[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 95694)
Message
File  []
close
girl_v3.jpg
956949569495694
>> No. 95694 Anonymous
29th April 2022
Friday 1:13 am
95694 spacer
The Policing Bill has passed.

Some say it's mearly a boring formalisation of Public Nuisance law when it comes to protests, others say that any protest that's too loud is now VERBOTEN.

Given we already have laws about protesting near parliament, ( plenty of old buildings worth preserving near there) and given there was satire about those draconian laws. Given we had no genuine problem with protesting, when people were doing it in a peaceful way. And that it's now nearly as hard as getting an FAC as it is getting a license to demonstrate. Can we roll back some of the "let me shout" laws?

I'm going to make a sign saying "Fried eggs are better than boiled" and wear it with pride. If that falls fowl of the law, the law is broken.
Expand all images.
>> No. 95695 Anonymous
29th April 2022
Friday 2:39 am
95695 spacer
The bit people are complaining about are mostly fairly dull amendments to Part II of the Public Order Act 1986. It's more a tidying-up of longstanding issues with the legislation than an Orwellian power grab. The Lords have been through it with a fine-toothed comb and removed most of the unreasonably vague wording.

Organisers of public processions already have a legal duty to inform the police in advance. Senior police officers already have the right to apply restrictions to a public procession and chief constables have the right to prohibit a public procession under certain circumstances. Those circumstances have been very slightly expanded to include protests that are unreasonably noisy but not strictly intimidating.

Senior police officers don't like it when protesters are arrested, because it's a drain on resources and exposes them to legal and political risks. The Public Order Act gives them some tools to manage protests without the need to lock up busloads of people. Whatever Priti Patel thinks, she's not the person who has to sign off the overtime, find room in custody suites or deal with the wrongful arrest cases. There might be pressure on the police to crack down on protests, but there's equally strong pressure from the police who have much better things to do with their (increasingly limited) resources.

I don't particularly like the legislation, but I don't think it's going to have much of an impact on protest. Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil have already figured out that there's no point in doing anything that doesn't break the law. Nobody gives a fuck if a bunch of law-abiding people go for a wander while waving some signs; people only start to give a fuck when protests become seriously disruptive and getting arrested is in itself seriously disruptive.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0268/200268.pdf

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/II
>> No. 95696 Anonymous
29th April 2022
Friday 9:20 am
95696 spacer
The "people complaining" are people like the head of Amnesty International. In light of that it seems strange to hear you downplaying it.

>“This is dark day for civil liberties in the UK. This deeply-authoritarian Bill places profound and significant restrictions on the basic right to peacefully protest and will have a severely detrimental impact on the ability of ordinary people to make their concerns heard.

>“The Policing Bill is part of a hugely worrying and widespread attack on human rights from across Government which will not only see basic rights reduced across the board, but will also strip people of the means to challenge or contest their treatment.”

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-dark-day-civil-liberties-deeply-authoritarian-policing-bill-passed-lords
>> No. 95698 Anonymous
29th April 2022
Friday 12:37 pm
95698 spacer
>>95696

The head of amnesty international complaining and the scary words you posted, have both reassured me this bill is great and absolutely what is needed.
>> No. 95699 Anonymous
29th April 2022
Friday 1:58 pm
95699 spacer
>>95695
The problem is that these laws are now there for a potentially even more awful government than this one to exploit. And as laws never, ever get taken off the books we have a situation where even in your silly vision of law and justice, the odds of being banged up for doing nothing wrong have only increased. Anyway, I can see from >>95698 that you've all the brains of a sea cucumber so I'll bother you with reality no more.
>> No. 95700 Anonymous
29th April 2022
Friday 3:27 pm
95700 spacer
>>95699
>these laws are now there for a potentially even more awful government than this one
I'm not convinced this is the issue, it seems as though this government is just working their way up to being as awful as you're talking about. Patel wants death sentences, Johnson wants water cannons - they'll use them when they can.
>> No. 95712 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 8:42 pm
95712 spacer
>>95696
>people like the head of Amnesty International

Not being funny but wouldn't the head of Amnesty International be against anything on principle?
>> No. 95713 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 8:45 pm
95713 spacer
>>95712

No.
>> No. 95715 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 8:51 pm
95715 spacer
>>95713
Yes.
>> No. 95718 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 8:55 pm
95718 spacer
>>95715
Maybe.
>> No. 95719 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 8:58 pm
95719 spacer
>>95718
I don't know.
>> No. 95720 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 8:59 pm
95720 spacer
What makes Amnesty International s opinion more valid than say
>> No. 95721 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 9:02 pm
95721 spacer
>>95720

Their ability to type.
>> No. 95723 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 9:18 pm
95723 spacer
>>95720
Well, not only are they experts in human rights, but they are also committed enough to doing the right thing that they refused to campaign to free Nelson Mandela from prison, due to his daft militant wog past. So they don't even just go with whatever looks good; their choice of what's good comes from somewhere more authentic than that. I'd say they're pretty admirable if you actually support human rights, which admittedly you might not for all I know.
>> No. 95724 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 9:19 pm
95724 spacer
>>95721

>Their ability to type.

Is that by melatonin levels or words by minute.
>> No. 95725 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 9:21 pm
95725 spacer
>>95723
They just sound like controlled opposition.
>> No. 95731 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 9:47 pm
95731 spacer
>>95723
I'm saying they're clearly biased what with being the president of human rights or whatever, which you've confirmed. 10 years ago I had this exact conversation with someone taking the word of a police chief when it came to cuts.

