The Politics Thread

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10443779.stm

So a High Court judge has ruled that the Parliament Square camp should be cleared.

About bloody time too.

[William the White]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10443779.stm

So a High Court judge has ruled that the Parliament Square camp should be cleared.

About bloody time too.

So, where do you think democracy village should be hosted?

[Lord Kangana]

Iraq.

[William the White]

Iraq.

Obviously, since we've brought democracy there, and it will shortly arrive in afghanistan as well...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10443779.stm

So a High Court judge has ruled that the Parliament Square camp should be cleared.

About bloody time too.

So, where do you think democracy village should be hosted?

I don't think it should be 'hosted' anywhere. If they want to set up on private land they have permission to be on, rather than selfishly occupying public spaces, that's up to them.

If they want to continue protesting there, they should do so without trying to live there, and such be sensitive to the possibility that others may want to use that significant space to protest in.

[William the White]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10443779.stm

So a High Court judge has ruled that the Parliament Square camp should be cleared.

About bloody time too.

So, where do you think democracy village should be hosted?

I don't think it should be 'hosted' anywhere. If they want to set up on private land they have permission to be on, rather than selfishly occupying public spaces, that's up to them.

If they want to continue protesting there, they should do so without trying to live there, and such be sensitive to the possibility that others may want to use that significant space to protest in.

So democratic rights, you feel, can only be expressed unhindered through property ownership?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10443779.stm

So a High Court judge has ruled that the Parliament Square camp should be cleared.

About bloody time too.

So, where do you think democracy village should be hosted?

I don't think it should be 'hosted' anywhere. If they want to set up on private land they have permission to be on, rather than selfishly occupying public spaces, that's up to them.

If they want to continue protesting there, they should do so without trying to live there, and such be sensitive to the possibility that others may want to use that significant space to protest in.

So democratic rights, you feel, can only be expressed unhindered through property ownership?

Not at all - to right to free speech and freedom of assembly are democratic rights. The right to live on public land without permission is not.

[William the White]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10443779.stm

So a High Court judge has ruled that the Parliament Square camp should be cleared.

About bloody time too.

So, where do you think democracy village should be hosted?

I don't think it should be 'hosted' anywhere. If they want to set up on private land they have permission to be on, rather than selfishly occupying public spaces, that's up to them.

If they want to continue protesting there, they should do so without trying to live there, and such be sensitive to the possibility that others may want to use that significant space to protest in.

So democratic rights, you feel, can only be expressed unhindered through property ownership?

Not at all - to right to free speech and freedom of assembly are democratic rights. The right to live on public land without permission is not.

I'm not without sympathy - for once - with your view on this protest, which seems honestly motivated but eccentric - but it has persisted legally so far for a number of years so I'm not sure where the 'without permission' bit comes in, other than the judgement you identify. i'm not even convinced this is the last legal word, these guys have been pretty cute so far. However - the idea that democratic rights are time-limited and require 'permission' is an interesting one. Is there statute law about the 'right to live on public land'? I don't know if there is. The moving on of 'travellers' for instance seems to be a civil action. If there is, why has it taken this long to shift democracy village?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm not without sympathy - for once - with your view on this protest, which seems honestly motivated but eccentric - but it has persisted legally so far for a number of years so I'm not sure where the 'without permission' bit comes in, other than the judgement you identify. i'm not even convinced this is the last legal word, these guys have been pretty cute so far. However - the idea that democratic rights are time-limited and require 'permission' is an interesting one. Is there statute law about the 'right to live on public land'? I don't know if there is. The moving on of 'travellers' for instance seems to be a civil action. If there is, why has it taken this long to shift democracy village?

Well there hasn't been a full-time residential 'village' there until this year - that's the bit that I, and now, apparently, the High Court objects to.

I'll repeat my opinion that the right to reside on public land is not a democratic right, so your interest in the requirement of 'permission' is misplaced.

As for being time-limited... all rights come with some limitations. One limitation on the right to protest in Parliament Square, for example, is that you shouldn't be allowed to crowd out other people from protesting there.

This is how Article 10 is formulated in the ECHR:

"Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."


Property law is definitely 'necessary in a democratic society' and as such is an entirely legitimate 'hindrance', as you put it, on the right to free speech and protest.

You're right to say it's a civil action and I have no idea why it has taken so long to move them on. I'm sure that if you and some mates set up twenty tents in a public park and started living there, you'd expect to be moved on pretty sharply, so I'm baffled as to why that didn't happen in this case.

[William the White]

I think that the highlighted article above is a fine, thoughtful and supportable limitation of freedom of expression.

Which do you think democracy village breaches?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think that the highlighted article above is a fine, thoughtful and supportable limitation of freedom of expression.

Which do you think democracy village breaches?

The rights of others - it's public land, an important space to be enjoyed or at least used by everyone, rather than being turned into a smelly eyesore by a selfish minority.

[William the White]

I think that the highlighted article above is a fine, thoughtful and supportable limitation of freedom of expression.

Which do you think democracy village breaches?

