Steady on old chap, I haven't heard any athletes demanding any of these measures, indeed I'd guess that many/some won't like the measures any more than I do.

:k022kum9

Calm down old bean, think of your blood pressure.

First, don't ask dumb questions. As I presume you know, the byelaws are the Trafalgar Square byelaws and the Parliament Square byelaws. Therefore they deal specifically with those sites and those sites only. Is that so strange?

Second, why would you, or anyone, wanting to disrupt Whitehall, need to travel "from those sites"? Indeed, if a protester was intending to target Whitehall, it would seem a bit dotty to not go, er, straight to Whitehall?

. None, obviously (well, not sure of the Marathon route tbf) so what connection is there between those places and any athlete?

Finally, you wrongly assume an overarching and unfettered right to free speech, yet must know that this is both naive and unworkable. You may choose to make a protest, but such rights as you have to protest do not trump the rights of the rest of the population who choose not to join your protest. And, for all you know, may disagree with your protest, or even may disagree with the reason for your protest. You should not forget that, but you seem to ignore it.

The issue of authorities potentially misusing the powers they rightly have to strike a fair balance is real, and serious, and such powers can easily be abused; discussions on that dilemma are merited, and could go on all year. but the fact that getting the balance right may be very difficult does not mean that no effort should be made, and it most certainly does not mean that you either have, or should have an absolute and unfettered right to "protest", whenever, wherever, and however you choose.

More specifically, I would argue that I have a right to peacably view and enjoy the Olympic games, and that the athletes (who you ludicrously describe as "pampered"

) have a right to go about their lawful business - especially as guests in this country. You have lost any sense of balance and proportion, clearly, but all I see in your comment is a straw man. If you want to advance some actual "trampling on free speech" that is going on, you'd need to actually say what you're talking about.

As for the Olympics "contributing nothing" to either the country or to the economy, you can't seriously think that, so I won't comment.

Actually, I quite like the idea of the Olympics taking place in central London, the throwing disciplines chucking stuff up The Mall towards Bettys House for instance, running lots of times around Trafalgar Square, swimming events in The Serpentine and just so they don't feel left out, The Marathon could be run inside a proper stadium for a change, White City dog track for instance.

Just think how much money we could have saved and how impressed Johnny Foreigner would be chucking javelins at the queen.

Bugger running the marathon over a set distance. It should be a "fagging-out" race like we used to have at school. They just run round and round 'til they drop, last one standing wins.

The javelin could be replaced with throwing traffic signs, swap the discus for a dustbin lid. In fact we could become world champs at reealio, eggetty-budge, pirates and British Bulldog

The beach volleyball will take place on Horseguards Parade.
I jest not.

Beach volleyball FFS !
Soft porn for the PM, I reckon.
Still, I s'pose it keeps him away from tinkering with stuff he knows nowt about.

I've always found it amusing when people get upset about "protesting" being banned.

Surely the whole idea of a "protest".....is that it's not what the government wants.

One of the tactics that the ANC used against the apartheid regime in South Africa was "Make South Africa Ungovernable" - it took advantage of the fact that the government was making more and more things illegal, by encouraging supporters to go and do them in protest, forcing the authorities to commit resources to arresting them, holding them in cells, processing them through the courts, so it logjammed the justice system.

If there is really a movement for mass protest against the government in the UK then it should all turn up and protest in that 'banned month'.

Back to your original post,

I have gone camping and bivvying for many years, and am neither allowed to pitch my tent wherever I like, nor do i think it would be reasonable to do so.

If I went to the Dales with a few mates, I think it would be selfish in the extreme, and ignorant to both locals and tourists, to pitch our tents in the main car park, or on the lawn outside someone's house, or in a pub beer garden. There are places I can wild camp, other than that, I am happy to pitch my tent where I'm permitted to do so.

I would not, by the same token, expect to be able to solve the problem of London accommodation by pitching my tent in Parliament Square, and I don't know of any camper who has ever done so, or thought it fair game. I don't see why disguising my camping with the disclaimer "Yes, but I'm actually PROTESTING" does, nor should, make a blind bit of difference. All the byelaw does is make it easier for the Council to remove offenders and the reason for such byelaws would be because these are locations which are more likely to be targeted (and have been targeted) and the previous laws for removing people abusing their right to visit a public space have proved laborious and thus ineffective.

It is a democracy. Those who want there to be a legal right to pitch tents wherever you want for as long as you want can contact their MP and campaign for a change in the law to that effect.

That, Sir, is a very, very good post.

