Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to enforce such
a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which also covers the wearing of face coverings, and which has been used in the past in non-football-related situations?
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least in part the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be done, this is something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm doing!rCO?
Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to enforce such
a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which also covers the wearing of face coverings, and which has been used in the past in non-football-related situations?
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least in part the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be done, this is something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm doing!rCO?
On 11/09/2026 09:05 AM, Spike wrote:
Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile
wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning
banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to enforce such >> a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which also covers the
wearing of face coverings, and which has been used in the past in
non-football-related situations?
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least in part >> the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be done, this is >> something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm doing!rCO?
Is a separate corps of yellow- or pink-clad police officers going to be mustered to enforce the "no black clothing" law?
On 11 Sep 2026 at 12:39:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/09/2026 09:05 AM, Spike wrote:
Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile
wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning
banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to
enforce such a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which
also covers the wearing of face coverings, and which has been used
in the past in non-football-related situations?
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least
in part the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be
done, this is something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm >>> doing!rCO?
Is a separate corps of yellow- or pink-clad police officers going to be
mustered to enforce the "no black clothing" law?
I think the point about black clothing is not the specific colour but
the concept of a uniform. Like brown shirts or black shirts. There are
of course state sanctioned uniforms but the this is about political
parties or campaigns adopting militaristic uniforms. In the past this
has not ended well.
On 11/09/2026 09:05 AM, Spike wrote:
Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile
wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning
banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to enforce such >> a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which also covers the
wearing of face coverings, and which has been used in the past in
non-football-related situations?
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least in part >> the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be done, this is >> something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm doing!rCO?
Is a separate corps of yellow- or pink-clad police officers going to be mustered to enforce the "no black clothing" law?
On 11/09/2026 09:05, Spike wrote:
Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile
wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning
banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to enforce
such
a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which also covers the
wearing of face coverings, and which has been used in the past in
non-football-related situations?
-aProbably because there is already a new Offence of concealing identity
at protests: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2026/20/section/157/ enacted
-aWas that what she mentioned ?
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least in
part the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be done, this is
something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm doing!rCO?
On 11/09/2026 09:05, Spike wrote:
Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile
wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning
banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to enforce such >> a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which also covers the
wearing of face coverings, and which has been used in the past in
non-football-related situations?
Probably because there is already a new Offence of concealing identity at protests: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2026/20/section/157/enacted
Was that what she mentioned ?
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least in part >> the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be done, this is >> something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm doing!rCO?
Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to enforce such
a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which also covers the wearing of face coverings, and which has been used in the past in non-football-related situations?
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least in part the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be done, this is something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm doing!rCO?
On 11 Sep 2026 at 12:39:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/09/2026 09:05 AM, Spike wrote:
Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile
wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning
banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to enforce such >>> a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which also covers the
wearing of face coverings, and which has been used in the past in
non-football-related situations?
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least in part >>> the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be done, this is >>> something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm doing!rCO?
Is a separate corps of yellow- or pink-clad police officers going to be
mustered to enforce the "no black clothing" law?
I think the point about black clothing is not the specific colour but the concept of a uniform.
Like brown shirts or black shirts. There are of course
state sanctioned uniforms but the this is about political parties or campaigns
adopting militaristic uniforms. In the past this has not ended well.
On 11/09/2026 09:05, Spike wrote:
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least
in part the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be
done, this is something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm >>> doing!rCO?
As an aside, in the same news item the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire was quite against the arbitrary banning of protests.
On 11/09/2026 13:56, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/09/2026 09:05, Spike wrote:
Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile
wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning
banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to enforce
such
a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which also covers the
wearing of face coverings, and which has been used in the past in
non-football-related situations?
-aProbably because there is already a new Offence of concealing identity >> at protests: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2026/20/section/157/
enacted
-aWas that what she mentioned ?
Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 already provides that any constable in uniform can
"require any person to remove any item which the constable reasonably believes that person is wearing wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing his identity"
On 11/09/2026 01:58 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 Sep 2026 at 12:39:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/09/2026 09:05 AM, Spike wrote:
Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile >>>> wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning >>>> banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to
enforce such
a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which also covers the >>>> wearing of face coverings, and which has been used in the past in
non-football-related situations?
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least
in part
the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be done,
this is
something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm doing!rCO?
Is a separate corps of yellow- or pink-clad police officers going to be
mustered to enforce the "no black clothing" law?
I think the point about black clothing is not the specific colour but the
concept of a uniform.
Was it a uniform?
I'd have said it was more of a dress code.
I had to comply with one of those for years. Laterly, I used to effect a pinstripe suit, a black shirt and bright yellow or red silk tie, when occasion demanded it.
As one of the ladies in the office once said: "You look like a Mafia
boss!".
I was well within the dress code but in no way was I in a uniform!
Like brown shirts or black shirts. There are of course
state sanctioned uniforms but the this is about political parties or
campaigns
adopting militaristic uniforms. In the past this has not ended well.
Yes, I have read the relevant history (years ago).
On 2026-09-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/09/2026 09:05, Spike wrote:
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least
in part the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be
done, this is something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm >>>> doing!rCO?
As an aside, in the same news item the Police and Crime Commissioner for
Hampshire was quite against the arbitrary banning of protests.
This is the irony of course. There's a "two tier" policing system
in this country. Left-wing protestors are dragged away in chains.
Old ladies sitting quietly holding signs are arrested "terrorism". Environmental protestors are sent down for 5 years for blocking the
highway. On the other hand, groups of fascist paramilitary criminals, blocking the highway, spreading terror on the streets and threatening
charity workers, are not even arrested.
On 11/09/2026 14:45, Norman Wells wrote:
Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 already
provides that any constable in uniform can
"require any person to remove any item which the constable reasonably
believes that person is wearing wholly or mainly for the purpose of
concealing his identity"
S60 seems to be one of the most convoluted and amended sections around,
and s60AA depends on it. For those more knowledgeable than me, can
anyone explain why s60.1(2) is simply marked:
2...................
There is no F annotation in the way there is for the similar 4A, which
is marked:
On 2026-09-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/09/2026 09:05, Spike wrote:
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least
in part the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be
done, this is something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm >>>> doing!rCO?
As an aside, in the same news item the Police and Crime Commissioner for
Hampshire was quite against the arbitrary banning of protests.
This is the irony of course. There's a "two tier" policing system
in this country. Left-wing protestors are dragged away in chains.
Old ladies sitting quietly holding signs are arrested "terrorism". Environmental protestors are sent down for 5 years for blocking the
highway. On the other hand, groups of fascist paramilitary criminals, blocking the highway, spreading terror on the streets and threatening
charity workers, are not even arrested.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/09/2026 09:05, Spike wrote:
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least
in part the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be >>>>> done, this is something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm >>>>> doing!rCO?
As an aside, in the same news item the Police and Crime Commissioner for >>> Hampshire was quite against the arbitrary banning of protests.
This is the irony of course. There's a "two tier" policing system
in this country. Left-wing protestors are dragged away in chains.
Old ladies sitting quietly holding signs are arrested "terrorism".
Environmental protestors are sent down for 5 years for blocking the
highway. On the other hand, groups of fascist paramilitary criminals,
blocking the highway, spreading terror on the streets and threatening
charity workers, are not even arrested.
It would seem from the input to this thread that there are a number of
pieces of legislation that would cover the issue, bringing to the fore the question of why we need so many laws to cover just one situation.
Someone whose name I canrCOt recall wrote a sci-fi story about this, in which a Bureau of Sabotage had to be created to slow down the incessant creation
of legislation.
