• tla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Excellent /s. Institutionally racist and misogynist UK police get to decide who is allowed to protest - what and where. Why do failing governments reach for the authoritarian handbook? Because they are cowtowed to special interest groups and their own self interest and couldn’t care less about the people that elected them. The myth of so-called democracy. Protest has produced some of the most beneficial change - Suffragettes / votes for women anyone? Lack of protest is the path to a fascist state. Exactly where the powerful / wealthy want to be - no change, or ability to change, suits them just fine.

  • honeyontoast@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    I can’t believe how delusional I was last year, thinking that finally Labour were in charge and this shit would end. Lmao. I have never been to a protest before, but I’m looking out for the next one nearby. So grats Starmer, you’re having the opposite effect.

  • Avicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Also Labour:

    “Gee we don’t understand why our popularity is falling when we are fighting for the soul of UK”

  • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    So, doubling down on the authoritarianism instead of admitting that their tactics with pro-Palestinian protestors have been heavyhanded and incompetent.

  • ambitiousslab@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Speaking later to BBC1’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Mahmood denied this was about banning protest: “This is not about a ban. This is about restrictions and conditions that would enable the police to maybe put further time restrictions or move those protests to other places.

    From the BBC’s article:

    The home secretary will carry out a review of current protest legislation to “ensure powers are sufficient and being applied consistently”, the government said.

    This will include powers to ban protests outright, the government said.

  • ctry21@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Are we just copying the ‘free speech zones’ from the US during the Iraq war now?

    I really don’t like this route the UK has went down the past few years. The Tories cracking down on protests, people being arrested for holding “not my king” signs or even just blank pieces of paper in the vicinity of the king, and now all this bullshit from Labour to crack down on pro-Palestinian protestors.

    • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Stop voting Labour. Stop voting Tory. Tell your neighbours to stop voting Reform.

      There’s plenty of alternatives about but for generations people only look at the colour of the candidates rosette. Got a red rosette? Good enough… and then this happens.

      Labour has too many safe seats to give a fuck what people think.

  • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    there is no excuse for holding up placards supporting a banned organisation

    Legitimately the most authoritarian thing I’ve read all week. Yes, including all the authoritarian shit Trump keeps spouting.

  • FishFace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    When will the government stand up and support our police forces … by repealing ass backwards laws that force them to arrest sitting down pensioners every week.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      The police have a choice. They can not make the arrests because they believe it’s safer not to.

      • FishFace@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        But it’s obviously not unsafe to make those arrests.

        They have a choice to not enforce this law and focus on other breaches of the law. But it is parliament who makes the law (and government who makes secondary legislation), and the police shouldn’t have the power to just nullify any law they don’t like.

  • als@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    there is no excuse for holding up placards supporting a banned organisation

    What if that banned organisation was doing good things and less violent than the police? What if the law banning them was pushed for by a murder hungry ethnostate?

  • 18107@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Peaceful protest is the compromise to violence that was made possible by a government who listens.

    If peaceful protest is impossible, then violence is inevitable.

    • jimmy90@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      people still supporting PA have a martyrdom fetish or just plain stupid

      with these folks you are probably correct

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        They are forcing their own arrest to overwhelm and break the system. It’s not hard to understand.

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          The above is clearly smoking the ergot. That has embedded into the party loyal PLP ATM.

          The Owen Jones conference interviews were clear. Seeing government members openly indicating they have unsharable intelligence against PA. While also claiming the same about this being why they supported Israel closing borders to food etc.

          It has become a burying all questioning claim for the government.

          When a democratic party is using official secrets to hide their reasoning behind halting freedom of speech. They know full well that evidence is not convincing or are just hiding Their own lies.

          And as the mainstream media will not challenge this. It is down to protesters to make it clear. Ending freedom of speech is not acceptable without public evidence of the rationale.