The rights of others - it's public land, an important space to be enjoyed or at least used by everyone, rather than being turned into a smelly eyesore by a selfish minority.

Do others have a right not to see or smell things they dislike? Do you think the convention on human Rights intended that?

Have we suddenly moved from democratic rights to your personal and political prejudices?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think that the highlighted article above is a fine, thoughtful and supportable limitation of freedom of expression.

Which do you think democracy village breaches?

The rights of others - it's public land, an important space to be enjoyed or at least used by everyone, rather than being turned into a smelly eyesore by a selfish minority.

Do others have a right not to see or smell things they dislike? Do you think the convention on human Rights intended that?

Have we suddenly moved from democratic rights to your personal and political prejudices?

No they don't, but public authorities have a right to ensure that public land they are responsible for is maintained in a way so that it is not commandeered and monopolised by a small groups. If a group turning it into a cesspit has the effect of keeping people away then the authorities should absolutely have the right to do something about it.

I'm not the one moving from democratic rights to personal prejudices - far from it, I'm the only party in this discussion capable of keeping them distinct.

Tell me - would you expect to be moved on if you tried to live in a tent and grow vegetables in the middle of a public park?

[Hoboh]

I think that the highlighted article above is a fine, thoughtful and supportable limitation of freedom of expression.

Which do you think democracy village breaches?

The rights of others - it's public land, an important space to be enjoyed or at least used by everyone, rather than being turned into a smelly eyesore by a selfish minority.

Do others have a right not to see or smell things they dislike? Do you think the convention on human Rights intended that?

Have we suddenly moved from democratic rights to your personal and political prejudices?

No they don't, but public authorities have a right to ensure that public land they are responsible for is maintained in a way so that it is not commandeered and monopolised by a small groups. If a group turning it into a cesspit has the effect of keeping people away then the authorities should absolutely have the right to do something about it.

I'm not the one moving from democratic rights to personal prejudices - far from it, I'm the only party in this discussion capable of keeping them distinct.

Tell me - would you expect to be moved on if you tried to live in a tent and grow vegetables in the middle of a public park?

No, but mugged and beaten half to death though by drugged up drunken hoodie teenagers I would expect!

[bobo the clown]

OK then ... while we're at it .... squatters; Useful members of society maintaining acient rights whilst living in a counter culture fashion ... or ... fecking freeloading wasters sponging off my tax money, whilst rejecting the very society they abuse and occupying property to which they have no right? Discuss.

(retreat well back after lighting blue touch-paper !)



These
'Orrible
Stupid
Squatters
Emit
Racid
Smells

[thebish]

I used to live in a squat for a while - in Vauxhall - behind the gas tanks near the oval cricket ground. (I was working in Vauxhall night shelter at the time)

the flats were 3-story horse-shoe shape - and utterly mank. down one side was a 6-lane busy road pumping out fumes and dust and the all-night wailing of ambulances, police cars and fire-engines, the other side looked into the horseshoe and was a stinking cesspit of uncollected bins and permanently blocked rubbish shutes...

every flat was damp and at the same time draughty.

every now and again the local council would claim there were good law-abiding tenants who wanted to move in - so we would be cleared out by bailiffs, the flats would be tarted up and boarded up and prospective tenants would be bussed in.....

they'd take one look at the flats and decide they'd rather live in a box behind the bernard matthews turkey giblets disposal pipe.

a week would pass - and we'd move back in.

[thebish]

same old tories...

George Osborne's austerity budget will result in the loss of up to 1.3m jobs across the economy over the next five years according to a private Treasury assessment of the planned spending cuts, the Guardian has learned.

Unpublished estimates of the impact of the biggest squeeze on public spending since the second world war show that the government is expecting between 500,000 and 600,000 jobs to go in the public sector and between 600,000 and 700,000 to disappear in the private sector by 2015.

not same old tories...

apparently Ken Clarke has now decided that we will not imprison people - but, instead, give them ice-cream - which is a departure from the old "Prison Works" philosophy - and the oft repeated "build more prisons" of Dave's campaigning...

(incidentally - why give Ken (sell ciggies to people who can't afford food) Clarke this brief rather than IDS who has spent several years on a damascus road to social and prison reform - and now is binned off to think about pensions?

[superjohnmcginlay]

I like ice cream. But give us a clue what you're talking about.

[thebish]

I like ice cream. But give us a clue what you're talking about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/ ... ing-reform

t'has been in all the news bulletins today..

Ye Olde Daily Maile if not Happie!!


Some tories are furious that Ken has teamed up with the lib-dems...

and...

The Tories' transformation was summed up by the absurdly confused remarks of Crispin Blunt , the new Conservative Prisons Minister, who - in seeking to justify the new liberal approach to crime - told the Commons earlier this month: 'In the end, we cannot lock up everybody who might be a threat to someone, because in that way the entire population would end up in prison.'

[superjohnmcginlay]

Oh reet. I read summat similar from him the other week. That fella's in the wrong party. But then just to confuse my addled head even more that Straw bloke goes the other way.

And there was no ice cream. F*cker.