As promised, below is a copy of the letter sent to the demonstration's organisers. I have had to crop the letter in order to fit it onto the page, and so what you cannot see is the filepath in the footer which shows the location on the the States' computer where the letter was saved, and this shows that the letter has been saved in a file named 'Adhoc Ent Permit'.
4 comments:
7 May 2008 19:38
Condition number 1 clearly states the organisers were permitted just a single hour between 1.00 and 2.00pm.
I hate to say it, but they've done their integrity no favours by claiming there was a forced delay to a planned 12.30pm start because of the Bailiff's lunchbreak.
Please don't fall into that trap this early in the game chaps....
7 May 2008 21:43
WTF AHITS?! It had been publicised as 12.30 for a week or two beforehand, so why did the Bayleaf have to make a fuss about it and mess it up? I presume 12.30 was chosen to bridge the two lunch hours 12-1 and 1-2, to allow more people to turn up - how many arrived after 12.30 and drifted away again? It stops us putting a true figure to it, doesn't it? And why do we need such ridiculous permission to gather or protest? Why limit it to an hour? The questions go on and on.. just exactly why can't the public use the public steps that the public own... etc etc etc.
Some bleedin' democracy, innit?
7 May 2008 23:07
It may have been publicised as a 12.30 start beforehand, but the event couldn't legally go ahead without that permission from the Bailiff - which stated 1.00 till 2.00 pm only.
If a guy owns a nightclub and advertises for one month that he has a 4.00am license for the weekend at the end of that month, then when he applies for that license is told he can only stay open until 3.00am...who's in the wrong come that weekend's chucking out time of 3.00am?
Much as I strongly believe Philip Bailhache is completely unfit to serve as Bailiff, he wasn't in the wrong regarding these timeslots, and Time For Change have done themselves no favours by playing it as if he was.
Certainly the timing granted for the event was questionably minimal, but aside from that, the rest of the stipulations seem fair enough.
Why the need to ask for permission? Well one quick example, to stop me and my mates turning up in the Royal Square whenever we so choose to hold mass rallies celebrating the wonder and wisdom of that once popular beat combo, Motorhead....that's a slightly extreme example, but I'm sure you get my drift.
Why no use of the public steps? It was a working day, the public entrance would have needed to be kept clear so as to not interfere with people entering the building on business, simple. If the rally had taken place on a Sunday, with the building not being in use, then it would have been a questionable stipulation.
As for democracy, it doesn't mean no rules and complete freedom. That's anarchy.
27 May 2008 00:01
Holdiday in the sun
Your analysis of this event is far too legalistic. You have missed the point about the freedom of assembly, being one that is not exercised at the discretion of the state.
A demonstration is not a personal appointment: it is not held at the convenience or pleasure of the Bailiff or the LtGov or the States.
The purpose of giving notice of intent to demonstrate pertains to minimum health and safety concerns and in the event the space in question was scheduled by others. The governor's appearance in court dress, may have implied an official function within the Royal Court, but this could not have any bearing on the restriction of the demonstration.
Demonstrations, esp. political demonstrations, are by their nature "disturbances" otherwise they would not be held.
When the government hold an event to present or defend itself-- this is not a demonstration but a ceremony or a pageant. The Bailiff relegated this event to common entertainment presumably because this is the category of regulated activity in the Royal Square.
It would have been interesting to have seen what the Bailiff would have done had the demonstration begun at 12.30pm. Would the Police have sought to prevent the start? Would there have been another Peterloo massacre?
Post a Comment