legalalien

I think it?s pretty clear that not everyone in the Conservative party is that happy with antics at number 10. I tend to think that staying and clearing things up/ out is a better strategy in this sort of situation. Otherwise you?re just letting the wrongdoers win. With no general election imminent, the only way to get Boris and friends out is for appalled conservatives to stay there and take care of the problem? Anyway, having read the manifestos now, and with a focus on local issues at a local election, I think I?m going to vote conservative. It would be nice not to have political parties / so much constant noise about national politics at a local level (and for everyone to be a bit more collaborative),but the system is what it is, I guess.

I?ve read it, and then went to the main UK website. Tbh I hadn?t appreciated quite how much XR were focused on regime change rather than putting political pressure on government and corporates: It says this on their webpage ?We recognise that we can?t look to government to solve the world?s problems. It tends to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a very privileged few, and often does not have the interests of the majority of people and the natural world at heart. We understand that we must self-organise to meet our own needs, which in the context of Extinction Rebellion means that we are working to equalise power by disrupting the usual pillars of power that govern our lives. In so doing, our intention is to create access to the resources we need, such as democratic structures that ensure everyone has a voice and an influence, information that comes without the bias of the rich and powerful, decent healthcare, education, social care and housing, clean energy production, and protections in law to prevent ecocide.? So it?s no to government, but then yes to unspecified other democratic structures and legal protections. I know I lack imagination but I?m really unsure what is envisaged. Dismantling existing governmental structures worldwide and building something new seems a bit ambitious, and I wouldn?t be confident that some alternative wouldn?t result in power being concentrated in a different group of people (Animal Farm?). I understand the the idea of mobilising 3.5% to effect this change relates to research about historically successful non-violent civil disobedience movements, but I wonder whether many of these related to more specific demands e.g. US civil rights movement. ?The change needed is huge and yet achievable. No regime in the 20th century managed to stand against an uprising which had the active participation of up to 3.5% of the population (Erica Chenoweth?s research, see ). In the UK, this would mean mobilising around 2 million people in order to oversee a rapid change in wealth distribution and power structures, preventing a rich elite from perpetuating a self-serving ideology.? From a quick google I found this article in the Guardian quite interesting. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/21/the-guardian-view-on-extinction-rebellion-numbers-alone-wont-create-change. Back to the specific topic about trespass/ bylaws and the right to protest, if anyone wants to read some case law these decisions are interesting, one about the sort of protest camp on Clapham Common during lockdown, and the other about the guy protesting against HS2 in a tunnel on private land. https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/1962.html&query=(Lambeth)+AND+(grant) https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/DPP-v-Cuciurean-Final-30-March-2022.pdf The first one gives an idea of the factors the council would have to take into account if it wished to move the camp on. The second raises some interesting legal issues as to the intersection between criminal offences and human rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. I see that yesterday the Attorney General asked the Supreme Court to clarify the relationship between the offence of criminal damage and those rights, using the Bristol statue case as an example. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/attorney-general-seeks-clarification-on-the-law-following-protest-case. Admin - apologies for the slight lounge-ness of this but I thought some people would be interested in the Lambeth camping case in particular(skip to para 88 to get to the guts of it). The point being that the Council has a human rights exercise to go through in deciding how to respond which may be another factor in their ?turn a blind eye? response. https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/about-us/

Just checking I have this correct - the new bit is the ?update? at the end: in recognition of the fact that there is now a tree protection order in place for the two oak trees (thanks to the @SaveOaks campaign), there?s a revised refurb plan for the footbridge which allows the two trees to be retained but no info on cost of new plan, or how many other trees may need to be removed, and there?s a stakeholder meeting in May/ June to discuss - details tbc? What I found most striking is that the Council were pretty adamant that the campaigners? alternative proposal involving screw piles was not feasible (despite their having got extensive specialist advice that it was possible)- and the new solution says that it involves screw piles! If you read this earlier (Sept 2020) Q and A document the campaigners had some detailed questions about council cost estimates so let?s hope the council have listened to what they have to say on that front as well. Perhaps they should appoint the guys at @SaveOaks to oversee the project and take a share of any savings they identify and make for the council! https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/24229/Response-to-Questions-rev-.docx

I think you may have misread, it?s the neighbours who were shouting and screaming?

Yes I?m voting but not for the current admin. Haven?t quite decided who for yet.

Article on just this topic in today?s Times ( not sure if behind paywall?) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7cc63c62-b903-11ec-94e5-2197dead5942?shareToken=d4eddf673004685649038228bfe17dd2

Pondering this, I?m not sure who exactly the council would have an agreement with. XR prides itself in being a decentralised organisation and if you look at their website they have some sort of arrangement with a company that acts as their ?fiscal host?, presumably so they can have a bank account, crowdfunder etc. although it does say that XR Global Support has a contractual arrangement with the fiscal host which suggests it is a legal entity in its own right.

If the council want to allow it then they can officially authorise it and stand by the courage of their convictions. Not authorising it and doing nothing is a cop out and sets an unfortunate precedent. Methinks.

I agree with firstmate that the current crisis is the likeliest way of effecting behaviour change, I?m in ?back to the 70s? mode myself. I?m not planning to get a pet after the existing one, and fortunately have one child so no issues there!

