Log in

View Full Version : Brown to lift protest restrictions



Sugar Hill Kevis
24th June 2007, 11:52
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?i...34&in_a_source= (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=54347&in_page_id=34&in_a_source=)


Gordon Brown is to hold out an olive branch to opponents of the Iraq war by reinstating the right to demonstrate and march outside the Houses of Parliament, it has been claimed.

Restrictive legislation introduced by Tony Blair will allegedly be reversed by the Chancellor soon after he enters Number 10 next week.

It is understood to be one of a raft of initiatives planned for Mr Brown's first 100 days in office, which are designed to distance him from his predecessor's most unpopular policies.

Mr Brown is keen to take a more sympathetic attitude to critics of the military intervention, but the move will not satisfy those who have been calling for an immediate withdrawal of British troops.

The relaxation of rules on peaceful protesting will also not mean that "permanent eyesores" can be set up in Parliament Square, or that policemen and passers-by can be "abused" through loudhailers, according to allies of the Premier-in-waiting.

MPs have expressed concern at the distraction caused by noisy demos outside the Commons, and last week Mr Brown's car was punched and kicked by an anti-war activist.

The Sunday Times said it had seen a memo from Sir Richard Mottram, chairman of the joint intelligence committee, indicating that the change in the law was to be accompanied by plans to bolster defences at key Westminster sites with walls and bollards.

The government introduced legislation in July 2005 banning unauthorised protests within half-a-mile of Parliament.

The law makes a demo unlawful unless you have written police approval 24 hours, and provoked an outcry amongst anti-war protestors.

A spokesman for Mr Brown said: "We're not going to comment on every piece of speculation."

Sir Aunty Christ
24th June 2007, 12:13
It still doesn't mean that he'll be different from Blair in any meaningful way. He's probably just trying to claw back the support Labour had in 2001 but which they've lost since.

Amusing Scrotum
24th June 2007, 16:43
I'd speculate that part of the reason for removing this law, if that actually is what's going to happen, is down to the heads of the Police requesting it be removed. Because enforcing it, involves a lot of manpower.

If you arrest, say, five people -- then five Policeman, along with a driver, would be needed to escort them to the Police station. Then after that, you'd have one, maybe two, Custody Sergeants tied up for about an hour. Five cells tied up for about four hours. Two detectives tied up for maybe two hours. A forensics guy tied up for maybe two hours. And so on.

Which, overall, is quite a lot of work when you consider that, as far as I know, the arrests don't go much further.

Out of the 38 (?) people arrested during the Sack Parliament demo, for example, I think only a handful actually got charged with something. And they weren't even charged with breaking the law in question -- from what I've heard, their charges stemmed for the Police making a huge deal over them attempting to resist arrest.

Charging them with assault of a Police Officer, and other shite like that.

Which basically means, from the Polices perspective, if they weigh up the pros and cons of this law, then there are far more cons than there are pros. And therefore, the law can be revoked -- and it's no surprise that Gordon Brown may try and make some political capital out of this. That's just politics.

Andy Bowden
24th June 2007, 17:42
If Gordon Brown is going to win the next Westminster election against a resurgent Tory party, he's going to need to regain the support of substantial numbers of Labour voters who didn't back Blair because of Iraq.

I'd expect Gordon to make some moves (possibly entirely cosmetic) to distance himself from the Iraq debacle. I think this move is along those lines.

pedro san pedro
26th June 2007, 03:32
i believe that people were protesting this law by holding 'mass individual rallies' where 4-500 people would apply independently to hold a rally - meaning a whole lotta paperwork for the those processing the applications

bolshevik butcher
26th June 2007, 17:01
I agree with Andy on this one. If Brown isn't willing to break with the ruling class, which there is no reason to suspect he would, then we face the bleak prospect of a tory government in power.

As has already been pointed out this means nothing and is a petty attempt to distance himself from Blair.

The Feral Underclass
26th June 2007, 17:22
This is just a cynical attempt to show people that Brown is breaking with Blair and gunner up some support from parts of the anti-war movement.

What has this actually changed?

Andy Bowden
26th June 2007, 17:31
Also, if theres no anti-war movement (or any militant movement of mass numbers) then letting people protest there isn't that big a deal. A few annoyances from what Ministers, MP's etc would term the usual suspects.