AhrCaquote: The Bureau of Sabotage is a fictional government entity set in two of Frank Herbert's science fiction novels, "Whipping Star" and "The Dosadi Experiment", and first introduced in his 1964 short story "The
Tactful Saboteur". It is colloquially known as BuSab. Unquote
But to return to the matter you mention, the two-tier policing also works
the other way, witness the Epping protests of last summer. Clearly, rCOthe authoritiesrCO got fed up with the peaceful protests about VAWG, and chose the tactic of the police escorting left-wing protesters - some wearing
masks! - right to the very front of the protests, in contrast to the usual tactic of separating the two groups - denied at the time by the police, and only later retracting that when video emerged showing them doing just that. Later, the police were seen bussing away burly men, denied at the time
until video again emerged. The Chief Constable of Essex, who was National Lead for Public Order, saw no reason to query his forcerCOs tactics and tried to explain it away in what was described as a twenty-minute rCObloviating word saladrCO.
<https://uk.news.yahoo.com/incredibly-essex-police-just-made-065652803.html>
On 2026-09-12, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 11/09/2026 14:45, Norman Wells wrote:
Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 already
provides that any constable in uniform can
"require any person to remove any item which the constable reasonably
believes that person is wearing wholly or mainly for the purpose of
concealing his identity"
S60 seems to be one of the most convoluted and amended sections around,
and s60AA depends on it. For those more knowledgeable than me, can
anyone explain why s60.1(2) is simply marked:
2...................
There is no F annotation in the way there is for the similar 4A, which
is marked:
s60(2) was repealed by s8 of the Knives Act 1997, which also made
a lot of changes to other parts of s60.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/21/section/8
I agree there should be a footnote telling you this; I can only
assume that all this stuff is done manually, and somebody made
a mistake. If you search for "1997 c. 21" (i.e. the Knives Act)
on the CJ&POA page you find 11 matches in the footnotes. There
should have been another footnote saying something like:
S. 60(2) repealed (1.3.1999) by 1997 c. 21, s. 8(3); S.I. 1999/5, art. 2
I have wondered in the past how much legislation.gov.uk has come
to be seen as definitive, and whether any judgments have been
overturned due to somebody finding an error...
On 2026-09-11, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Sep 2026 at 12:39:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/09/2026 09:05 AM, Spike wrote:
Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile >>>> wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning >>>> banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to
enforce such a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which
also covers the wearing of face coverings, and which has been used
in the past in non-football-related situations?
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least
in part the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be
done, this is something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm >>>> doing!rCO?
Is a separate corps of yellow- or pink-clad police officers going to be
mustered to enforce the "no black clothing" law?
I think the point about black clothing is not the specific colour but
the concept of a uniform. Like brown shirts or black shirts. There are
of course state sanctioned uniforms but the this is about political
parties or campaigns adopting militaristic uniforms. In the past this
has not ended well.
Hence the Public Order Act 1936, brought in to deal with the last time
we had fascists marching in the streets, s(1) and (2) of which which ban "uniforms" and "quasimilitary organisations".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/6/contents
On 12/09/2026 13:18, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-12, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 11/09/2026 14:45, Norman Wells wrote:
Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 already >>>> provides that any constable in uniform can
"require any person to remove any item which the constable reasonably
believes that person is wearing wholly or mainly for the purpose of
concealing his identity"
S60 seems to be one of the most convoluted and amended sections around,
and s60AA depends on it. For those more knowledgeable than me, can
anyone explain why s60.1(2) is simply marked:
2...................
There is no F annotation in the way there is for the similar 4A, which
is marked:
s60(2) was repealed by s8 of the Knives Act 1997, which also made
a lot of changes to other parts of s60.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/21/section/8
I agree there should be a footnote telling you this; I can only
assume that all this stuff is done manually, and somebody made
a mistake. If you search for "1997 c. 21" (i.e. the Knives Act)
on the CJ&POA page you find 11 matches in the footnotes. There
should have been another footnote saying something like:
S. 60(2) repealed (1.3.1999) by 1997 c. 21, s. 8(3); S.I. 1999/5, art. 2
I have wondered in the past how much legislation.gov.uk has come
to be seen as definitive, and whether any judgments have been
overturned due to somebody finding an error...
