In a surprisingly low key news story, Parliament Square has suddenly been "cleared" of the anti-war protest encampment.
[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16588305[/url

This seemingly follows the coming into force of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. I understand one tent remains while the occupier mounts a legal challenge, presumably Human Rights based.

Boris said "No matter how important the right to protest is, and everybody defends people's ability to legitimately make their point, you can't have the continual desecration of a world heritage site." I tend to agree, though it could easily be the thin end of a very large wedge.

They cleared off City Square in Leeds because it started to get cold and wet and the christmas tree nearly fell on them one windy night.

Given that most of the tents were empty, I'm not surprised it's low key.

Also, giving this story publicity, is giving those who carried it out in the first place the publicity they crave. Right decision.

Yeah, we don't wanna be giving publicity to those idiots who think war is wrong.

Glad you agree.

On a serious note, that statement of yours is very silly, isn't it?

The point here, is not the war, its the fact they've pitched tents in a public place, which is evidently OK.

If a bunch of travellers turned up and pitched tents in your back garden, though I bet your opinion would be different.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, surely.

Now [ithat's[/i a silly statement.

To begin with, my garden is not a public place, so the two are not remotely comparable. We have a right to peaceful demonstration in public places - that right does not extend to private property. Secondly, I don't suppose their message would be very widely received by them pitching their tents in the back garden of a South Yorkshire bungalow.

And your original post stated that you disagreed with their message being heard. If they're clearing the site anyway, what harm is there in the anti-war message hitting the headlines again?

No it isn't.


Not sure I ever said you shouldn't demonstrate. What I said was leaving tents, caravans, cars, graffiti or whatever is NOT an acceptable way of protesting. Having a day out whilst carrying flags and chanting slogans is a peaceful protest, whether walking or just sitting down.


I think you need to learn to read. Where did I say Anti-war messages are wrong? Where did I say I was or wasn't anti-war?

What I said was that there is no harm in the message being heard, but there is a right way to do it, and a wrong way. This way is, IN MY OPINION, wrong and should not be encouraged.

A rule of thumb is, if the protest makes people think "dickkheads", as this did, then it's the wrong type of protest.

Comparing peaceful public protest to camping in someone's back garden? I beg to differ.



Right, I see. So people have the right to protest, so long as that protest fits your narrowly-defined criteria of what a protest ought to entail.



You said that they shouldn't be given the 'oxygen of publicity'. I would have thought that, if you were anti-war, any publicity that cause received would be a good thing.



By that rule of thumb, you'd be banned from opening your mouth. And have you taken a comprehensive poll to establish whether or not 'people' did think that? What percentage of the population were of that opinion?

It's called the "Olympic Wedge."

Tbh, I have no thoughts as to what they were protesting about in the 1st place, but, apparently, they have made a fair few quid from donations from the public, and, unfortunately, these sit-down/ in protests, marches, walking down a road with a placard protests, ultimately achieve 1 thing...nothing... The only thing I can think off in the last 30 years, that has changed things/ perceptions 1 way or another is, unfortunately, violence. Toxteth, Wapping, Miners strike, last summer's riots off the top of my head.

The Occupy movement is just one big Brian Haw tribute. He’d be proud of the legacy that he’s left behind if he could see it now.

The above is no different to the chorus of whining from just about every corrupt and morally bankrupt institution throughout history which was first challenged by "unacceptable" protests and then overturned by such (often forcibly).

By what method do you think an English parliamentary democracy was instituted in the place of the Absolute Law of the King?

Do you consider the actions of ... say ... [url=http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=sophie%20scholl&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSophie_Scholl&ei=4rkWT4WAF4H_-gb48K2oBA&usg=AFQjCNEqr4B4bn7BsAx8-h0kTd3qYPJOEQ&sig2=FogxGPEdIPLYf3h0tK6uDgSophie Scholl[/url "wrong" because she refused to kowtow to [ilegally justified (under the Nuremberg race laws)[/i Nazi despotism?

What about Ken Sarowiwa? Was he "wrong" in defying the legally justified Nigerian brutalities?

Many of the rights we currently enjoy were the direct result of men and women saying bollix to the law, risking their lives and even dying for the cause. Were they all "wrong", too?

Sure, peaceful protest should always be the priority and if you can achieve results by such - great. But if you can't. If the game is so hopelessly and lethally loaded against the pursuit of social justice then there comes a time when the law must be challenged. I have no problem with that.

Absolutely, those kind of people have no respect for authority. Who do they think they are, pitching their scruffy tents in front of the mother of Parliaments? Don't they realise that the world can see them? What do they imagine the world will think when they see that the finest fighting force in the world is maligned in this way? It's disgusting, they should have a spell in the army, that would smarten them up.