RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: You think the government has a bias towards the elite.
You understand that government action (or should I say, lack of action) re Grenfell favours the elite.
And yet you think that the government's bias towards the elite is irrelevant to understanding their action re Grenfell.

Sorry, I can't understand your thinking here.

I did not say government action on Grenfell favours the elite, I noted if they'd gone about responding to it by dealing with the elite first that would be one thing, this they haven't done because they're just not dealing with it across the board.

And yes I think they're biased to the elite, but that doesn't apply to every single policy or or direction taken. And in this instance they even have the obvious retort (which they are using) which is they're concerned about using taxpayer money to address a situation for homeowners when many taxpayers don't own homes

I didn't say government action on Grenfell favours the elite because you said it, I said it because it's obviously the case.

Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell shows bias towards the elite?

Yes, I don't think their response to Grenfell shows them having a bias towards the elite. I think it's much more about not wanting to admit governments have for a long time been getting building standards wrong, and they're especially concerned about having to pay to fix that ongoing failure. Their failures impact buildings that house people across the wealth spectrum, so it's not an issue that only applies to those considered in the elite or not.

Their response to Grenfell is pathetic and actively harmful to many, but it's actively bad across the board

This is one of those areas they're just being very weird in, and you can't get a sensible answer. Mind as someone trying to get a sensible answer from them on FCA fees and why they're setting them as they are because it makes no sense, and then how it can possibly stand comparison with their (in)action on the fess levied by the Gambling Commission on the gambling industry I'm pretty close to thinking they should just be lined up against a wall already. As an aside, their work on FCA fees and the fees levied by the Gambling Commission both deserve much more attention, ridicule and the like, and they're pretty much getting away for free on both those such are their other screw ups

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: I did not say government action on Grenfell favours the elite, I noted if they'd gone about responding to it by dealing with the elite first that would be one thing, this they haven't done because they're just not dealing with it across the board.

And yes I think they're biased to the elite, but that doesn't apply to every single policy or or direction taken. And in this instance they even have the obvious retort (which they are using) which is they're concerned about using taxpayer money to address a situation for homeowners when many taxpayers don't own homes

I didn't say government action on Grenfell favours the elite because you said it, I said it because it's obviously the case.

Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell shows bias towards the elite?

Yes, I don't think their response to Grenfell shows them having a bias towards the elite. I think it's much more about not wanting to admit governments have for a long time been getting building standards wrong, and they're especially concerned about having to pay to fix that ongoing failure. Their failures impact buildings that house people across the wealth spectrum, so it's not an issue that only applies to those considered in the elite or not.

Their response to Grenfell is pathetic and actively harmful to many, but it's actively bad across the board

This is one of those areas they're just being very weird in, and you can't get a sensible answer. Mind as someone trying to get a sensible answer from them on FCA fees and why they're setting them as they are because it makes no sense, and then how it can possibly stand comparison with their (in)action on the fess levied by the Gambling Commission on the gambling industry I'm pretty close to thinking they should just be lined up against a wall already. As an aside, their work on FCA fees and the fees levied by the Gambling Commission both deserve much more attention, ridicule and the like, and they're pretty much getting away for free on both those such are their other screw ups

I think the issue the government is having is squaring the ideological mismatch between a really bad flaw in the planning rules (and the assurance process around it) which has led to this vs the fact that they don't want to intervene in private property ownership. Councils will obviously take action locally on social housing, but private owners are being left with a mountain of costs to manage as a result of this.

Personally, I think they need to suck this one up as regulation and its enforcement is at the heart of the problem and the problem is widespread. Government intervention would require imagination and energy, something that few would accuse Jenrick of possessing.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: I did not say government action on Grenfell favours the elite, I noted if they'd gone about responding to it by dealing with the elite first that would be one thing, this they haven't done because they're just not dealing with it across the board.

And yes I think they're biased to the elite, but that doesn't apply to every single policy or or direction taken. And in this instance they even have the obvious retort (which they are using) which is they're concerned about using taxpayer money to address a situation for homeowners when many taxpayers don't own homes

I didn't say government action on Grenfell favours the elite because you said it, I said it because it's obviously the case.

Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell shows bias towards the elite?

