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?

Is that what you think? Paranoia meter overload.


I'm one that asks what you think, if I'm not sure what you think


You don't say


Surely everybody does? Or are there some who post stuff, whilst actually believing they've got the wrong end of the stick? What would be the point of that?


Hang on, I think I get it. You're on the wind. Pretty good too.

My appropriate and considered response was going to be

but I figured you just in time.

BTW just as a matter of interest the tiny type thing was indicative of only the fact that your earlier soliloquy was, and is, only a few centimetres above my response and so reproducing it would be pointless at best and irritating, whilst useful only to those with the memory retention span of a retarded goldfish. The thought that font size of quotes could be used both as a metaphor for perceived relative merit as well as a form of visual put down is certainly novel.

Wrong. No paranoia here.


Approaching condescending. Yet you have trouble appreciating people's differences on this site.


It's called learning. Seeking knowledge. Testing the water? There are many reasons why. eg. I've posted asking questions on here recently and seeing if what I heard was happening back home or my perception or opinion of something back home is still in fact true. People back home give me an answer. Confiming or denying what end of the stick I had, but that's all a matter of opinion anyway tbh.


Believe you've figured something out in time FA? It may elevate your ego a bit further perhaps. But you'd be so wrong. Good use of emoticons. You must clearly be some sort of qualified medical professional to suggest someone is

. Are you? If not, clearly realise that you're capable of name calling and chucking insults around.



You could of said <SNIP> or nothing, but you chose to make it tiny. Something I hadn't see before. Only you know if you're being honest. Subconsciously, you may have been sending a message of your perceived superiority. Again, you can't help yourself but make some sort of put down. This seems to be a trend on the Sin Bin.

[i"useful only to those with the memory retention span of a retarded goldfish"[/i

I think you're being OTT, silly and totally paranoid. Worryingly so, for a mod. Have you actually heard yourself? I mean,

WTF? Look, as a moderator in these parts, if you have any questions as to the use of emoticons, shouldn't you address these to the Admins? AFAIK, the use of the

emoticon is not restricted to health professionals; and if you don't "get" the usage that's not my problem.

THINK about it, man. There are a load of emoticons for our use. Is it actually even possible that a moderator could believe that the

emoticon means the poster is professing to have made a professional psychiatric diagnosis? I'm no shrink, but that sounds barking to me. Here's another one for you:

I'm sure the people making up the Occupy Wall Street movement could pitch their tents instead on Broadway. Might be a touch confusing, tho.



If you aren't prejudiced against them why the desire to shut them down? Protestors aren't - by definition - barbarian anarchists. I'll concede that there have been violent protests (many of which only turned so after murky intrusions by the state, police, army, agent provocateurs etc.) but they are not the norm in any way - especially not in Britain.



[iDouble very[/i (comma included for dramatic effect) wrong?



Your argument begins from the self-evident premise that the Olympics should take precedence over protesters in a democratic country (whose virtues we consistently preach to the world). Given that protesters aren't violent or terrorist nutters by default (or anywhere close) accepting that premise seems prejudicial.



You clearly have no idea about the legislation of power within a democracy. It's far easier (not to mention better) to [ianticipate[/i, organise and block an incoming injust law than overturn an existing one.

That famous CND march in Oct 1983 started there. I was on that believe it or not.

So was I, but on the "official" side. Didn't realise we might have met so long ago!

I was young and impressionable. I do recall loads of people at the front, by the stage in Hyde Park, with Black Flags. They started trouble and the old bill "intervened".

You start with sarcasm.

I don't want to shut them down. And you are right, protestors aren't always violent. Totally agree. I have been one.

My argument initially, which isn't self-evident, was that everyone should relax as we don't know that these bye laws will be maintained after the Olympics. Others were being alarmist and concerned that they would be and I haven't been prejudicial.

To finish you summise I CLEARLY have no idea about something. When I do. I'm simply not as bothered about it as others. If it is kept, then protest.

I'm the one that's meant to be paranoid.

I usually finish with it, too.



I've given you a good reason for being concerned. Two, actually. If you are still unconcerned you must have opinions on why they aren't valid.



So, you are not "bothered" about the difficulties of overturning legislation once it has been authorised? You seem to have a remarkably blasé attitude. Although my guess is that if you really aren't bothered you wouldn't have posted in the first place. This kind of reminds me of the thousands of people who used to ring up "Yes", "No", "Don't Care" CEEFAX polls and choose the latter ...



It's your inability to make sense that's bothering me - not your paranoia.

See how you've twisted, me not being as bothered as others, to you are "not" bothered. As you admit, you GUESS.

The reasons you have given are based purely on your view and opinion. Mine is more laid back.

Again, I'm accused of paranoia. Yet what has happened? Nothing so far. Let's wait until after the Olympics. Then as I've said, I support you.

Anyway, I've PMd you, could you read it please. It's still in my outbox. It'll all make perfect sense.