Britain - The Official Thread

[TenEightyOne]

Are you joking? I thought this rubbish only went on in the United States.

It seems that protesters were intimidating women who were arriving for consultations, in that case it seems reasonable to allow the protest to continue but not at the immediate perimeter.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It seems that protesters were intimidating women who were arriving for consultations, in that case it seems reasonable to allow the protest to continue but not at the immediate perimeter.

Actually it would seem more reasonable to simply enforce laws on the books and arrest people for harassing and intimidating if they are doing so. Everyone has a cell phone these days so the YouTubez should be awash with plenty of evidence of wrongdoing with crystal clear 1080p or 4k video for easy identification. Do we really need more and more and more regulations to cover yet another special circumstance? Arrest a few of the jerks and the harassment will cease pretty quickly.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Actually it would seem more reasonable to simply enforce laws on the books and arrest people for harassing and intimidating if they are doing so.

What makes you think that the police haven't already been doing that or that they're somehow creating a new law?

 

[Johnnypenso]

What makes you think that the police haven't already been doing that or that they're somehow creating a new law?

"A council in London has passed a motion"

"This was never about protest. It was about small groups of strangers choosing to gather by our entrance gates where they could harass and intimidate women and try to prevent them from accessing healthcare to which they are legally entitled."

"More than 300 people wrote to the council describing the pro-life protesters as "intimidating and harassing", while those against abortion have said women are not being offered enough alternatives."

Not a single mention of an arrest or any police presence in either of the articiles linked, just the repeated mention of a couple of decades of harassment involving, apparently, hundreds of women.

 

[UKMikey]

Pro-choice advocates have consulted the police in similar circumstances and they've said that there's nothing they can do.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rged-change-laws-clinics-vigils-a7984601.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

"A council in London has passed a motion"

"This was never about protest. It was about small groups of strangers choosing to gather by our entrance gates where they could harass and intimidate women and try to prevent them from accessing healthcare to which they are legally entitled."

"More than 300 people wrote to the council describing the pro-life protesters as "intimidating and harassing", while those against abortion have said women are not being offered enough alternatives."

Not a single mention of an arrest or any police presence in either of the articiles linked, just the repeated mention of a couple of decades of harassment involving, apparently, hundreds of women.

The centre's own logs show a number of police callouts and, as I suspected, you haven't found any new law that's been created. I don't have a figure for the number of arrests or public order moveons but then it seems that you don't either.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The centre's own logs show a number of police callouts and, as I suspected, you haven't found any new law that's been created. I don't have a figure for the number of arrests or public order moveons but then it seems that you don't either.

Unfortunately I haven't seen the logs as of yet but I'll be sure to look for them as I continue my investigation.

 

[Mr Tree]

Unfortunately I haven't seen the logs as of yet but I'll be sure to look for them as I continue my investigation.

What is wrong in your opinion with the new law? As in what harm does it bring?
I currently don't see a reason to be opposed, something you seem to be.

It's a law to fix the grey area that currently existed where the line between protesting and harrasment became very blurry. These woman are in a vulnerable position so pretty much standibg there beeing opposed to their choice is quite intimidating. Hence the blurred line. They now try to fix that issue.

So what is the harm in this amendment?

 

[Johnnypenso]

What is wrong in your opinion with the new law? As in what harm does it bring?
I currently don't see a reason to be opposed, something you seem to be.

It's a law to fix the grey area that currently existed where the line between protesting and harrasment became very blurry. These woman are in a vulnerable position so pretty much standibg there beeing opposed to their choice is quite intimidating. Hence the blurred line. They now try to fix that issue.

So what is the harm in this amendment?

It does nothing to address the "line" between protesting and harassment, it simply moves the harassers further away. There are already laws against harassment I would presume, why not just enforce them?

 

[Mr Tree]

It does nothing to address the "line" between protesting and harassment, it simply moves the harassers further away. There are already laws against harassment I would presume, why not just enforce them?

The line is very blury due to the location. Moving them away from the location means they can't intimidate anyone while going to the hospital. While they are allowed to express what they believe in the rest of the public area.

How would you make sure people don't protest near a abortion clinic? Because it's the legal protesting thag is the issue. It becomes intimidating due to location. So they made everything clear this is the line from here ypu are no longer protesting from here this is considered intimidation.