Yes, I don't think their response to Grenfell shows them having a bias towards the elite. I think it's much more about not wanting to admit governments have for a long time been getting building standards wrong, and they're especially concerned about having to pay to fix that ongoing failure. Their failures impact buildings that house people across the wealth spectrum, so it's not an issue that only applies to those considered in the elite or not.

Their response to Grenfell is pathetic and actively harmful to many, but it's actively bad across the board

This is one of those areas they're just being very weird in, and you can't get a sensible answer. Mind as someone trying to get a sensible answer from them on FCA fees and why they're setting them as they are because it makes no sense, and then how it can possibly stand comparison with their (in)action on the fess levied by the Gambling Commission on the gambling industry I'm pretty close to thinking they should just be lined up against a wall already. As an aside, their work on FCA fees and the fees levied by the Gambling Commission both deserve much more attention, ridicule and the like, and they're pretty much getting away for free on both those such are their other screw ups

Sorry, I should have said:
Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell favours the elite?

I haven't heard anything about FCA fees and the gambling commission. Maybe our journalists are doing a poor job.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I didn't say government action on Grenfell favours the elite because you said it, I said it because it's obviously the case.

Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell shows bias towards the elite?

Yes, I don't think their response to Grenfell shows them having a bias towards the elite. I think it's much more about not wanting to admit governments have for a long time been getting building standards wrong, and they're especially concerned about having to pay to fix that ongoing failure. Their failures impact buildings that house people across the wealth spectrum, so it's not an issue that only applies to those considered in the elite or not.

Their response to Grenfell is pathetic and actively harmful to many, but it's actively bad across the board

This is one of those areas they're just being very weird in, and you can't get a sensible answer. Mind as someone trying to get a sensible answer from them on FCA fees and why they're setting them as they are because it makes no sense, and then how it can possibly stand comparison with their (in)action on the fess levied by the Gambling Commission on the gambling industry I'm pretty close to thinking they should just be lined up against a wall already. As an aside, their work on FCA fees and the fees levied by the Gambling Commission both deserve much more attention, ridicule and the like, and they're pretty much getting away for free on both those such are their other screw ups

Sorry, I should have said:
Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell favours the elite?

I haven't heard anything about FCA fees and the gambling commission. Maybe our journalists are doing a poor job.

I think the Grenfell highlights long term bad regulatory and compliance practices and the response highlights a failure to take ownership of your own mess, and failure to take ownership of a problem is bad management rather than particular to elitism

And I'm not surprised FCA fees and the gambling commission can't get proper coverage given all else, but they're both really bad issues and the ideology shown by HMG is inconsistent across the two to boot

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I didn't say government action on Grenfell favours the elite because you said it, I said it because it's obviously the case.

Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell shows bias towards the elite?

Yes, I don't think their response to Grenfell shows them having a bias towards the elite. I think it's much more about not wanting to admit governments have for a long time been getting building standards wrong, and they're especially concerned about having to pay to fix that ongoing failure. Their failures impact buildings that house people across the wealth spectrum, so it's not an issue that only applies to those considered in the elite or not.

Their response to Grenfell is pathetic and actively harmful to many, but it's actively bad across the board

This is one of those areas they're just being very weird in, and you can't get a sensible answer. Mind as someone trying to get a sensible answer from them on FCA fees and why they're setting them as they are because it makes no sense, and then how it can possibly stand comparison with their (in)action on the fess levied by the Gambling Commission on the gambling industry I'm pretty close to thinking they should just be lined up against a wall already. As an aside, their work on FCA fees and the fees levied by the Gambling Commission both deserve much more attention, ridicule and the like, and they're pretty much getting away for free on both those such are their other screw ups

I think the issue the government is having is squaring the ideological mismatch between a really bad flaw in the planning rules (and the assurance process around it) which has led to this vs the fact that they don't want to intervene in private property ownership. Councils will obviously take action locally on social housing, but private owners are being left with a mountain of costs to manage as a result of this.

Personally, I think they need to suck this one up as regulation and its enforcement is at the heart of the problem and the problem is widespread. Government intervention would require imagination and energy, something that few would accuse Jenrick of possessing.

