[Flipside]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23928096-first-gang-asbo-to-stop-teenager-from-entering-territory-of-rival-youths.do

Youth served with ASBO that prohibits him from using violent lyrics in Music.

To be honest, the rest of it is fine in my books, not much different to a restraining order, but there's something strangely sinister about that particular aspect of it.

Also,

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23935896-149-charged-as-london-counts-the-cost-of-spending-cuts-protest.do

Several companies want Boris Johnson to ban protests in retails areas in London.

The thought behind that scares the hell out of me, less than 0.2% of the protesters were troublemakers, and for that they want to curtail one of the fundamental rights of Free Speech. It'd encourage far more anger than it avoids.

[headdie]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23928096-first-gang-asbo-to-stop-teenager-from-entering-territory-of-rival-youths.do

Youth served with ASBO that prohibits him from using violent lyrics in Music.

To be honest, the rest of it is fine in my books, not much different to a restraining order, but there's something strangely sinister about that particular aspect of it.

Agreed that aspect runs headlong into human rights in a way i am not happy about, though i can understand the decision I dont think it is one the courts have the right to make these days

Also,

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23935896-149-charged-as-london-counts-the-cost-of-spending-cuts-protest.do

Several companies want Boris Johnson to ban protests in retails areas in London.

The thought behind that scares the hell out of me, less than 0.2% of the protesters were troublemakers, and for that they want to curtail one of the fundamental rights of Free Speech. It'd encourage far more anger than it avoids.

You are balancing up the right to protest and the rights of legitimate business owners to trade safely in the area, and to be honest if we have a situation where the choice has to be made I would side with the business owners.

on the cost of the damage it is ok saying the insurance companies will foot the bill for the damage but it will be at the cost of higher premiums for every business in the area and possibly dissuading insurance companies from insuring businesses in the worst hit areas.

To be honest this would be a better solution and encourage marchers to self police their fellow protesters

march organisers should be made to make arrangements to cover the clean-up costs.

though again the cost of some of these cleanups would probably be excessive for most organisations, especially issues that spark new groups that break up after the issue stops being a hot topic, so perhaps a per head contingent or something similar.

[Flipside]

Whilst I agree that businesses should be protected, and that something like a cleanup bill would be a good idea, I do think that this is a case of punishing the many for the acts of the few who watched 'V for Vendetta' and thought it was a documentary. To be honest, Boris is highly unlikely to say 'Yes' anyway, he's coming up for re-election, and it'd be a really silly political move.

The problem is that the people causing the trouble weren't really associated with the TUC at all, they were a fringe group that seem bent on destructive and violent behaviour, it seems more for the hell of it than any real understanding of the situation, the riots were taking place some distance from the actual march. What we really need is a better system for discouraging vandalism, simply telling people 'You can't protest here' is more likely, in my opinion, to inflate the problem than reduce it. At the moment there is only one place in the UK that you cannot protest, and that is on Downing Street, try to expand that area, and I think it will cause more trouble than it solves.

Edit: The BBC clarifies a little, that companies want violent protests routed away from the shops, which is kind of amusing, since it makes it sound like the Police always have a choice where the rioters go...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12886784

[headdie]

The problem is that the people causing the trouble weren't really associated with the TUC at all, they were a fringe group that seem bent on destructive and violent behaviour, it seems more for the hell of it than any real understanding of the situation, the riots were taking place some distance from the actual march. What we really need is a better system for discouraging vandalism, simply telling people 'You can't protest here' is more likely, in my opinion, to inflate the problem than reduce it. At the moment there is only one place in the UK that you cannot protest, and that is on Downing Street, try to expand that area, and I think it will cause more trouble than it solves.

Edit: The BBC clarifies a little, that companies want violent protests routed away from the shops, which is kind of amusing, since it makes it sound like the Police always have a choice where the rioters go...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12886784

Thats why i was thinking about the self policing with the organizers covering the cost of damage done, it would encourage them to encourage the legit marchers to keep an eye open for trouble makers.

that last bit about directing the trouble makers is a face palm.

also V for Vendetta is an awesome film and I can see the parallels with limiting free speech and the few steps it takes to get to that kind of situation