Also you didn't answer to the (for me) most important question. What is your actual issue with it, what harm does it do? You seem to be opposed but I don't understand why.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The line is very blury due to the location. Moving them away from the location means they can't intimidate anyone while going to the hospital. While they are allowed to express what they believe in the rest of the public area.

How would you make sure people don't protest near a abortion clinic? Because it's the legal protesting thag is the issue. It becomes intimidating due to location. So they made everything clear this is the line from here ypu are no longer protesting from here this is considered intimidation.

Also you didn't answer to the (for me) most important question. What is your actual issue with it, what harm does it do? You seem to be opposed but I don't understand why.

I don't care if people protest near an abortion clinic, I live in a democracy. We have abortion protestors here outside one of the hospitals almost every day. It isn't a question of harm, I don't believe laws should be made simply because they cause no harm. We have laws on the books surrounding harassment. Enforce them and don't infringe on the rights of the public to gather and protest on public property (assuming that's actually a right in Britain)

 

[Mr Tree]

I don't care if people protest near an abortion clinic, I live in a democracy. We have abortion protestors here outside one of the hospitals almost every day. It isn't a question of harm, I don't believe laws should be made simply because they cause no harm. We have laws on the books surrounding harassment. Enforce them and don't infringe on the rights of the public to gather and protest on public property (assuming that's actually a right in Britain)

Not having this law causes harm to those women? Isn't that combined with it not doing any harm a good enough justification for the law?

Edit: also you live in a democracy do you want to imply we infringe on that when you have this law? If not how is that relevant?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Not having this law causes harm to those women? Isn't that combined with it not doing any harm a good enough justification for the law?

Edit: also you live in a democracy do you want to imply we infringe on that when you have this law? If not how is that relevant?

It does harm. It harms my right to peaceful protest on public property. So yes, it infringes on my rights as a law abiding citizen.

 

[Mr Tree]

It does harm. It harms my right to peaceful protest on public property. So yes, it infringes on my rights as a law abiding citizen.

You can still protest a little further use media outlets. Go march in front of parlement. You know... places where your protest actually matters and doesn't intimidate people using there legal rights.

No one stops you from protesting, just not in front of tve clinic. I must be dense but I don't see how it stops people from protesting.

Even in america with the second amendment there are no gun zones it still doesn't prevent you from having the right to carry a gun.

What would be the importance of doing it in that exact spot that makes it so important this law shouldn't exist?

 

[Spurgy 777]

It does harm. It harms my right to peaceful protest on public property. So yes, it infringes on my rights as a law abiding citizen.

No it doesn't, you can still protest on public property, just not that bit of public property as protesting there intimidates the people going to the clinic, who I'm sure already have a hard enough time making such a big decision and don't need to walk past protesters who think they're evil murderers.

No matter how peaceful the protest, doing it right outside of the clinic is not remotely appropriate, the only reason to do that is to put pressure on the people going there in the hope that they'll change their mind through intimidation and judgement. If the protesters want the law to be changed and to change the general public's mind then that can be accomplished by protesting anywhere and doesn't require them to be outside a clinic.

EDIT: So the reason for the law is that their presence there is what is intimidating and potentially harmful, not their actions, and I don't think that that is sufficiently covered under current laws, but I could be wrong.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The centre's own logs show a number of police callouts and, as I suspected, you haven't found any new law that's been created. I don't have a figure for the number of arrests or public order moveons but then it seems that you don't either.

A group called the Good Counsel Network (GCN) organise the majority of the prayer vigils and outreach near the North London clinic, as well as offering financial and practical help to the prospective mothers.


Despite accusations of harassment, the GCN says there has not been a single conviction or caution from police in their 23 years of work in Ealing.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...tes-london-bans-pro-life-group-helping-women/

(Breitbart have the location wrong - it's actually in West London.)

 

[UKMikey]

Despite accusations of harassment, the GCN says there has not been a single conviction or caution from police in their 23 years of work in Ealing.

Should that be the case they should be able to get this ban quickly overturned and go back to their democratic right to display pictures of dead foetuses outside the Marie Stopes clinic in Mattock Lane as per my article above.

They could even take it further like this protest in Blackfriars and physically obstruct clinicgoers with these graphic illustrations. I'm sure no one would object.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Should that be the case they should be able to get this ban quickly overturned and go back to their democratic right to display pictures of dead foetuses outside the Marie Stopes clinic in Mattock Lane as per my article above.

They could even take it further like this protest in Blackfriars and physically obstruct clinicgoers with these graphic illustrations. I'm sure no one would object.

Doubtful that it will be overturned.

 

[Scaff]

(Breitbart have the location wrong - it's actually in West London.)

Breitbart get plenty wrong, which is why as a source they are not exactly what could be called even remotely reliable, even more so when it comes to subjects the audience they have are looking for an echo chamber.

 

[Dotini]

According to the independent Swiss state Spiez lab, the substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, which was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/04/14/world/europe/ap-eu-russia-spy.html
Russia: Trace of Western-Made Nerve Agent Seen in UK Samples


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESSAPRIL 14, 2018, 11:22 A.M. E.D.T.

MOSCOW — Russia's foreign minister says Moscow has received a document from a Swiss lab that analyzed the samples in the nerve agent poisoning of an ex-Russian spy, which points at a Western-designed nerve agent as a likely cause.

Sergey Lavrov said Saturday that Moscow received the confidential information from the laboratory in Spiez, Switzerland, that analyzed samples from the site of the March 4 poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the English city of Salisbury.

He said the analysis was done at the request of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The OPCW's report confirmed British findings that the Skripals were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent, but didn't say who was responsible.

Britain has accused Russia of poisoning them with a Soviet-designed agent, an accusation that Moscow denies.

 

[Dennisch]

According to the independent Swiss state Spiez lab, the substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, which was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

That's fake news.

 

[Dotini]

This could well be fake news from a disreputable outlet, but supposedly you are being warned to prepare for cyber attacks on your critical infrastructure. It says the attacks will be coming from Russia, presumably as an act of revenge. But maybe it'll be only a false flag, just to rev you up for another, even bolder lunge against our mutual enemies?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...yber-attack-britains-critical-infrastructure/
Steven Swinford, deputy political editor
16 APRIL 2018 • 5:32PM

Russia is preparing to mount cyber attacks on Britain's "critical infrastructure" including energy networks, the emergency services and the armed forces, GCHQ and the FBI have warned in the wake of the Syria air strikes.

In an extraordinary joint statement, authorities in the US and the UK revealed that Russia has been probing the cyber-defences to identify vulnerabilities that will "lay a foundation for future offensive operations".

The National Cyber Security Centre, the FBI and the Department for Homeland Security in the US have warned that this "threatens our respective safety, security and economic well-being".

 

[Scaff]

This could well be fake news from a disreputable outlet,

When the cited source calls ******** on the claim I think it's past "could well be".

but supposedly you are being warned to prepare for cyber attacks on your critical infrastructure. It says the attacks will be coming from Russia, presumably as an act of revenge. But maybe it'll be only a false flag, just to rev you up for another, even bolder lunge against our mutual enemies?

Which has nothing to do with the claim being bogus.

 

[Dotini]

The Sunday Times does say something quite different!

Russian threat to wage dirty campaign against Britain’s elite
Richard Kerbaj and Tim Shipman

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...rty-campaign-against-britains-elite-vn6trrc29
April 15 2018, 12:01am, The Sunday Times

Missiles from ‘righteous power’ strike targets

Spy chiefs are braced for a Russian revenge attack in which Kremlin-backed hackers release embarrassing information on ministers, MPs and other high-profile people.

Theresa May has received intelligence risk assessments since the nerve-agent attack in Salisbury that the Putin regime could hit back with “kompromat” (compromising material) on members of her cabinet.

The warning comes after the UK’s military strike in Syria yesterday. British, American and French aircraft and warships fired a salvo of 105 missiles in less than 10 minutes at about 2am British time after up to 75 people were killed in last weekend’s chemical attack on Douma.

FYI

https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA18-074A

Alert (TA18-074A)
Russian Government Cyber Activity Targeting Energy and Other Critical Infrastructure Sectors
Original release date: March 15, 2018 | Last revised: March 16, 2018

Systems Affected

• Domain Controllers
• File Servers
• Email Servers

Overview
This joint Technical Alert (TA) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This alert provides information on Russian government actions targeting U.S. Government entities as well as organizations in the energy, nuclear, commercial facilities, water, aviation, and critical manufacturing sectors. It also contains indicators of compromise (IOCs) and technical details on the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) used by Russian government cyber actors on compromised victim networks. DHS and FBI produced this alert to educate network defenders to enhance their ability to identify and reduce exposure to malicious activity.