It's not especially hard, just find one of them eggheads in academia where they do some analysis. Think about it, if you run a charity and say that everything is great then you're not really doing your job - you instead need to strike Navalny off as a prisoner of conscience because he hurt peoples feelings about migrants and then you go back to bullying staff into suicide, usual charity stuff.
>> No. 95733 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 10:08 pm
95733 spacer
>>95731

>I'm saying they're clearly biased

Biased towards what? Human rights?
>> No. 95734 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 10:18 pm
95734 spacer
>>95733

He's talking about how charities can only exist if the problem they supposedly address continues to exist, so it's not in their interests to solve it forever. Because, obviously, we live in a world where everything's so great that human rights activists are clutching at straws just for something to do.
>> No. 95735 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 10:35 pm
95735 spacer
>>95731

>then you go back to bullying staff into suicide, usual charity stuff

For those who missed the story at the time:

Amnesty International has a “toxic” working environment, with widespread bullying, public humiliation, discrimination and other abuses of power, a report has found.

A review into workplace culture, commissioned after two staff members killed themselves last year, found a dangerous “us versus them” dynamic, and a severe lack of trust in senior management, which threatened Amnesty’s credibility as a human rights champion.


https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/feb/22/amnesty-international-leaders-offer-to-resign-over-bullying-workplace-culture
>> No. 95736 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 11:45 pm
95736 spacer
>>95733
This is going to piss off a lot of you but there is a balance on human rights. Hence why almost every provision of the ECHR comes with derogations and why we all accept that the right to protest has limits, the most obvious example being your right to swing your fists ending at my face. The problem is that Amnesty International's inherent purpose is to say that any restriction is inherently bad and that you should give them money to change that i.e. they should be taken with a pinch of salt.

We'll pass that first year of university eventually lads!

>>95734
What the fuck are you talking about?
>> No. 95737 Anonymous
30th April 2022
Saturday 11:48 pm
95737 spacer
>>95736

>The problem is that Amnesty International's inherent purpose is to say that any restriction is inherently bad

Do they often speak out against laws that prevent people from punching other people?
>> No. 95760 Anonymous
3rd May 2022
Tuesday 8:32 pm
95760 spacer
>>95735
You ever notice how in the west there seems to be an inverse relationship between how evil the company is and how toxic its workplace environment is. What causes this, is it the people or the money?
>> No. 95761 Anonymous
3rd May 2022
Tuesday 9:16 pm
95761 spacer
>>95760

Some organisations are very results-oriented, with clear mechanisms for identifying and rewarding people who contribute to the mission. Others have much more vague goals and no real way of quantifying people's value to the organisation, which tends to breed a lot of conniving, arse-licking, back-stabbing and petty power trips; when no-one knows who's actually doing anything useful, the rewards tend to go to whoever is most ruthless at office politics.

As Charles Munger so often says, show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.
>> No. 95762 Anonymous
3rd May 2022
Tuesday 9:17 pm
95762 spacer
>>95760
I've experienced this first-hand. Charities in particular are often toxic places to work, because the people working there believe they are unquestionably doing good and that means they can behave how they like at work.
>> No. 95763 Anonymous
3rd May 2022
Tuesday 9:18 pm
95763 spacer
>>95760

I think the properly evil ones do have just as, if not more of a toxic work culture, it's just that they put so much effort into brainwashing their staff we never hear about it.

I always think it's a giant red flag if a company has things like those open plan kitchen areas in the office, pool tables, football tables, and tells you you're "free to take a break whenever you like", because "they value happy, motivated staff!" or some such bollocks. Because you just know, it's not real. It's definitely one of those Lacanian social taboos like Slavoj Zizek always talks about, where there are rules you're allowed to break, and permissions you are absolutely forbidden from actually using.

Just the fact Google has the motto "don't be evil" has always seemed to me self evident proof that they are unquestionably the most evil business in operation today.
>> No. 95764 Anonymous
3rd May 2022
Tuesday 9:40 pm
95764 spacer
>>95761
>>95762
>>95763

Further to this I would imagine charities and other such good causes attract a lot of narcissist god-complex headcases. Much like if you take a look through the supposedly tolerant, liberal, progressive parts of the internet, you'll invariably find nothing but a cesspit full of bullies and their sycophants, it's just such an easy environment for such people to take advantage of.

I work in the NHS and our department has a truly revoltingly toxic habitual bully, who they (i.e management) simply can't shift. All she has to do is play the victim every time she gets dobbed in, make a bit of noise about bringing in the union, and get a sick note for "stress" for good measure, and they're effectively powerless to sack her. She knows the rules inside out, so she knows exactly what she can get away with.

On a larger scale, when you have a lot of people like that in an organisation, the only way anything ends up getting done is when it boils over into a nasty press expose that requires a big performative house-cleaning to salvage their PR.
>> No. 95765 Anonymous
3rd May 2022
Tuesday 9:41 pm
95765 spacer
>>95763

>Just the fact Google has the motto "don't be evil" has always seemed to me self evident proof that they are unquestionably the most evil business in operation today.

Good news:

The most famous phrase in Google’s corporate philosophy, “Don’t be evil,” has been almost entirely removed from the technology giant’s code of conduct.

Google, which is now a subsidiary of Alphabet after a corporate restructuring in 2015, previously included the phrase “Don’t be evil” at the very start of its code, and another two times within the first two paragraphs.

The simple language was replaced by vague and less specific wording such as “ethical business conduct”.


https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/google-dont-be-evil-code-conduct-removed-alphabet-a8361276.html
>> No. 95766 Anonymous
3rd May 2022
Tuesday 10:48 pm
95766 spacer
>>95765
I am pretty sure they did this a long while back. Why is it news now?
>> No. 95767 Anonymous
4th May 2022
Wednesday 7:53 am
95767 spacer
>>95766
It isn't, his post is responding to someone else who hadn't realised it had happened, slowlad.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password