I can see why they don't want responsibility because it comes with cost, but yes given they own the regulatory side and were asleep at the wheel it's bizarre to think they can avoid that charge. They need to put their hands in the pockets, though yes they also need to be much sterner with private owners, and if private owners are unable or unwilling to act simply take properties into public ownership where appropriate. And they do need to get a wriggle on because it's far from obvious the standards are right as of today so problems/exposure could be continuing to grow

Their position to date that they've taken advice and are only responsible for the cladding (and then only above a certain arbitrary height) is a pathetic attempt to lessen their exposure, and it's odd too because it's going to need some really bizarre judicial rulings to remotely stand, and just about everyone involved seems to think the judges will tell Jenrick to do one (and that includes Jenrick thinking that) so why not just do the right thing now, well actually why not do the right thing years ago but we are where we are. Why on this on the pandemic, on Brexit, on school meals for starving children we get this repeat attempt to look inhumane, incompetent and late in acting I don't know. The only possible saving grace for Jenrick in this is he simply cannot get No.11 to sign off on the spend, but he is agreeing if so to stay in post and defend the indefensible

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Yes, I don't think their response to Grenfell shows them having a bias towards the elite. I think it's much more about not wanting to admit governments have for a long time been getting building standards wrong, and they're especially concerned about having to pay to fix that ongoing failure. Their failures impact buildings that house people across the wealth spectrum, so it's not an issue that only applies to those considered in the elite or not.

Their response to Grenfell is pathetic and actively harmful to many, but it's actively bad across the board

This is one of those areas they're just being very weird in, and you can't get a sensible answer. Mind as someone trying to get a sensible answer from them on FCA fees and why they're setting them as they are because it makes no sense, and then how it can possibly stand comparison with their (in)action on the fess levied by the Gambling Commission on the gambling industry I'm pretty close to thinking they should just be lined up against a wall already. As an aside, their work on FCA fees and the fees levied by the Gambling Commission both deserve much more attention, ridicule and the like, and they're pretty much getting away for free on both those such are their other screw ups

Sorry, I should have said:
Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell favours the elite?

I haven't heard anything about FCA fees and the gambling commission. Maybe our journalists are doing a poor job.

I think the Grenfell highlights long term bad regulatory and compliance practices and the response highlights a failure to take ownership of your own mess, and failure to take ownership of a problem is bad management rather than particular to elitism

And I'm not surprised FCA fees and the gambling commission can't get proper coverage given all else, but they're both really bad issues and the ideology shown by HMG is inconsistent across the two to boot

Okay, but do you think the government's inaction over Grenfell has led to (or kept us in) a situation which favours the elite? (This is just a question of the outcome, not the reasons for it.)

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Sorry, I should have said:
Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell favours the elite?

I haven't heard anything about FCA fees and the gambling commission. Maybe our journalists are doing a poor job.

I think the Grenfell highlights long term bad regulatory and compliance practices and the response highlights a failure to take ownership of your own mess, and failure to take ownership of a problem is bad management rather than particular to elitism

And I'm not surprised FCA fees and the gambling commission can't get proper coverage given all else, but they're both really bad issues and the ideology shown by HMG is inconsistent across the two to boot

Okay, but do you think the government's inaction over Grenfell has led to (or kept us in) a situation which favours the elite? (This is just a question of the outcome, not the reasons for it.)

Again I don't think this is an elite Vs non elite situation. You could I suppose argue some 'elites' would be included among property owners/developers not being forced to act, but equally you could argue they too are being exposed to ongoing uncertainty and risk with the government not clarifying the situation, and too when both rich and poor people live in buildings then if the problem is buildings it's daft to think in terms of this being an elite issue.

So no I don't think government action in this has helped elites, and more it's not only not helpful to think it such fashion it's actually in this instance counter productive as it's helping to get in the way of pushing the agenda forwards when there are people out there (like say Lammy) looking to make this part of their class warfare agenda. There's already more than enough emotion wrapped up in this on the back of Grenfell, so I'd prefer those seeking to write their agenda atop all this would find more suitable subjects to talk on and stop being a hinderance to improving peoples' lives

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:
I think the Grenfell highlights long term bad regulatory and compliance practices and the response highlights a failure to take ownership of your own mess, and failure to take ownership of a problem is bad management rather than particular to elitism

And I'm not surprised FCA fees and the gambling commission can't get proper coverage given all else, but they're both really bad issues and the ideology shown by HMG is inconsistent across the two to boot

Okay, but do you think the government's inaction over Grenfell has led to (or kept us in) a situation which favours the elite? (This is just a question of the outcome, not the reasons for it.)

