I've always found it amusing when people get upset about "protesting" being banned.

Surely the whole idea of a "protest".....is that it's not what the government wants.

One of the tactics that the ANC used against the apartheid regime in South Africa was "Make South Africa Ungovernable" - it took advantage of the fact that the government was making more and more things illegal, by encouraging supporters to go and do them in protest, forcing the authorities to commit resources to arresting them, holding them in cells, processing them through the courts, so it logjammed the justice system.

If there is really a movement for mass protest against the government in the UK then it should all turn up and protest in that 'banned month'.

Back to your original post,

I have gone camping and bivvying for many years, and am neither allowed to pitch my tent wherever I like, nor do i think it would be reasonable to do so.

If I went to the Dales with a few mates, I think it would be selfish in the extreme, and ignorant to both locals and tourists, to pitch our tents in the main car park, or on the lawn outside someone's house, or in a pub beer garden. There are places I can wild camp, other than that, I am happy to pitch my tent where I'm permitted to do so.

I would not, by the same token, expect to be able to solve the problem of London accommodation by pitching my tent in Parliament Square, and I don't know of any camper who has ever done so, or thought it fair game. I don't see why disguising my camping with the disclaimer "Yes, but I'm actually PROTESTING" does, nor should, make a blind bit of difference. All the byelaw does is make it easier for the Council to remove offenders and the reason for such byelaws would be because these are locations which are more likely to be targeted (and have been targeted) and the previous laws for removing people abusing their right to visit a public space have proved laborious and thus ineffective.

It is a democracy. Those who want there to be a legal right to pitch tents wherever you want for as long as you want can contact their MP and campaign for a change in the law to that effect.

That, Sir, is a very, very good post.

Although the Pedant in Chief says you're confusing the defiance campaign of the 1950s with the make SA ungovernable campaign of the 1980s, during the states of emergency.

I think it's fairly straight forward and plain to see that these measures aren't aimed at people just wanting to camp or bivvy where they want, but that they are aimed entirely at protesters (although I will admit some confusion on the kite and bird feeding components).

There is already sufficient legislation in place to prevent illegal protest, although as is often the way with legislation that could perhaps be made stronger in the minds of those who use that authority, it has remained almost completely unused, while we see the disgraceful scenes we witnessed last year.
These laws could already be used to clear illegal camps, and contrary to the impression given, very quickly too when needed.

I still feel that these protests are more to ensure that the London Authority doesn't suffer any embarassment during the Olympics rather than any real need for laws, a situation that I still can only remember happening during the Beijing Olympics.

I think that if they're introduced, they'll end up tying up more Police than if the laws weren't there - a red rag to a bull in effect. If i was of the type to be protesting in London, i'd be busy trying to organise two protests the day of the opening ceremony now.

Load of fuss about nothing. They've just re-published the bye laws for legal reasons. They haven't changed. There are notices posted all over the place, especially in the City, pointing out that places we already know are private are private. This might help in future possible cases seeking re-possession of land that has been occupied; the plaintiff/complainant will say these naughty people saw our notices and still occupied our land.They're just trying to cover their (legal) a*s*s. However people who choose to take direct action tend not to worry about such bye-laws and notices.

We have people concerned about something that they fear may happen. With no evidence bar paranoia that the laws will be kept on after the Olympics. Is that it?

The capital has taken on an obligation to help secure London, the tourists and the competitors for the Olympics.

You're right - we have no evidence whatsoever. On the other hand - we DO have a mountain of demonstrable evidence going back centuries (spanning all nations, political systems etc.) which shows that governments, when facing awkward-to-downright-dangerous civil unrest, will seize upon any and every opportunity to trump up restrictive laws and curb civil liberties - often in defiance of long-enshrined constitutional rights - and not repeal/release them later.

Given the last two duplicitous governments Britain has endured I think we have every reason to be - at the very least - concerned.

I understand your concern, as you have pointed out what has happened before. What has happened before though doesn't really mean it will happen again. This is thankfully why "previous" isn't brought up in a criminal trial.

I did have a quick browse at the bye laws and some of the things are understandable, like about starting a fire. etc. There are unusual things like No person shall wash or dry and piece of clothing or fabric, or ride any animal on the square.

What may be construed as slightly misleading is the man's blog which statesoffence, inter alia, to

- erect or keep erected any tent or similar structure
- display any sign
- make or give any speech or public address

Technically the author is correct, but it isn't as final as he made it seem. I read the bye laws for Parliament Square which doesn't list these in the "Acts prohibited with the square" section. But they are in the "Acts within the square for which written permission is required". So, in theory, if you want to attempt to do the things he stated were an offence, all you need to do is write and ask.


Anyway like I said some people are wasting far too much energy and brain power worrying about nothing that's happened. By all means mugwump, if it does continue after the Olympics and they don't revoke these bye laws as this one does to the ones previous, then go and demonstrate. I'm behind you on that.

I always wonder why a lot of world leaders don't seem to condemn China's rule over its people, maybe they are envious?

No, they are scared about China's response. Appeasement is the way with China, even though there is plenty of evidence that it doesn't work.

As for the demonstrations issue, I thought that part of the undertaking of the host city in putting on an Olympics is to ensure nothing political attaches to the events? Large-scale protests may well be considered as politicising the games. I can't think of many protests that must happen within a 4 week window anyway.

You keep missing the point, I'm not sure how you do it. The measures ARE aimed at people who may want to camp. the point you miss is that the only people remotely likely to do so are protesters who may wish to set up an encampment.

The point is, it is inappropriate and an abuse of the rest of the public's right to enjoy public spaces, for people to be allowed to pitch their tents and set up encampments wherever they like, at their whim. This is so, whether it is people wanting to protest about something, or the Chipping Sodbury Scouts.

Your take on it conflates protesters with people who want to camp, and that is with respect plainly untenable.

So this bye law means that for a time you can't protest in 2 London squares.

But you can still protest in the 1,570 square kms that is the rest of London.

Does it? I thought it meant you couldn't camp, fly kites or feed pigeons ([iinter alia[/i). I don't believe the word "protest" is in the byelaws, but stand to be corrected?

And a bloody big "inter alia" at that.