Brian Haw Allowed to Protest

#1
BBC News

Brian Haw has won his legal battle to protest in Parliament Square:

Anti-war protester Brian Haw has won his latest legal battle to maintain his demonstration in Parliament Square.
Mr Haw, 57, had been charged with breaching the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (Socpa).

But District Judge Quentin Purdy said he had not breached conditions imposed on him by the Metropolitan Police.

The conditions included a ban on putting up placards in Parliament Square exceeding 3m in height by 3m in width and 1m in depth.
I didn't realise he had been charged under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, seems a little over the top! Personally I'm glad he can resurrect his protest. One in the eye for Bliar?
 
#2
For the Met to say that they were concerned that terrorists could hide bombs amongst his banners, seemed a bit specious. On that basis, all trees should be cut down, statuary removed and buildings cleared within a blast zone of Parlyment - 'just in case'. Don't nec agree with what Mr Haw says - but he should be allowed to say it. Anywhere.
 
#3
The man has seven fecking children....................

Given that his effect is zero shouldn't he be doing something to help pay for their upkeep?
 
#4
Brian Haw may be (arguably) a complete psycho, but he's a person willing to take it to the limits for free speech. It's just a shame that there aren't more like him in the UK. Phoney Tony seems automatically opposed to anybody who questions his diktats, much like Babbeo Bush actually.

I'm glad he won! More power to his elbow. He's carrying the flag for all UKeans (if that's a word, you heard it here first). I still can't understand why he was charged under the "Serious Crimes and Police Act", though. Maybe it was just the Old Bill sucking up to Phoney Tony (did he have a hand in this?) and using it on the basis of "the more serious the better to frighten people", politically correct arrseholes that they are.
MsG
 
#5
Dilfor said:
For the Met to say that they were concerned that terrorists could hide bombs amongst his banners, seemed a bit specious. On that basis, all trees should be cut down, statuary removed and buildings cleared within a blast zone of Parlyment - 'just in case'. Don't nec agree with what Mr Haw says - but he should be allowed to say it. Anywhere.
Right then, he'll be popping round to your place to say it this evening.
 
#6
SLRboy said:
Dilfor said:
For the Met to say that they were concerned that terrorists could hide bombs amongst his banners, seemed a bit specious. On that basis, all trees should be cut down, statuary removed and buildings cleared within a blast zone of Parlyment - 'just in case'. Don't nec agree with what Mr Haw says - but he should be allowed to say it. Anywhere.
Right then, he'll be popping round to your place to say it this evening.
He'll be wanting a shower, I would imagine? Then I'll put some towels out.
 
#8
LostBoss said:
The man has seven fecking children....................

Given that his effect is zero shouldn't he be doing something to help pay for their upkeep?
That's a matter for the social services gestapo, not the Serious Crimes unit.
 
#9
Bat_Crab said:
Dilfor, does SLR Boy follow you everywhere?
Don't knock it - I'm chuffed to bits at pulling so quickly. Its far better than internet dating.

He seems a lot better of late, don't you think? A bit more humour and a bit less Iraq-focussed tortured angst? Must be getting some.
 
#11
Giblets said:
LostBoss said:
The man has seven fecking children....................

Given that his effect is zero shouldn't he be doing something to help pay for their upkeep?

That's a matter for the social services gestapo, not the Serious Crimes unit.

Perhaps we could get Ruth Kelly to pop around and have a word with Brian and his breeding habits?
 
#13
Bat_Crab said:
Dilfor, does SLR Boy follow you everywhere?
No I don't follow our good friend Dilfor around.
But I am always on the lookout for a weak flank to attack or the sick and injured to devour.

Hope that's cleared matters up and for now, good afternoon to you sir.
 
#15
Good on him. Free speech is way too precious to let a bumbling police force like the Met stamp it out.

I presume, however, that the rest of us taxpayers are funding his wee holiday in the smoke? If he is still getting his job seekers' allowance (or whatever the Govt are calling it these days) then he should be doing a wee bit more 'seeking'. Lazy tw*t.
 
#16
SLRboy said:
Bat_Crab said:
Dilfor, does SLR Boy follow you everywhere?
No I don't follow our good friend Dilfor around.
But I am always on the lookout for a weak flank to attack or the sick and injured to devour.

Hope that's cleared matters up and for now, good afternoon to you sir.
You're scaring me now. Look - I agree it was a bad idea to invade Iraq; just please don't eat me.
 
#17
Bat_Crab said:
BBC News

Brian Haw has won his legal battle to protest in Parliament Square:

Anti-war protester Brian Haw has won his latest legal battle to maintain his demonstration in Parliament Square.
Mr Haw, 57, had been charged with breaching the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (Socpa).

But District Judge Quentin Purdy said he had not breached conditions imposed on him by the Metropolitan Police.

The conditions included a ban on putting up placards in Parliament Square exceeding 3m in height by 3m in width and 1m in depth.
I didn't realise he had been charged under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, seems a little over the top! Personally I'm glad he can resurrect his protest. One in the eye for Bliar?
Very often the title given to a Bill presented to Parliament is completely at odds with it's content. This is done for concealment purposes. Often, very innocuous sounding bills contain either draconian terms or, in their 'minor and consequential amendments' sections at the end of a very long bill, that MPs cannot be bothered to read, or which the 'guillotine' prevents debate on, will be contained manuscript amendments which give such draconian powers to officialdom that they would probably cause rioting in the streets if they were brought to the attention of the public, let alone MP's. For example, the Courts Act 2003 sought to introduce a Court Fines Officer to collect unpaid fines. Later, buried within the detail of the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004, was an amendment to the Courts Act which allowed officials to use force to break into private homes, seize goods, clamp and seize cars and unilaterally increase fines by up to 50%. It is a ploy often used by the Government to allow provisions such as these to bypass democratic scrutiny.

As for SOCPA under which Haw was arrested, the Act allows the Police the impose conditions. Nothing in it requires those conditions to be reasonable and allows the Police to impose such limiting conditions as to destroy the very basis of any protest they do not happen to like. In this case, by setting a size limit not much bigger than a bed-space. Clearly, the judge was not in a position to question the reasonableness or otherwise of the conditions imposed since she has no power to do so. However, she has used the wording of the Act on it's strict construction which does not allow for delegation of authority thus defeating the specious grounds upon which the action was brought.
 
#19
Dilfor said:
SLRboy said:
Bat_Crab said:
Dilfor, does SLR Boy follow you everywhere?
No I don't follow our good friend Dilfor around.
But I am always on the lookout for a weak flank to attack or the sick and injured to devour.

Hope that's cleared matters up and for now, good afternoon to you sir.
You're scaring me now. Look - I agree it was a bad idea to invade Iraq; just please don't eat me.
You're OK, I have it on good authority that SLRboy is a Slug on Mogadon known to his friends as "Wendy"
 
#20
The courts can protect people from the official abuse of power. What they cannot do is protect you from Parliament! Parliament can only do it's job with the fearless diligence of it's MPs who form the legislature. When you have some Bills presented by the Home office that run into several hundreds of pages and thousands of amendments, an MP simply does not have the time!

Such is the road to tyranny!
 

Similar threads

Top