# Parliament Square anti-war protestors evicted



## Brixton Hatter (Jan 16, 2012)

all over twitter right now...

http://london.indymedia.org/articles/11466


----------



## Ground Elder (Jan 16, 2012)

> despite high court hearings today and the PASRA law effectively on hold


PASRA law? What's that?


----------



## Riklet (Jan 16, 2012)

shit man


----------



## ddraig (Jan 16, 2012)

Ground Elder said:


> PASRA law? What's that?


more info on this article (half way down the page)
http://london.indymedia.org/articles/11456


> *police reform and social responsibility act 2011 (PASRA)*:
> 
> so it was against this background that PASRA was born, sections 142 to 149 of which provide particular powers designed wholly to finally rid parliament square of any effective continuous protest, and to close loopholes in SOCPA.
> 
> ...


----------



## ddraig (Jan 16, 2012)

and here is the legislation
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/13/contents/enacted


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jan 16, 2012)

This was in an article on the BBC London website:



			
				http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16587406 said:
			
		

> The removal comes after the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill came into force, preventing encampments in the square... The Bill, which received Royal Assent in September, gives authorities more powers to tackle protests such as the Parliament Square camp.
> It also bans protests in areas including Whitehall, Bridge Street, the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre and Westminster Abbey.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> This was in an article on the BBC London website:


couldn't see in the act anything about whitehall etc


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 16, 2012)

On the way home from work tonight, me and a colleague saw loads of police vans drawing up around House of Fraser on Victoria Street. We wondered what on earth was going on. Now I know why.


----------



## editor (Jan 16, 2012)

The BBC London TV reporter had to abandon his live broadcast because a woman was repeating his words loudly and 'correcting' certain claims


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jan 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> couldn't see in the act anything about whitehall etc


me neither...the act says "For the purposes of this Part, the “controlled area of Parliament Square” means
the area of land that is comprised in—
(a) the central garden of Parliament Square, and
(b) the footways that immediately adjoin the central garden of Parliament
Square."
So it doesn't appear to cover the pavements around the outside edge of the square, or anywhere else...

E2A: although there is a reference to the "central garden of Parliament Square" being designated by the Parliament Square (Improvements) Act 1949. And I can't find the original wording of that act yet. So it might include those others places....


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jan 16, 2012)

It's a sad day. The protest has been there for nearly 10 years. Fairplay to everyone who was involved.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Jan 17, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> It's a sad day. The protest has been there for nearly 10 years. Fairplay to everyone who was involved.



I'm not trying to be a tedious consistency seeker here, but do you think you would feel the same sadness about a 10-year anti-abortion, or anti-civil partnerships protest?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 17, 2012)




----------



## xes (Jan 17, 2012)

brixtonvilla said:


> I'm not trying to be a tedious consistency seeker here, but do you think you would feel the same sadness about a 10-year anti-abortion, or anti-civil partnerships protest?


it's hardly the same thing, is it. OK, if you ignore the reason of the protest, and just go on the right to protest, then yes, that would be just as bad. A supression of the freedom to express opinions or protest is bad, no matter what the subject being squished.  Wether or not someone agrees with a protest is irrelivent, the right to do it is far more important.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 17, 2012)

Surely there were other protestors still there, and not just anti war ones, who would also have been removed last night?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jan 17, 2012)

brixtonvilla said:


> I'm not trying to be a tedious consistency seeker here, but do you think you would feel the same sadness about a 10-year anti-abortion, or anti-civil partnerships protest?


My point really is that some very principled people (and a few nutters tbf) spent a good many years of their life devoted to protest there. That should be celebrated. Its fucking sad that twitter etc is full of comments from people agreeing with removal of the protest because 'the place looks tidier now, nice + clean, glad those smelly hippies have been moved on' etc.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Jan 17, 2012)

I'm not arguing with their sincerity, or their devotion to what they believe. I think that's admirable, even when I don't agree with the cause. I'm just not sure I believe in the right to peaceful protest _ad infinitum_. Protest, make your point, and go home. Everyone else with something to protest about does that, so what makes this cause so special as to be exempt? Whenever I've been through Parliament Square recently, I felt sad that the heart of our country's democracy had to be fenced off and shut down in the way it was.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 17, 2012)

brixtonvilla said:


> I'm not arguing with their sincerity, or their devotion to what they believe. I think that's admirable, even when I don't agree with the cause. I'm just not sure I believe in the right to peaceful protest _ad infinitum_. Protest, make your point, and go home. Everyone else with something to protest about does that, so what makes this cause so special as to be exempt? Whenever I've been through Parliament Square recently, I felt sad that the heart of our country's democracy had to be fenced off and shut down in the way it was.


I kind of agree with the sentiment of this, except that, as far as i can tell, Parliament Square was only fenced off and shut down in response to the protests, not by them, iyswim.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Jan 17, 2012)

I think it was fenced off to stop the rest of the grass bit being taken over by other protestors. Quite rightly, in my view. The protests had to end sometime, and it clearly wasn't going to be done voluntarily, so...


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 17, 2012)

Why on earth do so many people think the only reason for a protest is 'to make a point'? Who came up with this bullshit notion? Politicians I suspect. And people go round repeating the words of the politicians the protest is against. Because that makes sense. Think about where you get your phrases from people.

Maybe the point of this protest was to be a pain in the arse to the people fucking up the world. That's not quite the same as making a point is it? There might be many other reasons too. You can't follow the logic of politicians about what protests 'should' be for or 'should' be like and still pretend we have the right to protest. The protests are often against those very politicians, see?


----------