Again I don't think this is an elite Vs non elite situation. You could I suppose argue some 'elites' would be included among property owners/developers not being forced to act, but equally you could argue they too are being exposed to ongoing uncertainty and risk with the government not clarifying the situation, and too when both rich and poor people live in buildings then if the problem is buildings it's daft to think in terms of this being an elite issue.

So no I don't think government action in this has helped elites, and more it's not only not helpful to think it such fashion it's actually in this instance counter productive as it's helping to get in the way of pushing the agenda forwards when there are people out there (like say Lammy) looking to make this part of their class warfare agenda. There's already more than enough emotion wrapped up in this on the back of Grenfell, so I'd prefer those seeking to write their agenda atop all this would find more suitable subjects to talk on and stop being a hinderance to improving peoples' lives

Okay, fine, we disagree on whether the government's actions benefit the rich. I think it's pretty clear that winning and losing on this is fairly well correlated with wealth, but I think we'll have to leave it there if you don't agree.

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: I did not say government action on Grenfell favours the elite, I noted if they'd gone about responding to it by dealing with the elite first that would be one thing, this they haven't done because they're just not dealing with it across the board.

And yes I think they're biased to the elite, but that doesn't apply to every single policy or or direction taken. And in this instance they even have the obvious retort (which they are using) which is they're concerned about using taxpayer money to address a situation for homeowners when many taxpayers don't own homes

I didn't say government action on Grenfell favours the elite because you said it, I said it because it's obviously the case.

Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell shows bias towards the elite?

I'm not sure their action/inaction shows bias toward the elite in isolation, tbh. I think their actions when looked at in relation to their other actions just adds another log to the fire, true.

But I don't think you can say that elites would benefit directly and obviously from their actions on Grenfell, I just think they're serious incompetent and don't give a fuck when it's not directly benefitting the elite, lol.

So, in that way, yes, because this is a problem that cannot result in their friends making more money, they're not taking it serious enough.

I agree with you (as I said to Digby I miswrote slightly in my post above).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Okay, but do you think the government's inaction over Grenfell has led to (or kept us in) a situation which favours the elite? (This is just a question of the outcome, not the reasons for it.)

Again I don't think this is an elite Vs non elite situation. You could I suppose argue some 'elites' would be included among property owners/developers not being forced to act, but equally you could argue they too are being exposed to ongoing uncertainty and risk with the government not clarifying the situation, and too when both rich and poor people live in buildings then if the problem is buildings it's daft to think in terms of this being an elite issue.

So no I don't think government action in this has helped elites, and more it's not only not helpful to think it such fashion it's actually in this instance counter productive as it's helping to get in the way of pushing the agenda forwards when there are people out there (like say Lammy) looking to make this part of their class warfare agenda. There's already more than enough emotion wrapped up in this on the back of Grenfell, so I'd prefer those seeking to write their agenda atop all this would find more suitable subjects to talk on and stop being a hinderance to improving peoples' lives

Okay, fine, we disagree on whether the government's actions benefit the rich. I think it's pretty clear that winning and losing on this is fairly well correlated with wealth, but I think we'll have to leave it there if you don't agree.

Who do you think the elites are in this, just the freeholders with tenants? And why is this issue remaining live preferable to them to having the tax payer foot the bill and either agreeing to write that sum off or HMG saying they'll fix the problem and then go after property owners to reclaim the spend but quietly agreeing to never doing that?

I've got no problem saying the government benefits the elite with a number of regressive positions which one might or might not like. This issue though targets people across the board, so if the argument is it impacts more lower earners then that's about there are more lower earners, not that their policy on responding to Grenfell drives that

Anyone heard about the Isle of Mann roundabout - the architects seem unimpressed?
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/new ... sle-of-man

Another said the proposal ‘cannot die’ because of Johnson’s fervent belief in it, adding: ‘Just as Hitler moved around imaginary armies in the dying days of the Third Reich, so the No. 10 policy unit is condemned to keep looking at this idea, which exists primarily in the mind of the prime minister.’

Alan Dunlop, the architect who first proposed a Celtic crossing between Ireland and Scotland, said the latest idea ‘does not sound credible’.

He said: ‘I cannot think why Johnson would say that, particularly at a time when there is so much criticism being levelled at the prime minister and the so-called Boris’s Burrow is being ridiculed in much of the press.

