Constitutional Law - Freedom of Expression

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Iolis, Nov 27, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Unless I have been drinking too much 'Stella', I have noticed that amongst other things, Clause 1(1)(b) Public Demonstrations (Repeals) Bill

    introduced by the House of Lords on Thursday 23 November 2006 sees the repeal of Sections 132 to 138 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005:

    Clause 1(2)(b) of the Bill revokes the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Area) Order 2005 SI 2005/1537 made by the previous Home Secretary, Charles (I hate razor blades) Clarke:

    The latter provisions of the 2005 Act and the statutory instrument made pursuant to it were introduced by a wet lettuce Government who felt very harassed and intimidated by a lone protester against the Iraq war and caught people like Maya Evans giving her a criminal conviction for reading out the names of the dead, these make it unlawful to demonstrate within the vicinity of Parliament and their repeals would be a significant climb-down by the Government in the restoration of the status quo ante.

    Curiously, clause 1(2)(a) of the Bill revokes the Serous Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Area) Order 2005 SI 2005/3447, introduced by Adam Ingram which places a number of Naval and RAF sites such as Northwood and Menwith Hill into 'designated areas'

    However, I do not think the Government (or the Septics in relation to Menwith Hill who will be bound to apply political pressure) are going to give up that easily in the Commons and I am not holding my breath!

    The Bill seems to have been introduced without any publicity at all and I am not able to find any reference to it in the media. Unless of course, it would not do to let the 'Brown Bread and Sandals Brigade' in on it too soon!

    The provisions of the 1995 Act caused nothing but severe embarrassment for the Government both nationally and internationally and quite rightly labeled it authoritarian and draconian. Perhaps it may be a good time for those arsserswho are more learned are satisfied that I have correctly interpreted the above and who feel favourably disposed to what the House of Lords is attempting to achieve to write to their respective MPs encouraging them to support the proposed changes when they reach the Commons and that their submission to the power of the whips will be duly noted when the time comes for a vote.

    Regards and best wishes
  2. Sorry Iolis, I've been at the Stella too.

    Please could you say again in words of one syllable.


  3. and not quite so many!!
  4. Sorry guys, I was attempting to be legally accurate and failed to quite appreciate that my endeavours lacked 'lay' interpretation and for that I apologise.

    What this means, in effect is that Government attempts to stifle demonstrations over the war within a mile of Parliament square and other designated areas is up for repeal.

    Many people regarded these restrictions of smacking at the very root of the freedom of expression. It did the government a great deal of harm.

    The cynics among you (and I count myself as one) may think that in removing such restrictions, the government are actually encouraging anti-war demos and in so doing, will claim the credit for pulling out from Iraq in the Spring (coincidentally, the same time Blair is scheduled to step down) following mass anti-war demos outside Parliament. The Government would seek to assert that they were giving effect to public opinion (something they ignored when a million people demonstrated over the war) over something they planned to do anyway, thus claiming political capital out of a disaster.

    Blair, after all, admitted to David Frost that the war had been a disaster. I do not think he had much of a choice given the statement made by Sir Richard Dannatt.

    This Bill might, if it achieves the desired effect, give the Government a way out by responding to demonstrable acts of public opinion and a way of saving face.

    But there again, I am only speculating. I fully accept that my speculation here might be bollox but in my 'Gut' I know that things like this do not happen unless there is a very good reason. I do, however, defend as accurate, my legal interpretation of the Bill as outlined above.

    I hope this makes things a little clearer.

    Regards and best wishes
  5. Thank you Scabster_Mooch.

    Based upon the observation that it is a Lib Dem Bill, we can simply write it off as innefective and a complete wast of time, hardly worth the debate or even a vote.

    Regards and best wishes
  6. is it possible that the reason for the lack of publicity on subjects like this is if we dont know it exists we cant complain or get it thrown out, once the politicos get it in as a law the only time you know a law exists is when it is used against you, dont forget the supreme leader and many of his henchmen are lawers.

    please remind me of the date 2006 or is it 1984

    Or am i just a cynical bloke.
  7. At least they are qualified. We still have Аппаратчики spoiling government.
  8. Apparatchiks? Obviously. All governments have them, regrettably. :(
  9. There's been plenty of publicity on the legislation concerned. The problem is that this is a Government backed law and since the Government has the majority of the seats in the House of Commons, it would be very difficult to get it thrown out!

    Also, in the current climate, the mere mention of "terrorism" and "national security" could be used to temper the protests of even the most ardent protestor as nobody wants to be seen to be pro-terrorism.