I think the jury?s out on whether the suffragettes helped or hindered the cause of women?s suffrage in the U.K. I would have been on Team Fawcett, no doubt.

Yes it does. I think the police could have handled it better on the ground, but I don?t think protests should have been allowed in breach of lockdown rules, even though I didn?t agree with many of the lockdown rules. It?s why I also agree with the police enforcing rules against the party gate culprits.

It?s not hostility in my case. I just think that rules are rules and the council shouldn?t allow any protest group, whatever its belief, brazenly break them. It?s irrelevant whether I agree with them or not, or whether they are well intentioned, or whether they are nice people, or whether they are going to leave a mess. They can camp there with authorisation, and presumably the council has a policy on what it does or doesn?t authorise. But even if they?re right/ lovely/ tidy they shouldn?t be above the rule of law.

My view is that the law should be enforced regardless of who is protesting about what. It shouldn?t be subjective based on someone at the council?s view of whether protesters are good or bad. Otherwise next time you might find them allowing groups you don?t approve of camping there (or on a similar note they might find it hard to justify not allowing groups that they don?t approve of there). If the council wishes to authorise the protest then they should be up front about doing so and say why this case is special.

If that happens then surely Southwark are de facto authorising it? Otherwise, if they know it is happening, wouldn?t they take steps to prevent it (not my area but presumably they?d get an injunction to make enforcement by police easier)? As far as I know it?s unlawful to camp on common land? As people have said, if it were travellers I?m sure they?d be quick to enforce. I?m guessing that after all the grief XR gave them over the climate strategy (and with an election coming up?) they don?t want to pick a fight with XR? Seems strange to me. https://www.gov.uk/common-land-village-greens

From the article it seems that the Blackheath one was with council permission? If it's unauthorised then they should be moved on, if it's authorised in some way then I'd hope the council charges a fee and uses it to cover clean up costs etc. My main concern is that they should treat everyone the same. Is the council happy to let other groups campaigning for/ against a variety of other issues in London to camp there?

Completely agree re English being a first language and a lot of it being about deduction from the multiple choice options. Surprisingly I knew the radar one - god knows how - if I hadn?t seen it written down I certainly couldn?t have answered. Women?s franchise caught me as I have 1893 etched in my brain and had to guess the English equivalent.

As I read it they?re not protesting / sitting in at the park but using it as a base to stay while protesting elsewhere (cheaper to pitch tents than go to a hotel)? Presumably a few people stay behind to ?mind the stuff? while others are off taking action? Not sure about that as a concept. All in favour of peaceful protest but not sure the council needs to host a base camp? Am I misinterpreting?

Yes. Just tried an example online to see and got 23/24. Mind you, I grew up in a former Dominion and am of an age where we learned lots about the UK. Not sure if they were actual questions but if so they are very dated and some of them are pretty obscure. https://lifeintheuktestweb.co.uk/british-citizenship-test-4/

I can see it - hopefully attachment works

The Dulwich Society has compiled a list of candidates in Dulwich wards https://www.dulwichsociety.com/news/local-elections-may-2022

As a I read it the key reason for the vagueness is that they?re trying to get an ?in perpetuity? license so that they can avoid the cost - and probably much more importantly the hassle / delay/ uncertainty of having to make an annual licence application. (I wouldn?t want to be organising an event this big with a risk my licence could be turned down or restricted, particularly given the ?rise of the local resident? as this page on their website puts it https://wearethefair.com/event-licensing/) At least they seem aware and trying to deal with the cable tie issue. https://wearethefair.com/projects/gala-jam-on-rye-festival/

Info and details of objections / statements in support now up on the Southwark website https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7359, licensing sub-committee to consider the licensing application on Thursday 14 April. Note that the committee can only consider quite limited grounds for refusing the licence. Presumably a different part of the council has/ has to approve the operator being there at all/ closing off particular areas - and the council demands a decent chunk of money for the privilege? Friends of Peckham Rye, Dulwich Society and three local councillors among the objectors to the change in scope from previous years.

Looks like a franchise of this place? https://dropwine.co.uk/what-we-do

So - if nothing else but to solve the mystery of the toilet, here are the minutes of the licensing committee meeting approving sale of wine at the coffee bar place opposite Hi-Vibe https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g7289/Printed%20minutes%20Thursday%2010-Mar-2022%2010.00%20Licensing%20Sub-Committee.pdf?T=1 The new unknown is ?what happened to Cllr Smith?s representation? - I guess we?ll never know. Outcome in a nutshell - they can serve wine on Friday and Sat evenings 5pm to 10pm and number of patrons ltd to 25. Patrons not to take alcohol outside.

Is it just me or do others sometimes wonder whether others on this and similar threads are actually people from various political parties who are well aware who each other are irl? On the TH thing I feel like the casual references to ?tax avoidance?, ?oligarchs?, salary levels etc are trying to paint a picture (surprised someone hasn?t mentioned the reference to Russian language skills that appears on Linked In given the tone). I only picked up on the pro bono thing because someone raised it flippantly - and it reality junior lawyers do get loads of this stuff dumped in them in addition to their billable workload. I really don?t miss a life denominated in six minute units.