I think it is fair and reasonable that the police be able to remove people who block the flow of traffic on roads. If they are peaceful and well-behaved maybe let them have their 10 minutes but then it should be possible to remove them.
Even the article (which is from The Guardian after all) reports that "The change would broaden and clarify the legal definition of “serious disruption” and allow police to consider protests by the same group on different days or in different places as part of the same wider action."
So, again, the exact wording of that amendment will be key and I don't think it has been published yet.
Unlimited power to shut down protests. In other words, they will shut down all protests (not the other possible meanings).
> "The change would broaden and clarify the legal definition of “serious disruption” and allow police to consider protests by the same group on different days or in different places as part of the same wider action."
This will be used by police to view every protest as some "wider action", with the worst possible implications, and they'll act accordingly.
Police should not only be able to remove people who set up illegal roadblocks, these people should be jailed and face consequences for breaking the law and illegally impeding the free movement of others in a public place, and not simply be removed from the road.
That being said, I completely disagree that police should have the power to preemptively shut down a protest that hasn't yet occurred. As many have pointed out, this is no different than prosecuting "thought crimes". It is the job of police to arrest people who have broken the law, not punish people who they guess might break the law in the future. This law is absolutely Orwellian.
The core of the issue is that nobody has the right to break the law, even if you do it in the name of "protesting". The central part of civil disobedience is that one is willing to suffer the legal consequences for their actions. When there are no legal consequences for breaking the law in the name of "protest", you end up with the chaotic situation we have today, where people are free to go around setting up roadblocks and physically restricting others from moving freely in public with no (or virtually no) consequence. It is unfortunate that instead of implementing reasonable, common-sense policies (like swift removal and moderate punishment of those setting up illegal roadblocks), authorities always overreach and use the situation for a power grab.
Ambulance took 40 minutes to attend traffic accident because roads were blocked. Accident also occurred on M20 where traffic was rerouted because other road was blocked.
Perhaps I’m not understanding, but is it legal to be climbing and stay high up on the cables on a major roadway?
Allowing protests only in some alleyway where nobody is present; or if a government can simply and easily apply postponement/cancellation tactics: This would be a problem as well.
Specifically the current 'protests', be it blocking roads or criminal damage, do not serve any constructive purpose at all. They are carried out by the 'usual suspects'. They could organise a massive gathering in Hyde Park (and similar in towns throughout the country), for example, that would get huge media coverage as well without causing problems, ah but that wouldn't be 'direct revolutionary action'...
In the US, we have other disruptive events such as marathons; parades; Presidential convoys. All of which can disrupt main roads and aren’t even protected.
For example: https://www.amny.com/transit/nyc-marathon-traffic-guide-stre...
The difference is that this is planned; and whether reasonable accommodations and alternatives are provided, if it’s too disruptive.