After ambulances and fire engines struggled to get through, Number 10 said any disruption to the emergency services' work is 'unacceptable'.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'These sorts of protests that disrupt peoples' daily lives or, indeed, can stop our emergency services from potentially saving lives are unacceptable.
'That's why we've already toughened powers for the police, we've given them new powers to act and we are also taking further powers through the House at the moment to ensure they can go even further in preventing these individuals from disrupting peoples' lives.'
Fantastic news, but as we've seen with the Dangerous Dogs Act, beefing up the powers available is worthless when they lack the work ethic to actually use them...
...commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee that officers have to wait until protests are deemed to meet a legal threshold of causing major disruption before they can be shut down.
His officers are in touch with Transport for London, local councils and the emergency services several times per day to check the level of disruption caused. Sir Mark said: 'Over the last 11 days, all of those partners have been of a view that it doesn't cause serious disruption.'
Said, no doubt, by people sitting in cozy air-conditioned offices, and not out on the streets trying to get a fire engine, ambulance or delivery vehicle through traffic...
8 comments:
Sir Mark Rowley is a barefaced liar:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/part/IX/crossheading/obstruction-of-highways-and-streets
When did Crime Prevention drop out of the responsibilities of the Police?
How about one of the drivers pours a can or two of Super Unleaded over the protestors?
No need to set light to them - just make them wet and uncomfortable.....
How about one of the drivers pours a can or two of Super Unleaded over the protestors?
No need to set light to them - just make them wet and uncomfortable.....
Anonymous
Unfortunately DPP -v- Ziegler ( at https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2021/23.html ) gave the police a loophole by which the "authorities" can allow obstruction in respect of causes they agree with. So it's not a case of Rowley lying: it's a case of him deciding that the little people can suffer so that the wokerati can demonstrate their virtue.
As the plastic banners are a by product of oil, take them out of their hands and throw them away; shoes, especially those with rubber soles, need oil to make them, so pull them of their feet and throw them away; those socks look like nylon, a by product of oil, so off they come; their clothes are made with machinery which requires oil for lubrication, so who's got the scissors?; is that elastic in the underwear? Then unclasp, unbutton, or unhook. Being one of a bunch of naked uglies sat in the middle of the road, being laughed at, and jeered by saner people, may concentrate their tiny minds somewhat. An action like this can't be wrong as it is only agreeing with their variation of ethics.
Penseivat
Is there a legal threshold of giving a good kicking?
"Sir Mark Rowley is a barefaced liar..."
Of course! It was in the job description, I expect...
"How about one of the drivers pours a can or two of Super Unleaded over the protestors?"
Can't afford it!
"... it's a case of him deciding that the little people can suffer so that the wokerati can demonstrate their virtue...."
Ah, if only we had a conservative gov... Oh. Wait.
"An action like this can't be wrong as it is only agreeing with their variation of ethics."
👏
Post a Comment