Although the Pedant in Chief says you're confusing the defiance campaign of the 1950s with the make SA ungovernable campaign of the 1980s, during the states of emergency.

I think it's fairly straight forward and plain to see that these measures aren't aimed at people just wanting to camp or bivvy where they want, but that they are aimed entirely at protesters (although I will admit some confusion on the kite and bird feeding components).

There is already sufficient legislation in place to prevent illegal protest, although as is often the way with legislation that could perhaps be made stronger in the minds of those who use that authority, it has remained almost completely unused, while we see the disgraceful scenes we witnessed last year.
These laws could already be used to clear illegal camps, and contrary to the impression given, very quickly too when needed.

I still feel that these protests are more to ensure that the London Authority doesn't suffer any embarassment during the Olympics rather than any real need for laws, a situation that I still can only remember happening during the Beijing Olympics.

I think that if they're introduced, they'll end up tying up more Police than if the laws weren't there - a red rag to a bull in effect. If i was of the type to be protesting in London, i'd be busy trying to organise two protests the day of the opening ceremony now.

Load of fuss about nothing. They've just re-published the bye laws for legal reasons. They haven't changed. There are notices posted all over the place, especially in the City, pointing out that places we already know are private are private. This might help in future possible cases seeking re-possession of land that has been occupied; the plaintiff/complainant will say these naughty people saw our notices and still occupied our land.They're just trying to cover their (legal) a*s*s. However people who choose to take direct action tend not to worry about such bye-laws and notices.

We have people concerned about something that they fear may happen. With no evidence bar paranoia that the laws will be kept on after the Olympics. Is that it?

The capital has taken on an obligation to help secure London, the tourists and the competitors for the Olympics.

You're right - we have no evidence whatsoever. On the other hand - we DO have a mountain of demonstrable evidence going back centuries (spanning all nations, political systems etc.) which shows that governments, when facing awkward-to-downright-dangerous civil unrest, will seize upon any and every opportunity to trump up restrictive laws and curb civil liberties - often in defiance of long-enshrined constitutional rights - and not repeal/release them later.

Given the last two duplicitous governments Britain has endured I think we have every reason to be - at the very least - concerned.

I understand your concern, as you have pointed out what has happened before. What has happened before though doesn't really mean it will happen again. This is thankfully why "previous" isn't brought up in a criminal trial.

I did have a quick browse at the bye laws and some of the things are understandable, like about starting a fire. etc. There are unusual things like No person shall wash or dry and piece of clothing or fabric, or ride any animal on the square.

What may be construed as slightly misleading is the man's blog which states:
The byelaws make it an offence, inter alia, to

- erect or keep erected any tent or similar structure
- display any sign
- make or give any speech or public address

Technically the author is correct, but it isn't as final as he made it seem. I read the bye laws for Parliament Square which doesn't list these in the "Acts prohibited with the square" section. But they are in the "Acts within the square for which written permission is required". So, in theory, if you want to attempt to do the things he stated were an offence, all you need to do is write and ask.


Anyway like I said some people are wasting far too much energy and brain power worrying about nothing that's happened. By all means mugwump, if it does continue after the Olympics and they don't revoke these bye laws as this one does to the ones previous, then go and demonstrate. I'm behind you on that.

I always wonder why a lot of world leaders don't seem to condemn China's rule over its people, maybe they are envious?

No, they are scared about China's response. Appeasement is the way with China, even though there is plenty of evidence that it doesn't work.

As for the demonstrations issue, I thought that part of the undertaking of the host city in putting on an Olympics is to ensure nothing political attaches to the events? Large-scale protests may well be considered as politicising the games. I can't think of many protests that must happen within a 4 week window anyway.

You keep missing the point, I'm not sure how you do it. The measures ARE aimed at people who may want to camp. the point you miss is that the only people remotely likely to do so are protesters who may wish to set up an encampment.

The point is, it is inappropriate and an abuse of the rest of the public's right to enjoy public spaces, for people to be allowed to pitch their tents and set up encampments wherever they like, at their whim. This is so, whether it is people wanting to protest about something, or the Chipping Sodbury Scouts.

Your take on it conflates protesters with people who want to camp, and that is with respect plainly untenable.

So this bye law means that for a time you can't protest in 2 London squares.

But you can still protest in the 1,570 square kms that is the rest of London.

Does it? I thought it meant you couldn't camp, fly kites or feed pigeons ([iinter alia[/i). I don't believe the word "protest" is in the byelaws, but stand to be corrected?

And a bloody big "inter alia" at that.

....or start a fire. Nope, you are correct FA. The word protest isn't.

