Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Banning all protest - but ignoring that when it happens to be a protest that is politically convenient to support
No protests have been banned, indeed anti-lockdown protests were allowed to go ahead several weeks ago.
Banning all protest - but ignoring that when it happens to be a protest that is politically convenient to support
No protests have been banned, indeed anti-lockdown protests were allowed to go ahead several weeks ago.
Any gathering of more than 6 people is banned under the current regulations.
No protest has been prevented from going ahead. Nothing has been "banned".
No protests have been banned, indeed anti-lockdown protests were allowed to go ahead several weeks ago.
It wasn't widely reported in the media other than as an "and finally" story due to Piers Corbyn being one of those arrested.
I don't think they're likely to have any more impact than other recent events.
I'm certainly very suspicious of those who criticise the protests for spreading the virus, while remaining silent on the crowds flocking to the beaches or Dominic Cummings.
I was skeptical when reading this, but I actually completely agree.But we seem to be switching from governing by consent where we agree on the things that shouldn't be allowed, to governing by consent where we agree on what things we'll turn a blind eye too. That's really bad.
Banning all protest - but ignoring that when it happens to be a protest that is politically convenient to support - is not a good place for a society to be.
The preservation of the right to protest, of free speech and self expression, should ALWAYS be one of the vital tenets of our society, no matter what the ramifications. While social distancing should be an underlying objective, right now using the COVID regulations to break up a march bring attention to another unrelated but highly emotive subject would not have been a sensible approach as it would likely have provoked much greater disorder. Using the “but you might infect others” line is not adequate justification for breaking up a protest. We live in a society in which we are encouraged to take responsibility for ourselves and on that basis those who wish to take the risk of being infected by others must be allowed to protest, while the more risk-averse can practice their protest in a more self-isolated way.I’m sorry but large public protests at this stage of the pandemic aren’t really acceptable.
ONS statistics (although stretching back to a reporting period of 15 May to 30 May) suggest 1 in 1000 people have Coronavirus at any given time. If there were 50,000 people at the protest, we'd expect to see 50 people with Coronavirus - however many with symptoms will be self isolating anyway, and many protestors were wearing masks etc. I'd be surprised if you got an extra 100 cases out of the protests - hardly enough to register as a spike.
We live in a society in which we are encouraged to take responsibility for ourselves and on that basis those who wish to take the risk of being infected by others must be allowed to protest, while the more risk-averse can practice their protest in a more self-isolated way.
This is actually a very good point. Fortunately my friends who did go are doing just that - the right thing to do when you're supporting the cause but not wanting to increase risk to others who chose not to attend.We have to hope the protesters are responsible enough to self-isolate so that they don't pass anything on to vulnerable people they may come into contact with - I'm sure some of the protesters will be carers, nurses, public transport workers, etc. They should ensure that they do whatever is necessary to avoid the risk of passing Covid onto people around them.
If the protests were socially distanced and safe, of course I would support them and I would likely attend them, but I’m not going to risk the vulnerable’s lives amid a pandemic, and I fear this has just caused untold damage that we will see in a week or two through a sharp exponential rise in cases, hospital capacity being filled again, and potentially another lockdown.
I think we know that they have no intention of self isolating after their protest.We have to hope the protesters are responsible enough to self-isolate so that they don't pass anything on to vulnerable people they may come into contact with - I'm sure some of the protesters will be carers, nurses, public transport workers, etc. They should ensure that they do whatever is necessary to avoid the risk of passing Covid onto people around them.
They are, but the police have stated (post #2) that if they tried to enforce the law then the law breakers are likely to turn violent.
One thing of note here is that my contact in PHE I've quoted here before does believe the scale of these protests means that there is a considerable chance that some of the releasing dates may need to be pushed on a week or two as a result of spread they cause. So we potentially could see the changes planned for next Monday moving to 4th July and the 4th July ones to mid/late July, but there's no way of knowing for sure the effect for a week or two.
So we potentially could see the changes planned for next Monday moving to 4th July and the 4th July ones to mid/late July
I can imagine such a move would be very controversial.
I find that quite worrying. I understand that, from a pragmatic point of view the police officers on the ground at the time may justifiably have felt it was better to avoid the risk of violence. But, from a more general perspective - do we really want to become the kind of society where the police are afraid to enforce the law because of the risk that those breaking the law might turn violent?
But, from a more general perspective - do we really want to become the kind of society where the police are afraid to enforce the law because of the risk that those breaking the law might turn violent?
... those who wish to take the risk of being infected by others must be allowed to protest, while the more risk-averse can practice their protest in a more self-isolated way.