不由力量除掉布赖恩山楂所有似乎瞄准摆脱和平阵营的更加伟大的伦敦当局由立法，他们的对政府咨询`处理的抗议的反应再试一次在议会附近’。 并且政府与他们一致， SOCrAP没有被埋没，并且他们已经抢夺它的尸体。

时刻为抗议外部市政厅？

在12个星期咨询期间， “政府收到了512答复。 表示法从25个竞选小组被接受了，从六MPs和二个同辈，从很多个其他感兴趣的赌金保管人包括大城市警署、更加伟大的伦敦当局、威斯敏斯特市议会和苏格兰的法律社会”。

“The Greater London Authority (GLA) commented that any discussions on management of protests in Parliament Square needed to take into account proposals to redevelop Parliament Square “to create a more accessible, safe and high quality place”. They also commented that while Trafalgar Square was a good model for successfully managing demonstrations, its layout was different to Parliament Square in terms of its safe pedestrian access and hard landscaped surfaces. The GLA believed that Trafalgar Square had a long and established historical tradition as a place to protest as opposed to Parliament Square.”

“The Greater London Authority commented that a key concern for the Mayor was proportionality and duration, arguing that if a protest took place it would limit public use of Parliament Square and protests should therefore be limited in duration. “ 

 http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/governance-analysis-consultations.pdf

——————————————————–

Sir George Young (Con): On part 1 of the Bill, although no one would object to orderly and peaceful demonstrations in Parliament square, many people object to permanent, unsightly encampments in the middle of a great, historic city. Will the Bill put that right?

Mr. Straw: I understand that there are strong feelings about that. Those encampments are unsightly, but they also represent people exercising a right to demonstrate. The changes in the law have not been conspicuously successful— It is no good pointing at me; I am not the police. The changes in the law have not been conspicuously successful in dealing with the problem, and they have appeared to be pretty heavy handed as well, so better arrangements are needed. Let us see what the House has to say about it. 

 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080325/debtext/80325-0006.htm#0803254000411

——————————————————–

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on the substantive question that the noble Baroness raises on sessional orders, there has clearly been a lot of concern about whether some provisions of the SOCPA are necessary and whether they are an inhibitor to legitimate protests and demonstrations outside Parliament. However, there is also concern that if those provisions are simply repealed and problems arise in the future with regard to open and free access to Parliament and issues around noise there will not be sufficient powers to deal with those problems sensibly and effectively.

Comment on 'SOCPA: The GLA’s campaign against Brian Haw' :

RSS TrackBack URL

Related News: