Did you actually read this? It’s a detailed description of examples of application of ECHR principles around the right to protest. It makes it very clear that the right to free assembly to protest is a qualified right and does not include major disruption to other citizens. The Court itself has upheld the actions of several police forces in breaking up demonstrations. The issue appears to be a very cautious interpretation of the Convention by British police and the U.K. Supreme Court and an insistence of multiple analyses before taking action. I don’t know what this Tony Dowson bloke was thinking when he adding his opening para to something which looks cut and pasted from a law journal and which doesn’t support his premise in the slightest. I note he doesn’t mention the incredible force used by gendarmes during the gilets jaunes protests - the French obviously chose not to do a legal risk assessment before acting, even though they are also signatories to the ECHR. Lets go to the source material: Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State. Strikes me that para 2 gives the police plenty of scope to stop people endangering others by glueing themselves to roads, bridges etc. They just choose not to use their powers in this country for some reason. Is there anything in Article 11 that you object to Goldie? Shame, The Critic, from which this piece is culled (or at least it’s Artillery Row column) is meant to be the cream of conservative intellectual writing. But not fact checking.
I did read it. I have no problem with the wording of Articles 10 or 11, but this problem we're facing has its roots in the Lithuanian case before the European Court of Human Rights which held that protesters' interference with traffic was lawful. For me, that is wrong. Then our Supreme Court used that case in Ziegler to make lawful the disruption of traffic by protesters. So, wrong again. Finally, we have our lily-livered police taking things even further, and making sure protesters sitting on main roads stopping people going about their lawful business are comfortable and feedng them water if their hands are glued to the road, to keep them well hydrated. ****ING HELL! You make a good point about how the Gilet Jeunes were treated, Stan, which just shows the different levels of interpretation of these Articles in various European countries. Suella Braverman is bringing in legislation (Public Order Bill) which hopefully will make Zieglar redundant and then the police will do their job and enforce existing traffic laws.
Note this line - Cdr Findlay added that officers in the UK were not allowed to physically remove protesters, in the same way they are in some other countries. "BBC The Met Police has said it is using its full powers to manage ongoing protests by environmentalists in central London. For the last 14 days, Just Stop Oil demonstrators have caused delays and disruption at various locations by blocking roads and junctions. Earlier this week, video footage emerged of a fire engine being blocked by a demonstration in Knightsbridge. Cdr Karen Findlay said officers were "absolutely" using all powers to remove and penalise those who broke the law. The commander, who is in charge of major operations and public order, told the BBC some media reports had led people to believe that officers were being too slow to respond, but she insisted "that's not the case". "When we get there (to a protest) we've got to assess each case on an individual basis, look at the circumstances, look at the behaviour of the protesters, absolutely ask them to move, and if they don't move, then we've got to make sure we've got the points to prove for the offence of wilful obstruction of the highway or alternatively criminal damage," she said. please log in to view this image Image caption, Cdr Karen Findlay said the Met had to balance the right to protest with upkeeping the law Cdr Findlay added that officers in the UK were not allowed to physically remove protesters, in the same way they are in some other countries. "We've got a duty to facilitate protests. We've also got a positive duty to make sure protesters are kept safe, as much as we have got to balance keeping the community running, our bus services running, and making sure that Londoners can get to their work and go about their everyday business," she said. Just Stop Oil protesters have been demanding that the government halts all new oil and gas licences and consents. On Wednesday, emergency fire crews were unable to get through a junction in Knightsbridge for a period of time due to a protest, something which Home Secretary Suella Braverman described as "indefensible". Twenty demonstrators were also removed and arrested on Thursday after creating a road block at St George's Circus. On Friday afternoon, a group of 24 activists were arrested after orange paint was sprayed on a sign at New Scotland Yard, the Met's headquarters. please log in to view this image Image source, PA Media Image caption, Emergency crews on blue lights became stuck between two roads blocks in Knightsbridge on Wednesday More than 370 arrests have been made and over 7,000 officers' days have been spent on the protests in the last fortnight, creating a drain on resources, Cdr Findlay said. "We are taking officers away from the boroughs, the local neighbourhoods and being able to focus on things like reducing violent crime, reducing knife crime, safeguarding priorities or the things the Met wants to be delivering for London." Last year, the Police, Crime and Sentencing Act came into force, giving police greater powers to impose certain conditions on protests. The Public Order Bill, currently going through Parliament, is expected to give police further powers. The Home Office has said the right of people to peacefully protest will not be affected."
According to sky news, the majority of Tory party members want Truss to resign and Johnson to come back.......erm...is the same majority who voted for Truss in the first place? Its difficult to take these lot seriously.
I am really confused now. Cut and pasted from the article up you posted: “The ECtHR remarked in Kudrevičius that serious disruption was not at the core of the freedom under article 11 and that Lithuania had not violated the applicants’ rights since: … the almost complete obstruction of three major highways in blatant disregard of police orders and of the needs and rights of the road users constituted conduct which, even though less serious than recourse to physical violence, can be described as “reprehensible”. I can’t see any way to interpret this other than the European Court of Human Rights upheld the Lithuanian police action. It’s got nothing to do with the ECHR if our own authorities feel that they have to use excessive caution in a way that other signatories to the Convention don’t. So why post an article that explicitly blames the ECHR for something which is clearly nothing to do with it? Could it be your prejudice against all things European got the better of you? I notice this one doesn’t blame foreigners for the police inaction. Why can’t they act in the same way as in other countries? Presumably because British laws and regulations prevent them from doing so. Looks like we are exercising our sovereignty and daring to be different!
Letting a small number of mortgage-free, Express-reading pensioners decide who gets to run the country might not be a great idea in hindsight.
Where are all these idiot mps who were doing the rounds calling everyone who knew the mini budget was a **** up, the anti growth coalition. Talk about egg on your face!!!
This is the part that's damaging (my underlining): "The UK Supreme Court observed that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) had found in Kudrevičiusv Lithuania that disruption to traffic by protesters had engaged article 11 (to freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). Article 11 is a qualified right under the Convention, meaning that interference is permissible if it is prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of legitimate aims." Personally, I don't believe that the right to protest should allow interference with other people's right to use the roads. It's a recipe for boiling over and violence. One woman has already lost her driving licence when she was trying to take her child to school. As to UK police enforcement, I think the Old Bill are scared of the Supreme Court's ruling in Ziegler.
Here’s where you started this little exchange: If anyone want to know why the police aren't moving the idiots sitting on major roads, causing an increased risk of violence from a frustrated public trying to go about their daily business, it's because of the European Convention on Human Rights. Post #79859 Now you appear to be agreeing with me that the problem is the U.K. interpretation of European Court of Human Rights decisions, not the decisions themselves, or the Convention itself, which other countries seem to be able to interpret in such a way so as to allow them to break up demonstrations (quite forcibly sometimes). Hey, dialectic works! I suggest you delete that line from the original post, to avoid confusion. I seem to remember that the police didn’t hold back so much when breaking up the protest of women on Clapham Common after the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving policeman. Perhaps they are all too busy trying to identify themselves in Baroness Casey’s depressing report on the Met to do much about green protesters at the moment.
It's a chain. The Convention set up the court, that decided the Lithuanian case, which was bizarre. Then we have lefty lawyers in the Supreme Court using that case to allow protestors to sit in a main road and stop traffic. Then we have police commissioners who are scared of the Supreme Court, taking a safe route and giving succour to the protestors. So I don't blame the Convention directly. but courts and the UK police's interpretation of its provisions. Maybe the Convention isn't for us, because UK police abide by the law, unlike coppers on the Continent.
I think we’ve done this one to death. Sometimes I think we must live in parallel universes, where things are similar but subtly different and disconnected. In one a lie is often pretty easy to spot, in the other it requires a judicial process to identify; in one accountability lies very close to home, in the other it is distant and driven by foreign institutions and interests. Anyway, we move on.
I would have thought "Behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" would cover all these protests. When you look at how the Met treat football supporters there is definitely a two tier approach to policing. It also doesn't help having a Commissioner who is Khan's glove puppet...
To establish a lie, it is not enough to show that an individual, politician or not, makes an incorrect statement. You have to show an intent to deceive. If you cannot show it, you create an actionable defamation by claiming it. That's the test. I fully agree that the UK's difficulties withe the European Convention on HR are largely that our courts and police apply it to the letter and then some. I doubt Hungary loses any sleep over the ECHR.
Should we not go for the beyond reasonable doubt? You’d think it’s beyond reasonable doubt that Johnson is a bullshitting bastard. People get life imprisonment with less evidence against them,
