Gav's View

The idea that we take a measure, which is a public order measure, designed to protect our Parliament building as depriving us of freedom of speech is ridiculously overdone.

Erm, Charlie… people are being arrested for speaking. How can that not be a deprivation of free speech, you fascistic poltroon?

Poltroon is the best word ever used to describe an MP – sublime excellence.

And why is parliament so much more important than, for argument’s sake, a nuclear power station or Buckingham Palace?

I have to agree. It is ridiculous. The bottom line is that if you can’t protest outside Parliament then the media will not pick up your story, and nobody else will really care… Couple the story you point to with the police investigations into the “homophobic comments” made by an author the other day (see Telegraph) and one might wonder whether we actually live in a free society…

You have to laugh.

This government passes a law specifically to have Brian Haw evicted from Parliament Square, and the courts rule he can carry on his protest because it predates the law.

Meanwhile, reading the names of the dead at a war memorial suddenly becomes an indictable offence.

Police priorities today? Or a government that’s authoritarian and incompetent?

Just show how incompentant this govenment is and the sooner they are gone the better.

Lord Falconer is a complete ‘twerp’ and it would be hilarious were it not so sinister that a person holding his position can come out with such nonsense – and dangerous nonsense, to boot!

As for the comments above referencing the ‘homophobic’ comments made by the lady author I have to say (as a gay man) that they are no worse than many I heard during the House of Commons and Lords debates on the Civil Partnerships Bill [now Act]. Indeed I would rather such comments, however painful they are for me to hear, be aired freely rather than risk people who think that way being forced underground.

On the other hand, if one were to substitute for ‘homosexuals’ in what she is quoted as saying words such as ‘blacks’ or ‘coloureds’ or ‘Jews’ I wonder what the reaction would have been? After all it is not so very long ago that such remarks were quite commonplace, much less so now in ‘polite’ society. When I was renting my first flat in London, quite a few years ago now, the landlord made it very clear that Irish were completely unacceptable, but that Scots (which I am) were just about acceptable; in fact he wasn’t such a bad person once I got to know him – no doubt similar to the good lady author, although she doesn’t sound like the kind of person I’d care to invite to tea .

Bill, Many people have objectionable views on matters including, but not limited to, race and sexuality, but I would defend the right of people to say what they like – whether they’re wrong or not.

I’m glad you’re open-minded enough to accept people’s flaws – it’s a shame that other people are not.

And I think the blame for that lies in the past. Only 12 years ago, it would have been commonplace to find people making homophobic remarks. Religion must take the blame for a lot of society’s misplaced morals, but humans should be capable of looking past triviality.

Section 28 was a small-minded law intended to deny the normality of gay people and to try and make people straight (as if that can be done). Today’s Labour government is just as guilty of this sort of thought-crime legislation but from the opposite angle – they believe that being politically correct somehow makes their impositions on our freedom, freedom of speech, and political points of view acceptable.

White people, ethnic minorities, straight people, gay people, Tories, socialists and religious people should all be treated with respect and only criticised for what they actually, say, do and believe – but it should not be legislated so; and if someone wants to say that they believe that all white people, or all English people are from Venus, then they’ll be wrong, but should be free to say so.

She WAS breaking a law no doubt
But it’s a stupid law with no democratic purpose

The whole Falconer thing shows up the idiocy of having a political apointee as head of the judicial system – but the alternatives are probably as dreadful – and it wouldn’t have been any differebt in a Tory regime

What we do need is wholesale reformof law to make sure crappy laws as this cannot stay on the statute books for too long

I suggest all law is only valid for 10 years then becomes redundant – there’s too much of it anyway – or it can be renewed by Parliament – we’d get rid of all the iniquitous law protecting one class or section of society to the disadvantage of the rest and only retain really sensible anmd useful law

to stand any chance of survival law would then have to be properly drafted and not issued as a kneejerk reaction to circumstance in the way so much present law now is

It would give the chance for the people to elect governments from a largely clean sheet situation and the government would have to seriously consider every issue it was standing on

Gavin – if you choose to adopt this policy – don’t forgot who thought it up!

She was breaking the ‘Serious Organised Crime and Police Act’ by peacefully protesting inside the half-mile ring round parliament, the centre of our democracy. It’s no law – that’s an undemocratic diktat from an increasingly fascist and discredited government.

Note to self: Sunset clauses of 10 years on all laws – Abi Rhodes to be credited. I see no immediate problem with your proposal and will give it some serious thought…

nice one Gav