‘It only serves to undermine that which I know to be structurally, technically and physically achievable, and that is a tunnel or bridge that connects Scotland with Ireland.’

I'm no structural engineer, but digging circa 300 miles through granite seems a tad tougher than 30 miles through chalk (Channel Tunnel) - whilst not connecting 2 of the biggest economies in the world and crossing the busiest sea lane in the world (Shush though don't tell Grayling)

Mainly it would seem No.10 is a place to go for infighting, whether that's how Johnson want it, or because he's weak on detail so many people see a chance to advance their agenda isn't perhaps clear, the only clear thing is day to day it's a bun fight in there

One way you can get the attention of Boris is to push an issue which gives coverage to Boris, so his vanity Boris the Builder projects come as much out of anything as it's hard to just get him to sit down and do his job, he's essentially a less mature version of Harry Enfield's portrayal of Kevin

Digby wrote:Mainly it would seem No.10 is a place to go for infighting, whether that's how Johnson want it, or because he's weak on detail so many people see a chance to advance their agenda isn't perhaps clear, the only clear thing is day to day it's a bun fight in there

One way you can get the attention of Boris is to push an issue which gives coverage to Boris, so his vanity Boris the Builder projects come as much out of anything as it's hard to just get him to sit down and do his job, he's essentially a less mature version of Harry Enfield's portrayal of Kevin

Puja

Puja wrote:Capture.jpg

Puja

It would be nice to think that there would be consequences for a minister acting illegally. Let alone acting illegally with billions of pounds of taxpayers' money in the middle of a pandemic.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:Capture.jpg

Puja

It would be nice to think that there would be consequences for a minister acting illegally. Let alone acting illegally with billions of pounds of taxpayers' money in the middle of a pandemic.

We could well see there are consequences, the person who writes the report into the ineptitude and corruption inherent to our response could well have to resign when Boris decides no acton should be taken off a damning report. No consequences indeed!

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:Capture.jpg

Puja

It would be nice to think that there would be consequences for a minister acting illegally. Let alone acting illegally with billions of pounds of taxpayers' money in the middle of a pandemic.

We could well see there are consequences, the person who writes the report into the ineptitude and corruption inherent to our response could well have to resign when Boris decides no acton should be taken off a damning report. No consequences indeed!

Good point, I missed that one!

Shamima Begum can't come home then because we're not a free society, we're one where the home secretary's assessment given the role's responsibility and accountability to parliament for national security trumps rights. Obviously there's going to be a trade off in a governed society, for me this one sits with the thinking that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. There's not really anywhere to take this now other than to lobby for a change to the politics in the UK executive. And we're unlikely to have a GE for a while, and as things stand it likely wouldn't make a difference anyway.

Digby wrote:Shamima Begum can't come home then because we're not a free society, we're one where the home secretary's assessment given the role's responsibility and accountability to parliament for national security trumps rights. Obviously there's going to be a trade off in a governed society, for me this one sits with the thinking that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. There's not really anywhere to take this now other than to lobby for a change to the politics in the UK executive. And we're unlikely to have a GE for a while, and as things stand it likely wouldn't make a difference anyway.

It is utterly despicable. She was groomed and abused as a child and now she's had her nationality stripped and been left effectively stateless, simply because our government are populist wankers and the Mail and Sun readers want to punish her.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Shamima Begum can't come home then because we're not a free society, we're one where the home secretary's assessment given the role's responsibility and accountability to parliament for national security trumps rights. Obviously there's going to be a trade off in a governed society, for me this one sits with the thinking that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. There's not really anywhere to take this now other than to lobby for a change to the politics in the UK executive. And we're unlikely to have a GE for a while, and as things stand it likely wouldn't make a difference anyway.

It is utterly despicable. She was groomed and abused as a child and now she's had her nationality stripped and been left effectively stateless, simply because our government are populist wankers and the Mail and Sun readers want to punish her.

Puja

I don't have much, really any sympathy with her and I'm happy to join the group of not wanting her back. But not wanting her back isn't the same as thinking we can just refuse to accept our responsibility.

I wonder if there's any scope to advance this still given the reason for not wanting her back is national security, when given all else just how much of a risk can she possibly be? Brexit for instance is a much bigger risk and that's the will of the people, us bombing places and/or selling arms to certain regimes is a risk but that's a norm, and yet one 21 year old threatens the UK? Do my a favour.

