>> "The actions of the police and CPS show a dangerous disregard for the right to peacefully protest. Sending someone to prison, before trial, for the crimes of dropping a banner and sitting down in a shop is an unacceptable waste of police resources and denial of our human right to protest........


Well, technically, you are actually on someone's property in both cases.
So, if they don't want you there, they do have the legal right to expect you to move on - protest or not. "Peaceful protesting" does not give the people the "right" to do as they choose....

Put it this way, by your argument, I could 'peacefully protest' by doing a lockon in your bedroom of your house. Clearly, this is not on and you could get the police to remove me. The same goes for sitting down in your kitchen, in your shop, or on top of your house, or on top of your company's building.

Peaceful protesting does allow an awful lot, but you can't infringe on other people in this way if they don't want you to.

"Well, technically, you are actually on someone's property in both cases."

uh uh - it's called trespass and it's a civil offence (still...) unless there are certain aggravating factors.

"So, if they don't want you there, they do have the legal right to expect you to move on - protest or not."

Sure, they can escort you out of the premises. And issue a writ in civil court.

"Put it this way, by your argument, I could 'peacefully protest' by doing a lockon in your bedroom of your house. Clearly, this is not on and you could get the police to remove me. The same goes for sitting down in your kitchen, in your shop, or on top of your house, or on top of your company's building."

Your conflation of home with business premises seems designed to confuse the issue. personally if you locked onto my bedroom door I would respect your wish to do so, and would leave you there.

Even if the cops claim in the case of business premises that it is aggravated trespass, they aren't necessarily right:  http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/690096

"Peaceful protesting does allow an awful lot, but you can't infringe on other people in this way if they don't want you to."

You sound just like a cop when you say this.

Here's how DirectGov puts it:

"The police work to balance the right to protest with the right of other people to go about their lives safely and freely."
 http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_176761

In this case they seem to have invented a danger to other people, and then treated protest as a crime in order to justify detaining the suspects. End of the day only people who self-identified as traitors could have been upset by the banner, and I'm sure the banner droppers would have come down of their own volition once the point had been made.

I'm sure you love #policestate Britain, David. I reckon if it carries on like this people will not bother with peaceful actions at all - but will use cover of darkness to stop things in different ways.

Are you sure you're on the right webiste? This seems more your style:  http://bit.ly/4BiExw

Good start.... but then you sounded like an ass.
Your whole argument seems to be based around the idea that i "sound like a cop".

Why is it people on here instantly have to resort to the "discredit the opposition" method when losing an argument. Its S-L-A-C-K! and very, very lazy. its almost like you are just too dumb to do anything else.

>> You sound just like a cop when you say this.
It doesn't matter WHO says something.... the statement and argument stand on its own two feet. If Einstein said a statement, and a bum said the same statement, they would be equally correct. A statement's 'correctness' is NOT defined by who said it. Incidentially, I'm not a plod (like that has any relevance) - but if it makes you feel better there you go.

>> Here's how DirectGov puts it:
"The police work to balance the right to protest with the right of other people to go about their lives safely and freely."

Yes. If you are obstructing then you are preventing other people to go about their lives safely and freely. In this case, if people walked underneath (because the police said it was safe), and a protestor 'accidentially' dropped something on someones head, then the police would get it in the ass. Hence they don't.

>> End of the day only people who self-identified as traitors could have been upset by the banner, and I'm sure the banner droppers would have come down of their own volition once the point had been made.
WTF? Self-identified traitors?! So, if we don't agree with you - we are a traitor?
I'm sure hitler used those words. And George Bush. Says a lot about your attitude to people.

>> I'm sure you love #policestate Britain, David. I reckon if it carries on like this people will not bother with peaceful actions at all - but will use cover of darkness to stop things in different ways.
So you want to 'up the stakes' then? Brilliant - lets have an arms escalation equivalent shall we. If that happens, punishments will just go up. And that will be taken all the way to guns and helicopter gunships if you want to go that far.

>> Are you sure you're on the right webiste? This seems more your style:  http://bit.ly/4BiExw

Do you actually expect me to click that link so you can record my IP on the stats page?
Sneaky, rat-like, rodent that you are.

You sound like that anal one off the inbetweeners

> Why is it people on here instantly have to resort to the "discredit the opposition" method when losing an argument.

Yeah, I hate it when people do that. but ... (same paragraph)

> its almost like you are just too dumb to do anything else.

But, David, if you read Have you passed your sergeant's exam yet Dave? comment, they say quite a lot about the law, which you have completely ignored. Presumably because you would far rather like the commenter to Hitler - some might call this "S-L-A-C-K! and very, very lazy" (ever heard of Godwin's Law?)

>> But, David, if you read Have you passed your sergeant's exam yet Dave? comment, they say quite a lot about the law, which you have completely ignored. Presumably because you would far rather like the commenter to Hitler - some might call this "S-L-A-C-K! and very, very lazy" (ever heard of Godwin's Law?)

lol. No i hadn't heard of that law.... very amusing.
Anyway, he started it :)
Anything i write is going to be classed as being either a) policeman or b) a traitor.
So i might as well counter that with him being a) hitler and b) a criminal
Thus balance is restored.