Thanks for the clarification. My apologies for incorrectly referring to s60.1(2) instead of s60(2).
Your comment about the missing footnote was interesting. I assume that
would be a judgement overturned on a "technicality".
Is there a "Master copy" of an Act in Parliament somewhere, which is
the accepted legal reference?
On 2026-09-11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-11, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Sep 2026 at 12:39:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/09/2026 09:05 AM, Spike wrote:
Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile >>>>> wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning >>>>> banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to
enforce such a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which >>>>> also covers the wearing of face coverings, and which has been used
in the past in non-football-related situations?
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least
in part the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be >>>>> done, this is something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm >>>>> doing!rCO?
Is a separate corps of yellow- or pink-clad police officers going to be >>>> mustered to enforce the "no black clothing" law?
I think the point about black clothing is not the specific colour but
the concept of a uniform. Like brown shirts or black shirts. There are
of course state sanctioned uniforms but the this is about political
parties or campaigns adopting militaristic uniforms. In the past this
has not ended well.
Hence the Public Order Act 1936, brought in to deal with the last time
we had fascists marching in the streets, s(1) and (2) of which which ban
"uniforms" and "quasimilitary organisations".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/6/contents
When was the last time anyone was prosecuted for those?
It would seem from the input to this thread that there are a number of
pieces of legislation that would cover the issue, bringing to the fore the question of why we need so many laws to cover just one situation.
Someone whose name I canrCOt recall wrote a sci-fi story about this, in which a Bureau of Sabotage had to be created to slow down the incessant creation
of legislation.
On 2026-09-12, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/09/2026 13:18, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-12, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 11/09/2026 14:45, Norman Wells wrote:
Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 already >>>>> provides that any constable in uniform can
"require any person to remove any item which the constable reasonably >>>>> believes that person is wearing wholly or mainly for the purpose of
concealing his identity"
S60 seems to be one of the most convoluted and amended sections around, >>>> and s60AA depends on it. For those more knowledgeable than me, can
anyone explain why s60.1(2) is simply marked:
2...................
There is no F annotation in the way there is for the similar 4A, which >>>> is marked:
s60(2) was repealed by s8 of the Knives Act 1997, which also made
a lot of changes to other parts of s60.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/21/section/8
I agree there should be a footnote telling you this; I can only
assume that all this stuff is done manually, and somebody made
a mistake. If you search for "1997 c. 21" (i.e. the Knives Act)
on the CJ&POA page you find 11 matches in the footnotes. There
should have been another footnote saying something like:
S. 60(2) repealed (1.3.1999) by 1997 c. 21, s. 8(3); S.I. 1999/5, art. 2 >>>
I have wondered in the past how much legislation.gov.uk has come
to be seen as definitive, and whether any judgments have been
overturned due to somebody finding an error...
Thanks for the clarification. My apologies for incorrectly referring to
s60.1(2) instead of s60(2).
Your comment about the missing footnote was interesting. I assume that
would be a judgement overturned on a "technicality".
Well, in this particular instance, the missing footnote simply makes it harder to verify if and when s60(2) was repealed. But it does appear
that it was repealed, so the text of the Act is correct.
What I meant was that the missing footnote shows that this stuff is done manually, and if this mistake exists then it's likely that other mistakes exist, and if a mistake is with the actual text of an Act rather than the footnotes or explanatory notes, then this could lead to an invalid law
being applied (or a valid law failing to be applied), until somebody
notices the mistake.
(And also bear in mind that generally when something has come to court
the question is not "what is the law today?" but "what was the law when
the events the court is considering took place?", so errors about when
a law came in to force or was repealed can easily be significant.)