If it turns out we get her back and there's little we can do about prosecuting her that's not her fault, exploiting this loophole that in theory she can become Bangladeshi is at best weak and craven. And one wonders what else now goes in the name of national security?

Quite apart from anything else, we're empowering a hundred other online groomers with a story of, "Look what the UK did to this Muslim girl; see how they don't care about people like you and don't think you're really British."

I can completely understand people feeling that her ideology hasn't changed - that much I get. It's the leaping straight over "then let's put her in jail" and all the way to "let's utterly deny her existence and pretend she's nothing to do with us" that throws me. Like, even if you can't find the humanity to view her as an abused child who now needs medical help as an adult, we still have to deal with our own criminals rather than leaving them in an oubliette.

Gah. Just, this country sometimes!

Puja

15,000 arrivals in the UK daily from flights, of which only 150 are going into quarantine. This according to HMG is not a national security issue.

Whereas Begum, a 21 year old with a troubled background and little in the way of financing or organisational power is a national security issue the UK cannot cope with.

Which is the thing which makes we wonder, and hope, this isn't dead. The Home Secretary can state they're acting as they are on the grounds of national security, but is that purely a political matter or can that have a sensible standard be applied in law. For instance how does her case compare to other ISIS brides or those who are/were in something of a similar situation who have returned?

No real surprises in the budget, a little bit for everyone to complain about but there's no way of making everyone happy with a budget even before the pandemic. I don't love the increase to corporation tax because as ever I don't see the benefit to a capital system of having good (profitable) businesses essentially subsidise bad ones, and I don't love the can kicking avoiding making tough choices now because of politics, but Sunak is a politician so...

https://www.marchforchange.uk/cross_party_letter

After four years of disagreement over Brexit and a second referendum, campaigners have buried the hatchet to unite against the government’s plans to limit political protests. All signatories of the letter were able to conduct large scale demonstrations in London and across the UK peacefully and safely under existing legislation. However, under the new proposals, which change the boundaries defining the ‘controlled area’ of Parliament Square, neither side would have been able to hold the high-profile demonstrations and events in Parliament Square that shaped the Brexit debate.

Campaigners say that despite their “different political views”, they “stand shoulder to shoulder to defend our right to express these views”.

The letter reads:

"As long as laws are made in Parliament, then British people must have a legal right to protest them in Parliament Square. Democracy is not an ‘inconvenience’. Public opposition and dissent are among the hard-won rights that make our democratic system function.

This Bill seeks to silence British people when avenues to express dissatisfaction and opposition by members of the public are already limited. In a democracy, the role of government and the police should be to facilitate the organisation of demonstrations such that people are able to participate safely and legally whilst making their voices heard. This bill does precisely the opposite, and provides no route of appeal or challenge either in law or otherwise.

Seeking to limit noise levels so people cannot be heard, and preventing people from assembling outside Parliament so they cannot be seen - these are the words and actions of authoritarians.

Our organisations may have different political views, but we stand shoulder to shoulder to defend our right to express these views be it by peaceful political protest or other peaceful means.

We call on the government to withdraw this Bill in its entirety until such a time as the COVID-19 pandemic is over, and proper scrutiny of its contents and long-term implications can take place."

Signatories of the open letter include pro-Brexit campaigner Richard Tice, leader of the Reform UK party (formerly the Brexit Party) and Leave Means Leave, Naomi Smith, CEO of Best for Britain, Tom Brufatto, former lead organiser of the People’s Vote demonstrations and now co-director of March for Change and Anna Bird, CEO of the European Movement UK.

Dr. Meenal Viz, who also signed the letter, lead a one-person protest during the first lockdown of the UK COVID-19 pandemic which successfully forced the government to drop guidance which asked NHS staff to re-use Personal Protective Equipment. This type of one person protest could also be banned under the government’s new proposals.

Signatories of the letter agree that “the role of government and the police should be to facilitate the organisation of demonstrations such that people are able to participate safely and legally” while claiming the government’s proposals amount to “actions of authoritarians.”

Sign the petition https://www.marchforchange.uk/defend_democracyhere.

With the govt. paper on violence against women and girls due out this summer the govt has announced an interim response of £25 million for additional street lighting and additional CCTV. Dollars to doughnuts this gets less attention than telling some understandably upset people they can't assemble during a pandemic