CTC political campaigning

bluemootwo · Post by **bluemootwo** » 5 Dec 2015, 9:37am

Did you just compare an (allegedly) illegal protest by an individual MP with the signing of the Magna Carta? Bit of a jump...

Post by **Vorpal** » 5 Dec 2015, 9:46am

I was not comparing them. I was pointing that we have a constitution because people don't always follow the rules.

bluemootwo · Post by **bluemootwo** » 5 Dec 2015, 10:12am

Ok... But it can't be healthy for elected members of the legislator to pick and choose which of their laws should be respected. If a MP thinks it is OK to break the laws they don't like, what advice are they giving in their constituency surgeries? What credibility do they have when they call for compliance with the laws they do want people to respect? It can very rapidly descend to the sort of abysmal situation they have in Italy, Spain and Greece where nobody imagines their MPs are ever to be trusted. We have our problems, but ask any Spaniard to compare UK Parliament with the Spanish assemblies, and they will say how precious what we have still is.

gaz · Post by **gaz** » 5 Dec 2015, 10:49am

bluemootwo wrote:Law makers can't be law breakers - isn't that the rule? ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... bile-crash

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 643321.stm

Rules were made to be broken :evil:

.

bluemootwo wrote:What credibility do they have when they call for compliance with the laws they do want people to respect?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 98758.html

bluemootwo · Post by **bluemootwo** » 5 Dec 2015, 10:51am

Absolutely!!!!

Isn't it strange though that a law all about the safety of others, life and death, is always treated as minor matters. My own HMG security clearance says I must report all cautions and offences, except 'minor motoring offences' ! Why?

Balls, Harman, etc with convictions for mobile phone use when driving should have resigned their government positions at least - and as deliberate and knowing lawbreaking I would say they should step down as MPs.

Tough position I suppose - but those laws were made for a reason.

robgul · Post by **robgul** » 5 Dec 2015, 11:42am

Going back to Geffen - it seems he's due in court on Thursday 10 December 2015 . . . be interesting to see the result.

Rob

TonyR · Post by **TonyR** » 5 Dec 2015, 2:25pm

bluemootwo wrote:Balls, Harman, etc with convictions for mobile phone use when driving should have resigned their government positions at least - and as deliberate and knowing lawbreaking I would say they should step down as MPs.

Tough position I suppose - but those laws were made for a reason.

I trust you ride a bike with pedal reflectors. Those laws were made for a reason. :roll:

bluemootwo · Post by **bluemootwo** » 5 Dec 2015, 2:30pm

I do!

Philip Benstead · Post by **Philip Benstead** » 5 Dec 2015, 3:56pm

bluemootwo wrote:I do!

have you ever taken paperclip or pencil home from work for personal use?

bluemootwo · Post by **bluemootwo** » 5 Dec 2015, 3:58pm

No! What do you take me for - a MP!!!!

bluemootwo · Post by **bluemootwo** » 5 Dec 2015, 4:03pm

From the Magna Carta to paperclip theft...

If someone who makes the phone-while-driving offence breaks it, and if a senior manager of a charity that campaigns for good laws for, and fair treatment of, cyclists commits a crime during a campaign (if) - then I do think that is a serious issue. Stealing from work is serious too.

But if you are guilty of the latter I'll accept that some offences are more serious in context than others!

beardy · Post by **beardy** » 5 Dec 2015, 4:42pm

A campaigner who breaks a law openly and out of principle as part of campaigning, is quite different to just breaking a law for ones own gain (and hoping to get away with it).

On such protests you are briefed before hand that you are looking at aggravated trespass (which carries five years, I seem to recall), it is normal to plead innocent inorder to get your trial where you dispute the issue that you are campaigning over rather than whether you have committed the act.
It is quite normal for the charges to be dropped, so as to not get you the publicity that you were after.

The openness and not being furtive is an essential part of the legal defence and people frequently film themselves doing the action and publish it as widely as possible.

There is a real argument here for campaigners not to have charity status as it brings a mixture of "paying the pipers" and having to conform to ideas that you can not protest through acts of civil disobedience.

bluemootwo · Post by **bluemootwo** » 5 Dec 2015, 5:02pm

There is no provision in the law for your first paragraph. Interesting concept though. I'll start a pro-fracking campaign, commit aggravated trespass of the CTC offices, claim that defence, and see where it gets me!

Totally agree about charities engaging in political campaigns. "Campaign" directly and expressly for your cause, and within the law, by all means.

PH · Post by PH » 5 Dec 2015, 5:29pm

bluemootwo wrote:I'll start a pro-fracking campaign, commit aggravated trespass of the CTC offices, claim that defence, and see where it gets me!

If you convince a jury you had a legal excuse it won't get you anywhere.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... limatecamp

beardy · Post by **beardy** » 5 Dec 2015, 5:29pm

There is no provision in the law for your first paragraph. Interesting concept though. I'll start a pro-fracking campaign, commit aggravated trespass of the CTC offices, claim that defence, and see where it gets me!

There is and it has frequently worked! That is up to the jury (aggravated trespass does get seen in criminal court with a jury).
It is an extension of being allowed to do a minor harm to prevent a larger one, the same defence that allows you to kick in somebody's house door in order to pull them out of a burning house.

However that isnt the point which I was making, I meant there is a difference for an employer (especially for campaigning) between somebody convicted of crimes committed the either of the two different ways.

Cycling UK Forum