Is there a "Master copy" of an Act in Parliament somewhere, which is
the accepted legal reference?
Yes. The used to be printed on vellum until fairly recently, but now
they're printed on "archival paper" and only bound in vellum. I think
they're stored by the Parliamentary Archives in the Victoria Tower in
the Palace of Westminster.
On 2026-09-12, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/09/2026 09:05, Spike wrote:
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least >>>>>> in part the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be >>>>>> done, this is something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm
doing!rCO?
As an aside, in the same news item the Police and Crime Commissioner for >>>> Hampshire was quite against the arbitrary banning of protests.
This is the irony of course. There's a "two tier" policing system
in this country. Left-wing protestors are dragged away in chains.
Old ladies sitting quietly holding signs are arrested "terrorism".
Environmental protestors are sent down for 5 years for blocking the
highway. On the other hand, groups of fascist paramilitary criminals,
blocking the highway, spreading terror on the streets and threatening
charity workers, are not even arrested.
It would seem from the input to this thread that there are a number of
pieces of legislation that would cover the issue, bringing to the fore the >> question of why we need so many laws to cover just one situation.
Someone whose name I canrCOt recall wrote a sci-fi story about this, in which
a Bureau of Sabotage had to be created to slow down the incessant creation >> of legislation.
AhrCaquote: The Bureau of Sabotage is a fictional government entity set in >> two of Frank Herbert's science fiction novels, "Whipping Star" and "The
Dosadi Experiment", and first introduced in his 1964 short story "The
Tactful Saboteur". It is colloquially known as BuSab. Unquote
I believe it's true to say there's hugely more legislation passed these
days than there ever used to be. And I agree that this is by and large
a bad thing.
But to return to the matter you mention, the two-tier policing also works
the other way, witness the Epping protests of last summer. Clearly, rCOthe >> authoritiesrCO got fed up with the peaceful protests about VAWG, and chose >> the tactic of the police escorting left-wing protesters - some wearing
masks! - right to the very front of the protests, in contrast to the usual >> tactic of separating the two groups - denied at the time by the police, and >> only later retracting that when video emerged showing them doing just that. >> Later, the police were seen bussing away burly men, denied at the time
until video again emerged. The Chief Constable of Essex, who was National
Lead for Public Order, saw no reason to query his forcerCOs tactics and tried
to explain it away in what was described as a twenty-minute rCObloviating
word saladrCO.
<https://uk.news.yahoo.com/incredibly-essex-police-just-made-065652803.html>
Oh dear, you've been reset to factory settings again... the difference between what I described and what you described is that what I described
are real events that actually happened, whereas what you described is not,
as we have already previously discussed at length in this group.
On 2026-09-12, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-09-11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-11, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Sep 2026 at 12:39:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/09/2026 09:05 AM, Spike wrote:
Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile >>>>>> wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning >>>>>> banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to
enforce such a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which >>>>>> also covers the wearing of face coverings, and which has been used >>>>>> in the past in non-football-related situations?
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least >>>>>> in part the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be >>>>>> done, this is something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm
doing!rCO?
Is a separate corps of yellow- or pink-clad police officers going to be >>>>> mustered to enforce the "no black clothing" law?
I think the point about black clothing is not the specific colour but
the concept of a uniform. Like brown shirts or black shirts. There are >>>> of course state sanctioned uniforms but the this is about political
parties or campaigns adopting militaristic uniforms. In the past this
has not ended well.
Hence the Public Order Act 1936, brought in to deal with the last time
we had fascists marching in the streets, s(1) and (2) of which which ban >>> "uniforms" and "quasimilitary organisations".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/6/contents
When was the last time anyone was prosecuted for those?
Paul Golding of "Britain First" was convicted under it in 2016 and
fined -u450, although it doesn't seem to have been widely reported.
https://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/far-right-boss-found-guilty-under-old-law-770965
I Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Oh dear, you've been reset to factory settings again... the difference
between what I described and what you described is that what I described
are real events that actually happened, whereas what you described is not, >> as we have already previously discussed at length in this group.
Exactly what did I describe about the Epping protests that you say did not happen?
That the police said that they did not escort left-wing protesters, some of which were masked, only to change their story when video evidence emerged?
That the said left-wing protesters were not escorted to the front of the Epping protest group?
That burly men were not bussed away by the police, who denied bussing
anyone from the protest, only to change their story when video evidence emerged?
That the Chief Constable of Essex Police did not give a twenty-minute interview in which he claimed there was no need to investigate the actions
of his Force?
Mandy Rice-Davies applies to that last one, if not all of the police
claims.
On 12/09/2026 09:54, Spike wrote:
It would seem from the input to this thread that there are a number ofOne problem with this incessant storm of legislation, is that the poor coppers are supposed to be aware of it all when taking action. No wonder
pieces of legislation that would cover the issue, bringing to the fore
the question of why we need so many laws to cover just one situation.
Someone whose name I canrCOt recall wrote a sci-fi story about this, in
which a Bureau of Sabotage had to be created to slow down the incessant
creation of legislation.
that a number of false arrests occur.
On 2026-09-13, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
I Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Oh dear, you've been reset to factory settings again... the difference
between what I described and what you described is that what I described >>> are real events that actually happened, whereas what you described is not, >>> as we have already previously discussed at length in this group.
Exactly what did I describe about the Epping protests that you say did not >> happen?
That the police said that they did not escort left-wing protesters, some of >> which were masked, only to change their story when video evidence emerged?
That the said left-wing protesters were not escorted to the front of the
Epping protest group?
That burly men were not bussed away by the police, who denied bussing
anyone from the protest, only to change their story when video evidence
emerged?
That the Chief Constable of Essex Police did not give a twenty-minute
interview in which he claimed there was no need to investigate the actions >> of his Force?
I don't think any of those things happened in the way you claim they
did.
We went through all of this in too much detail exactly a year ago,
refer to that thread ("Renters' Rights Act") if you wish - I'm not
going to go through re-debunking every repeated false claim you make.
Mandy Rice-Davies applies to that last one, if not all of the police
claims.
You would say that.
On 2026-09-12, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-09-11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-11, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Sep 2026 at 12:39:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/09/2026 09:05 AM, Spike wrote:
Or so says Angela Rayner in a BBC interview with Nick RobinsonrCawhile >>>>>> wearing a (mainly) black dress.
But moving onrCathe interview also involved the said Rayner mentioning >>>>>> banning face coverings, possibly introducing police powers to
enforce such a ban. But why not use the Football Disorder Act, which >>>>>> also covers the wearing of face coverings, and which has been used >>>>>> in the past in non-football-related situations?
Is this yet another case of introducing more laws covering at least >>>>>> in part the same thing? Or merely a response to rCOSomething must be >>>>>> done, this is something, so let it be donerCO? Or even rCOLook what IrCOm
doing!rCO?
Is a separate corps of yellow- or pink-clad police officers going to be >>>>> mustered to enforce the "no black clothing" law?
I think the point about black clothing is not the specific colour but
the concept of a uniform. Like brown shirts or black shirts. There are >>>> of course state sanctioned uniforms but the this is about political
parties or campaigns adopting militaristic uniforms. In the past this
has not ended well.
Hence the Public Order Act 1936, brought in to deal with the last time
we had fascists marching in the streets, s(1) and (2) of which which ban >>> "uniforms" and "quasimilitary organisations".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/6/contents
When was the last time anyone was prosecuted for those?
Paul Golding of "Britain First" was convicted under it in 2016 and
fined -u450, although it doesn't seem to have been widely reported.
https://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/far-right-boss-found-guilty-under-old-law-770965
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 05:05:03 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,353 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,590K bytes) |
| Messages: | 291,507 |