MCN seem to have discovered that BJ is considering the cancellation of our temporary right to use London’s bus lanes. Seems he’s miffed about the bike parking protests and wants to threaten us in some way. Always did think he was a weak willed MFSOB. So he’s getting upperty … well if that’s the case it’s about we started the process of his removal from office. Can’t have a f*ckwit like that telling us what we can or can’t do … what we can do is anything we like provided it’s legal.
Keep up at the back… :rolleyes:
http://londonbikers.com/forums/Topic705593-93-1.aspx
http://londonbikers.com/forums/Topic705907-93-1.aspx
http://londonbikers.com/forums/Topic705031-93-1.aspx
and there’s many more boring topics on here of the same Yawn** 
lordy! BJ (hang on a min don’t that stand for Blow Job?)
Boris is a lunitic. Look at his hair? lol
Old mop a top…His mad
Boris has technically breached the Human Rights Act (HRA) and perhaps MAG or one of the other groups should consider bringing a case against him. By threatening people who are exercising their Article 11 rights Boris has acted unlawfully.
Boris technically is acting as a public authority while he is the Mayor and every public authority under the HRA must act in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 11 of the ECHR guarantees the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
Any threat of sanctions for doing exactly that would be in breach of Article 11 and thus would be acting unlawfully under s6 of the HRA.
Perhaps MAG should consider taking him to court now for the threat.
The other thing is if he makes the decision to remove the bus lanes against the independent recommendation he will have to be pretty convincing as to why he did that, and he could not refer to the protests.
First, as above, it would be in breach of the HRA, but secondly it would leave the Mayor’s office open to a claim under Judicial Review on two separate grounds, Wednesbury Unreasonableness and Irrelevent Considerations, which would allow a court to quash his decision and force him to take it again.
Now admittedly if he was really determined, he could fabricate reasons to remove the right to use the bus lane, but I don’t think he would go that far.
I suppose Boris could then tell the Police to start to considor offences such as Highway Obstruction etc. After all, I would say that a demo occasionally to raise awareness is fine but to block parts of central London off and cause gridlock everyweek is just disgusting.Good on Boris.Edited to add, this is my personal opinion and in no way that of my employers etc etc !!
Well said Baz.
Well we don’t really need another thread on the pros and cons of whether people should use inconvenience as a product of protesting…cause lord knows no-one has ever done that in history to get what they want…
wow a whole thread about me! :hehe:
seriously people, we have to give BoJo a new name, i keep thinking its me your on about 
He would be shooting himself in the foot if he banded motorcycles from using bus lanes. Bikers have already shown how organised and effective they are. A greater proportion would protest against their removal and the disruption to London would be unimaginable. For example, lets say that bikers decided to disrupt traffic around east london and the olympic site.
Is there no room in current afairs,:hehe:I dont use em, dont trust em, cars cut in with out thinking to look for bikes, if it aint big as a buss they aint seeing it:D
+1 
moved to current bun affairs by smiled:).
smiled:).
Protests can only be legally broken up by a few means, the one that the police would most likely rely upon would be the Public Order Act which they could legitimately use since the protest could be said to be disrupting the local community.
The problem for the police is how to do that. With so many bikes and so many people on the protest it is very difficult for the police to effectively disrupt the protest.
If BoJo did demand that the police take action, it would entirely depend on how the bikers reacted. If they reacted peacefully and moved on, then the action would be successful, but if they refused and forced the police to take further action, the action would be ineffective.
They could not arrest and process that many people to put a dent in the protest, logistically it would break down…bearing in mind the nature of the protest is to cause traffic gridlock, the police could not get in or out to remove the protestors.
The police are in a difficult position with such protests at the moment because breaking them up would be very difficult, the only thing the police could do is to take preemptive action to stop the protest.
Can you take note of this post then 
Well I guess they could always dish out a pile of section 59 notices to the participants on the grounds that they’re causing annoyance to the public, there’s no arrest, no court involvement & no right of appeal. OK, wouldn’t stop the protest at that time but would mean they then have the right to impound the bikes if used in another demo within 12 months.
To be fair, I am trying to discuss the law and whether protests are themselves legitimate and what action can be taken against a protest legally…rather then whether there should be protests about parking.
That is a possible route, but it would again face a claim against the HRA and the ECHR that this was an unlawful infringement on the right to peacefully assemble and protest.
The section 59 notices were not designed to stop people lawfully protesting so would not fall under the qualification of article 11 as being a restriction proscribed by law, which the Public Order Act would fall under, and therefore may be considered to be a breach of Article 11.
While the courts do not generally give exemplary damages…ie damages designed to punish…it would cost the Government a huge sum of money to pay damages for loss of earnings, cost of alternative transport fees, money for storing the bikes and refunds to anyone charged for storing the bikes, plus of course the legal fees for bringing the action.
The European Court especially is very strong on protecting peoples right to protest, and the English courts would follow their lead in that.
The damages, even without exemplary damages, would amount to a few hundred thousand pound.
I do not think the police nor the Government would relish that, not when they have the Public Order Act to rely upon instead, which would be much much harder to win a case against its use.
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-right-of-peaceful-protest/using-the-highway.html :
Using the Highway
The law provides a specific right to use a public highway: the right to pass and re-pass along the highway (including the pavement), and the right to make ordinary and ‘reasonable use’ of the highway. To hold peaceful assemblies that do not prevent other people from also using the highway is likely to be seen as a ‘reasonable use’ of the highway. In addition, the Article 11 of the Convention guarantees the right to assembly, so you have a positive right, both from the common law and from the European Convention on Human Rights, to use the highway to hold peaceful, non-obstructive assemblies.
The Trafalgar Square protests have been stopped several times by the Police serving a “Section 12”[1] on Warren as the most obvious leader in attendance. In each case the bikes have left the square in 5 minutes. Of course on several occasions they’ve simply moved to a different location. On a couple of occasions they have moved to the Aldwych, round it a couple of times and back to Trafalgar Sq using the Bus lane on The Strand, all under Police escort.
In all the (now large number of) demos, there hasn’t been a single Police caution, arrest or prosecution against the protesters. They don’t break the law. They do things they are told to by the Police. They stop doing things when told not to do them. Curiously, the heavy Police presence still ignores cars and other vehicles breaking the law by crossing red lights, talking on the phone, leaving the secene of an accident without exchanging details, etc etc.
[1]Can anyone sum up what this actually is? It seems to be some part of the Highways Act. Parked outside the lobby of WCC offices on Wed, we were served with a “Section 14” to clear the area. Any idea what that one is?