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.
people still supporting PA have a martyrdom fetish or just plain stupid
with these folks you are probably correct
Or they… care about democracy and freedom of speech. Tyranny anywhere is a threat to freedom everywhere.
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.
“The Leader has a secret plan!”
Just trust us, bruv.
They are forcing their own arrest to overwhelm and break the system. It’s not hard to understand.
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.
Esit: I also wonder if racists in the UK will accept Muslims more now that one is helping them suprpess commie liberal pro-Palestinian speech. Hah, just kidding.
Literally taking a page out of Russia, where holding up a sign could get you dragged into a van.
Eventually, it won’t matter what is even on the sign, they’ll just say you’re trying to circumvent the law by holding up a blank sign when “everyone knows what that means”. Just like in Russia.
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?
So, doubling down on the authoritarianism instead of admitting that their tactics with pro-Palestinian protestors have been heavyhanded and incompetent.
Authoritarianism, thy name is Labour.
Labour is a far right party.
Also Labour:
“Gee we don’t understand why our popularity is falling when we are fighting for the soul of UK”
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.
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.
Thankfully this will be applied to fascist and racists protesters from Reform, right? Right?
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.
The police have a choice. They can not make the arrests because they believe it’s safer not to.
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.
When a trolly opposing party has over 20% of polling.
Or at least until that point no opinion is seen as a threat. 20% is the number where potential seat wins become significant. Below that no party is seen as a threat.
ATM the best chance of that is a agreement between left of centre parties. Your Party is likely to start matching greens soon. Given polls of potential support. They are likely to pick up a notable number of the left that stopped voting after Starmer.
An refusal to compete in areas where one left party is the best option to beat the right. Signed early between green YP(when fully formed post Nov) and others. With a confidence and supply agreement when if gov is formed.
Agreeing to this early in 2026 so all election polling is forced to take this deal into account. Will quickly scare a government that has openly rejected and taken left supporters for granted.
Even if such an agreement is not able to beat reform polling. At 20% plus it will force Labour to appeal to their joint support. FPTP will no longer allow them to ignore the small splits once they represent a single national risk.
To be used on right wing extremists, right?
… right?
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.
imagine if england just stopped voting for tories for once…
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.
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.
… Because 500 arrests at an already illegal protest wasn’t enough?