Have a word with the OP about the title of this thread then. Ask him to change it, as its inaccurate and maybe even a tad alarmist.

Also to Mugwump who suggested [i"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."[/i

Sally Cinnamon: [iI've always found it amusing when people get upset about "protesting" being banned.[/i

Skooter Nik:[i I think it's fairly straight forward and plain to see that these measures aren't aimed at people just wanting to camp or bivvy where they want, but that they are aimed entirely at protesters (although I will admit some confusion on the kite and bird feeding components).[/i > [iI still feel that these protests are more to ensure that the London Authority doesn't suffer any embarassment during the Olympics rather than any real need for laws, [/i > [iIf i was of the type to be protesting in London, i'd be busy trying to organise two protests the day of the opening ceremony now.[/i

And yourself, you chose to bring up protestors, when the word protest isn't mentioned in the bye law. Why did you bring it up? In fact, you chose to use the word over a dozen times on this thread.
[iI, 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? [/i > [ithe bigger the protest, the greater the likelihood of it, or parts of it, being commandeered by criminal elements[/i > [iI 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.[/i > [ithe measures ARE aimed at people who may want to camp. the point you miss is that the only people remotely likely to do so are protesters who may wish to set up an encampment.[/i

All these people that talked about "protest", which is why I pointed out, they could protest in the other 1570km2 that is the wonder that is London. You are absolutely correct though, it is not mentioned in the bye law.

Sure, why don't they just protest on the outskirts of the city, or beneath Tower Bridge or in the sewers? Protesting isn't simply about sending a message - it's advisable to position yourself where you are likely to seen and heard. So far they've hardly been cutting a swathe of destruction through the city. The fact that you think they [imay[/i provide some kind of terrorist opportunity to disappear amongst really isn't much of a reason to evict/arrest them. To be honest such says more about your prejudices than it does about them.

Totally agree with the bit in Italic. I don't understand the need to be sarcastic with reference to your choice of locations. There really was no need. One example could be The Embankment. That famous CND march in Oct 1983 started there. I was on that believe it or not. Others could include hundreds of locations throughout Central London that aren't those 2 squares.

The bit in bold. Fact? Massive guesswork, based on nothing and very wrong. I have no prejudices against them either, nor have I mentioned terrorism.

It is interesting how people make up their minds as to how someone thinks or feels about a subject if they suspect someone has an opposing argument or view. You have actually come to a conclusion onto how I actually think. I have to inform you that you are so very, very wrong.

What this may boil down to is that you suspect that this bye law gives them "the perfect opportunity to enact draconian laws preventing embarrassing protesters". I on the other hand am not 100% convinced of that as yet as there is no real proof. Who's the prejudiced one? The one who makes the unfounded draconian law statement, or the one who has suspended any judgement until there is more evidence that that is the motive. Just so you know, if you are proven correct, I will actually be on your side as I am actually an advocate of free speech and human rights. We must have the right to protest back in the UK. But you may not think or believe that of me.

As I said earlier on this thread to you Mugwump:
[iAnyway like I said some people are wasting far too much energy and brain power worrying about nothing that's happened. By all means mugwump, if it does continue after the Olympics and they don't revoke these bye laws as this one does to the ones previous, then go and demonstrate. I'm behind you on that.[/i

All very interesting I'm sure, except utterly off the point.

The comment I was specifically replying to was

I pointed out, no, it doesn't.


You've lost me. Nobody was arguing people can't protest anywhere else in London. Your quoted response seems to wrongly imply that one cannot protest in these two squares. Your grip on the wrong end of the stick is too firm.

Of your comment "I don't believe the word "protest" is in the byelaws, but stand to be corrected?"

I pointed out how many times people were referrring to an inability to protest, not something I brought up my self, but that is off the point now. Also I clearly posted not once but twice of your above comment:

Nope, you are correct FA. The word protest isn't.

and

You are absolutely correct though, it is not mentioned in the bye law.

Maybe you should read what I said rather than look for ways to twist or belittle.[i All very interesting I'm sure, [/i you say. You're not another that resorts to being condescending if someone says something that you suspect is different to your belief on a matter are you? Even though I said you were correct about something. It's amazing how we judge. I'm noticing this to be a common theme amongst some on here. Try and accept that we are all different. Some people find that easy some of the time, but not others. Some people appear to believe they have "the correct end of the stick" all the time also.



I just realised you made the type on my earlier reply tiny. Is that indiciative that you feel you hold a superior, larger, more prominent position over others? One that allows you to in this case physically belittle something someone else has posted?