrous oxide gas on the garden wall, urinating and taxis coming and going."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-53047628

^

So what will the police do now the guidelines have become law?

Zero in the media about the new laws so would not surprise me if ravers and protestors do not even know about it.

Most of you people are too busy parading your bigotry and racism to see what is happening to our country. You wan5 to blame the Musso’ or now the blacks while the rich not only taken your money but now seeking to take your freedom.

Electric cars only in London soon enough.

How long before Covid Passports linked to your phones? No vaccine no picnic!

Divide and conquer was never healthier. Oh and beware as the anger grows the apologists and enablers of the rich will be targeted.

This law changes next to nothing.

If there's another peaceful BLM protest at the weekend, then the police aren't going to wade in and break them up. It's just a licence to further foment distrust, divide and the tories will end up even more disconnected from the general public. If the FLA mob announce another tear up then the police will be there in numbers because history tells them that they're out for a scrap and don't really care against whom.

Jun 16, 2020 -- 10:39AM, PorcupineorPineapple wrote:

This law changes next to nothing. If there's another peaceful BLM protest at the weekend, then the police aren't going to wade in and break them up. It's just a licence to further foment distrust, divide and the tories will end up even more disconnected from the general public. If the FLA mob announce another tear up then the police will be there in numbers because history tells them that they're out for a scrap and don't really care against whom.

Veterans turn out to protect statues bad.

Left wing thugs pull down statues good.

If they carry on with one sided policing the problems will just keep growing.

Three weeks ago there were no issues.

Who benefits from this divide and conquer policy ?

Who benefits from this divide and conquer policy ?



Well, for starters. Ickle Tommy's got his profile up and got a few more quid, and didn't even bother to turn up. Farage is doing a Brexit Party v2.0. Grifters gonna grift and there's money to be made from telling people that their problems are caused by the poor family over the road rather than complicated deep-rooted problems in the fabric of our society.

Then maybe look at which politicians are going on about it. Which leaders are tweeting about Churchill etc etc? The tories are desperate to keep this in the news for obvious reasons. Now they've started another can-kicking exercise to keep the topic live for yet more months when, if they wanted to actual end "this divide and conquer policy" they could simply start enacting any of the hundreds of recommendations from previous commissions that have looked into racial inequality in the last few years.

Jun 16, 2020 -- 11:03AM, PorcupineorPineapple wrote:

Who benefits from this divide and conquer policy ?Well, for starters. Ickle Tommy's got his profile up and got a few more quid, and didn't even bother to turn up. Farage is doing a Brexit Party v2.0. Grifters gonna grift and there's money to be made from telling people that their problems are caused by the poor family over the road rather than complicated deep-rooted problems in the fabric of our society.Then maybe look at which politicians are going on about it. Which leaders are tweeting about Churchill etc etc? The tories are desperate to keep this in the news for obvious reasons. Now they've started another can-kicking exercise to keep the topic live for yet more months when, if they wanted to actual end "this divide and conquer policy" they could simply start enacting any of the hundreds of recommendations from previous commissions that have looked into racial inequality in the last few years.

So that is one side that might benefit. Trump also could benefit with his base supporters who want law and order.

Then on the other side you have BLMUK raising almost a million for their campaign to end capitalism.

MPs like David Lammy have further raised their profile.

Keir Starmer appeals more to the minority and woke vote by 'taking the knee'.

It appears to me in the UK to be direct follow up to Brexit ending.

Diversity and division seems to help all extremes and of course the media love the click bait.

If everyone got along politics and campaign groups would have no one interested in voting/donating.

One of the problems police have with illegal raves is that they have always been illegal
and the organisers built in anti plod actions to the organisation of them to retain the ability to profit from them.

You clearly have misread what I said shrewd dude.

I read what you said. A contracted protester would be a reasonable excuse. Drivel.

Ah you have re read and realised the knife was brought up by somebody else

Well done

Maybe re read yourself. I brought up the law on knifes to show how ridiculous the point you were trying to make was.

And I pointed out the difference....

The exemption I highlighted is in the relevant act

You fabricated a spurious story so you could dismiss that spurious story
then attempt to claim  equivalence my point

Rather than attempt to debate the actual point I made.

I explained the legal concept of reasonable excuse that is in this act and in many acts before including the legislation involving knives.

On realising how stupid your point was that a clearly contrived defence of contracting people to protest would amount to a reasonable excuse in law you then immediately began to waffle about Dominic Cummings for no apparent reason.

You explaining the concept of reasonable excuse is fine...



But not same as the spurious argument you introduced so you could claim equivalence

You didn't guote the clause in the law you were using,


My daft excuse still exists in law, your spurious story is just
A spurious story

Maybe you can explain why my legal defence would fail, when you seem to also
argue I don't even need that legal defence?

It's not spurious to compare the legal concept of reasonable excuse across different acts prior to this legislation when a person doesn't understand what the new act means. The law relative to other acts with reasonable excuse defences will be very relevant to the definition of reasonable excuse in this new act.  That's how the law works.

Maybe you can explain why my legal defence would fail, when you seem to also
argue I don't even need that legal defence?

Are you thick? I've clearly explained that to you. A clearly contrived defence of I have a contract to be here would not be considered reasonable excuse.

Had you constructed a story based on the act instead of a spurious
story you might have a point, but you didn't you have a spurious story.

The wording of the act agrees with me, not you.

I have put the clause on the thread.

I give up is it not about time you start bringing up Dominic Cummings again?

I think you just did