DHS and FBI characterize this activity as a multi-stage intrusion campaign by Russian government cyber actors who targeted small commercial facilities’ networks where they staged malware, conducted spear phishing, and gained remote access into energy sector networks. After obtaining access, the Russian government cyber actors conducted network reconnaissance, moved laterally, and collected information pertaining to Industrial Control Systems (ICS).

https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/16/uk-preparing-russian-backed-cyberattack/

As tensions between the UK and Russia continue to mount, both sides appear to be bolstering themselves for retaliatory cyberattacks. The Timesreports that Prime Minister Theresa May has been receiving intelligence risk assessments regarding a potential Russia-based cyberattack that might result in the release of embarrassing or compromising information about UK ministers, members of parliament and others. Unnamed security sources told The Times that in the case of an attack on UK infrastructure, British officials were prepared to launch their own cyberattack against Russia.

British intelligence officials are on the alert for such an attack that may serve as retaliation for both the UK response to a nerve agent attack on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter as well as this weekend's strikes on Syrian chemical weapon storage facilities, development centers and bunkers -- in which the US, France and the UK all participated.

Intelligence sources told The Times that British politicians could be singled out in a Russian attack and that the nation's cyber-intelligence agency and the Ministry of Defense were prepared to retaliate "proportionately." "It wouldn't be impossible that they get through in some way that really hurts us. If they aggressively come after us, we will certainly have the ability to do some stuff to them. But unlike Russia, we abide by the law, so anything we do would be proportionately done," said one source. Another added, "They're more likely to revert to targeted information and try and cause as much embarrassment and chaos as possible."

Not that your parliament has much relevance anymore, but there is this:

Calling the strikes "legally questionable," Corbyn brought up the subject of the war in Yemen, which has been described by various international groups as the "worst humanitarian crisis in the world" — challenging May on her claims that the airstrikes were a matter of moral responsibility.

"We clearly need a war powers act in this country to transform a now broken convention into a legal obligation," the Labour leader said.

May was even criticized by members of her own Conservative party, who cited the lack of debate on the matter as problematic.

Liberal Democrat leader Vincent Cable said he was also concerned that May "made a grave mistake not bringing the case for military action to parliament," and, like Corbyn, accused her of "riding on the coat-tails of an unpredictable US president."
http://www.dw.com/en/theresa-may-grilled-in-uk-parliament-over-syria-airstrikes/a-

 

[UKMikey]

May's copious apologies for the Windrush bum's rush ballsup seem to me to be acting as a convenient diversion from her apparently running roughshod over parliament to approve the Syrian airstrikes. Insert George Orwell quote regarding Airstrip One here.

 

[Liquid]

May's copious apologies for the Windrush bum's rush ballsup seem to me to be acting as a convenient diversion from her apparently running roughshod over parliament to approve the Syrian airstrikes. Insert George Orwell quote regarding Airstrip One here.

Guess we'll just have to blame whomever was Home Secretary in 2012 when these little 'rules' were conveniently deleted.

Oh, hang on...

 

[HenrySwanson]

Guess we'll just have to blame whomever was Home Secretary in 2012 when these little 'rules' were conveniently deleted.

Oh, hang on...

I don't really follow politics all that much but is she regarded as having been a bad Home Secretary?

 

[ExigeEvan]

Anyone else noticed the price of sugary and non-sugar drinks have gone up equally?

Not sure our services provider understands the tax intent...

 

[Tired Tyres]

Anyone else noticed the price of sugary and non-sugar drinks have gone up equally?

Not sure our services provider understands the tax intent...

Yep. It's quite funny how Tesco put a special offer on a drink with sugar in it and it's cheaper, and still at its pre tax increase offer price, than a special offer on a drink with fake sugar in it which now costs more than it did....

 

[Liquid]

I don't really follow politics all that much but is she regarded as having been a bad Home Secretary?

At the time she was and ever since then, that reputation hasn't gotten any better.