But it doesn't. Its a weak, subjective viewpoint.

You support the use of imaginary non-existent damage to end the protest and incarcerate the protestors in order to prevent them from expressing their views about the Lib Dems at the conference where the policy makers of that party are gathered together.

This means you patently reject the right of someone to mount any kind of effective protest at all - even the quote from directgov hints that there should be a balancing of the (human) right to protest, with the role of ensuring that things continue to run as smoothly as possible. Its not a right if it means you can be arrested on whim and before you've committed a serious enough offence to warrant interefering with the right to protest.

And contrary to the spin, neither it is a sign of a healthy democracy when protest is squelched instinctively and automatically by semi-literate police officers who invariably have to manouvre and twist the law to achieve the desire to stop people expressing themselves.

I think Hitler would have found your need for rigid conformity to the brutal norm far more compelling than my stance.

The link was directly to the Daily Mail which has people who can express your viewpoint far more eloquently than you can - and where I'm sure you'd feel more at home.

No, you still haven't addressed several points that have been made.

> Anyway, he started it :)

Does not cut the mustard. For example, address the issue of "aggravated trespass" versus "trespass". Then people might think you are putting forward a reasoned argument, and not just trolling. I presume you have a reasoned argument? Let's hear it!

>> You support the use of imaginary non-existent damage to end the protest and incarcerate the protestors in order to prevent them from expressing their views about the Lib Dems at the conference where the policy makers of that party are gathered together.

Its a question of "liability" which is not imaginary......
Unfortunately, there is plenty of examples of people getting carried away and throwing things at people from a great height. A certain youth springs to mind who said he was sorry, yet he still nearly killed someone with a fire extinguisher from the top of a building in what he described as a moment of stupidity. A more extreme example, is 53 people killed in 1973 at a hotel in the isle of man because some youths did something stupid on the roof. If the police had been there to remove them that would of have been 53 people who were alive today.

So, its not just a question of preventing these things from happening, it is also who is liable when things screw up (which they do). Who's going to underwrite that liability because I can bet you it aint the protestors.

And are they qualified to work at height? I bet you'd be the first to complain is the police were working at height and accidentally dropped something on someone. There would be outrage on this website if that happened.

>> This means you patently reject the right of someone to mount any kind of effective protest at all - even the quote from directgov hints that there should be a balancing of the (human) right to protest, with the role of ensuring that things continue to run as smoothly as possible. Its not a right if it means you can be arrested on whim and before you've committed a serious enough offence to warrant interefering with the right to protest.

Maybe just do it without dangling over the top of people? Then things can run as smoothly as possible and the protest can continue. Is that really such a bad compromise?

>> And contrary to the spin, neither it is a sign of a healthy democracy when protest is squelched instinctively and automatically by semi-literate police officers who invariably have to manouvre and twist the law to achieve the desire to stop people expressing themselves.

No, but they'd still get it in the neck if they left the protesters up there.

>> I think Hitler would have found your need for rigid conformity to the brutal norm far more compelling than my stance.

Identifying all those who disagree as 'traitors' is not my stance - it is yours. And that is very much like Hitler, except he sent in the tough guys to rough up the "traitors". It smacks of that "either you are with us or against us" bollox that Bush came out with.

>> The link was directly to the Daily Mail which has people who can express your viewpoint far more eloquently than you can - and where I'm sure you'd feel more at home.
That place where 2million readers hang out each day? As opposed to this one where Mrs miggins and her pet budgie comprise of the main readership.

> Anyway, he started it :)
> Does not cut the mustard.
It wasn't meant to.

> address the issue of "aggravated trespass" versus "trespass". Then people might think you are putting forward a reasoned argument, and not just trolling. I presume you have a reasoned argument? Let's hear it!

Ok. Aggravated trespass.... just some definition I grabbed off the internet.... probably not word-for-word correct, but the essense is there:
"The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 created the criminal offence of aggravated trespass. The Act’s section 68 describes aggravated trespass as when a person trespasses on land and, in relation to the lawful activities of others, intimidates them so as to deter them from engaging in that activity or obstructs or disrupts that activity in any way. The lawful activities of the innocent party may be happening on the land being trespassed upon or adjoining land."

So......some counter arguments.....
1) The banner. All the police know is there are 2 or more guys up there saying "Traitors not welcome". To me, that is pretty black & white, it is somewhat aggressive and indicates that shit has a reasonable chance of hitting the fan if a "traitor" decides to drive pass. Therefore, the police probably thought it is better to block the road in case the protestors decide they spot a "traitor" and drop something on them (like the minors dropped a breeze block and killed a scab once).... So, they are preventing people going about their lawful business, hence aggravated trespass

2) The shop. How many people? Did they prevent the business going about its lawful business? Yes. Therefore aggravated trespass.

Anyway, it is for the courts to decide this stuff.