不由力量除掉布賴恩山楂所有似乎瞄準擺脫和平陣營的更加偉大的倫敦當局由立法，他們的對政府咨詢`處理的抗議的反應再試一次在議會附近』。 并且政府與他們一致， SOCrAP沒有被埋沒，并且他們已經搶奪它的屍體。

時刻為抗議外部市政廳？

在12個星期咨詢期間， 「政府收到了512答復。 表示法從25個競選小組被接受了，從六MPs和二個同輩，從很多個其他感興趣的賭金保管人包括大城市警署、更加偉大的倫敦當局、威斯敏斯特市議會和蘇格蘭的法律社會」。

“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 However, there is also concern that if those provisions are simply repealed and problems arise in the future with regard to open and free access to Parliament and issues around noise there will not be sufficient powers to deal with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: