Sage Derby By Vagans ( Crossword Centre...
Crosswords5 mins ago
Why should they be prevented from marching peacefully?
37 Answers
http://www.socialistw...o.uk/art.php?id=25598
In view of last nights riot, should not the 'Far Left' be prevented from confronting a perfectly legal march by the English Defence League (EDL) which is to take place in Tower Hamlets in September?
If the authorities have given permission for the march to take place it should be allowed to take place peacefully and unhindered.
If the Unite Against Fascism (UAF) also want to march, then they should also be allowed, but not at the same venue or on the same day as the EDL.
In view of last nights riot, should not the 'Far Left' be prevented from confronting a perfectly legal march by the English Defence League (EDL) which is to take place in Tower Hamlets in September?
If the authorities have given permission for the march to take place it should be allowed to take place peacefully and unhindered.
If the Unite Against Fascism (UAF) also want to march, then they should also be allowed, but not at the same venue or on the same day as the EDL.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"we should all be allowed to protest if the need arises, and should not be prevented from doing so by others who disagree with one's protests."
I agree. But I really don't see how a counter-protest is somehow preventing the original protest or infringing upon their rights. A UAF counter-demonstration on a different day to the EDL would be about as pointless as the EDL protesting in an overwhelmingly white area*.
*I actually disagree with others on this point. I abhor the EDL, but looking at it objectively for a second, if they're going to try and make the point that they're trying to make then there's really little point going into an area with no ethnic minorities.
I agree. But I really don't see how a counter-protest is somehow preventing the original protest or infringing upon their rights. A UAF counter-demonstration on a different day to the EDL would be about as pointless as the EDL protesting in an overwhelmingly white area*.
*I actually disagree with others on this point. I abhor the EDL, but looking at it objectively for a second, if they're going to try and make the point that they're trying to make then there's really little point going into an area with no ethnic minorities.
K thats what i was thinking, why go to places like Chipping Norton, that would be pointless.
Last nights rioting was a disgrace, and watching David Lammy, for once someone who speaks his mind. Going on the news its mostly locals who have lost out, businesses and homes burnt out, whilst many policemen have ended up in hospital, i wasn't sure why they didn't bring in water cannon and douse the little bstards. I am ashamed to live here at times.
Last nights rioting was a disgrace, and watching David Lammy, for once someone who speaks his mind. Going on the news its mostly locals who have lost out, businesses and homes burnt out, whilst many policemen have ended up in hospital, i wasn't sure why they didn't bring in water cannon and douse the little bstards. I am ashamed to live here at times.
In order to be within striking distance of any disturbance in the UK how many would you buy and where would you position them?
A couple in London perhaps and hope for the best in the rest of the country?
As they cost about £125,000 each and would only be used a few times before they were obsolete how would you justify the expenditure?
A couple in London perhaps and hope for the best in the rest of the country?
As they cost about £125,000 each and would only be used a few times before they were obsolete how would you justify the expenditure?
"The marches of the EDL are really protests against a government with blinkers who could not see what mass immigration would lead to. The EDL would not have been necessary if governments thought through their policies beforehand. "
The only blinkers here are those worn by the EDF. I think this organisation basically boils down into 3 groups: out-and-out racists, those too stupid to realise the consequences of the activities of such groups, and those who naively think they are on some "crusade".
Blaming the existence of groups like the EDL on governments, of whatever colour, is quite outrageous. I suppose if the Jews hadn't had the temerity to exist and be tolerated by those dreadful governments, then the poor old Nazis would never have had to bother with all that nasty holocaust business.
The only blinkers here are those worn by the EDF. I think this organisation basically boils down into 3 groups: out-and-out racists, those too stupid to realise the consequences of the activities of such groups, and those who naively think they are on some "crusade".
Blaming the existence of groups like the EDL on governments, of whatever colour, is quite outrageous. I suppose if the Jews hadn't had the temerity to exist and be tolerated by those dreadful governments, then the poor old Nazis would never have had to bother with all that nasty holocaust business.
AOG - how exactly would you prevent any group, be it the 'Far Left', or anyone else, from confronting a march in its neighbourhood?
If a march is convened, and a group of people gather to protest, they are, legally, a group of people in public who are not breaking any law. In order to prevent that situation from escalating into a riot situation, it would need the imposition of marhsall law - the powers of the police to prevent anyone from being in a designated area at a designated time.
How then would you prevent law-abiding citizens from going about their daily business?
It seems to me that preventing a protest in any meaningful way would cause far more problems than it solves.
The facility to protest against political marches is the same facility that allows the marches to take place - freedom of expression, of movement, and of speech, all of which are cornerstones of our free society.
To tamper with them would be a very dangerous move indeed.
If a march is convened, and a group of people gather to protest, they are, legally, a group of people in public who are not breaking any law. In order to prevent that situation from escalating into a riot situation, it would need the imposition of marhsall law - the powers of the police to prevent anyone from being in a designated area at a designated time.
How then would you prevent law-abiding citizens from going about their daily business?
It seems to me that preventing a protest in any meaningful way would cause far more problems than it solves.
The facility to protest against political marches is the same facility that allows the marches to take place - freedom of expression, of movement, and of speech, all of which are cornerstones of our free society.
To tamper with them would be a very dangerous move indeed.
Sorry for being late Andy, so what are you saying the EDL could be banned from marching but the UAF cannot?
If permission is given for a march to take place by one particular group and another group turns up to antagonise the permitted march, then surely since they haven't been given permission by the police, that group is breaking the law and should therefore be removed?
If permission is given for a march to take place by one particular group and another group turns up to antagonise the permitted march, then surely since they haven't been given permission by the police, that group is breaking the law and should therefore be removed?
No problem AOG.
No, that's not what i said at all.
My point was - if a group of citizens wish to object against an organised march, that does not in itself make them an opposing march, it makes them what they are - a group of citizens.
If it can be defined as an ilegal march in strictly legal terms, then the force of the law can be applied, but until then it is not a march, it's a group of people in the street, and as such, no crime is committed.
No, that's not what i said at all.
My point was - if a group of citizens wish to object against an organised march, that does not in itself make them an opposing march, it makes them what they are - a group of citizens.
If it can be defined as an ilegal march in strictly legal terms, then the force of the law can be applied, but until then it is not a march, it's a group of people in the street, and as such, no crime is committed.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
How Many Onn Here Thinkthis Is...
News24 mins ago
Has Sunak Already Made Plans To Leave...
News44 mins ago
Home & Garden48 mins ago
What Do I Do My Husband Lied About His...
Law51 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.