Don't forget to let them know when you book your £30k free car in for its free service and valet will you?

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 Of course, the true test will be whether such laws are repealed after the Olympics - or will some other trumped up pretext materialise out of nowhere to replace it?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.

What will become of the guys at Speakers Corner?

Is Hyde Park covered by the legislation?

There is a wider issue than just Boris's byelaws:
[urlhttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/speeches/Home-sec-olympic-speech[/url

THEY'LL HAVE TO RAISE THEIR VOICES.

Just which events are happening on Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square?
If you're concerned about people travelling from those sites to other parts of London, why isn't it being proposed that the whole of London is covered by this ban? Surely that would make more sense? If I can disrupt activities in London by campaigning on Trafalgar Square, I'm damn sure I can do the same by campainging at Whitehall, or Oxford Street, Pall Mall, or many other areas of London?

There can be no reasonable justification for the over pampering of people who - at the end of the day - contribute nothing to the country other than their ability to run, throw, row or whatever over the trampling of the right to free speech.

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.