No, there was a bunch in the middle that you removed.
Most of those restrictions sound pretty standard and reasonable! No amplification is the only one that I’d be upset about as an organizer.
No, there was a bunch in the middle that you removed.
Most of those restrictions sound pretty standard and reasonable! No amplification is the only one that I’d be upset about as an organizer.
> No, there was a bunch in the middle that you removed.
I didn't remove anything.
It seems you're reading and responding to different discussions.
The article says:
> London’s seat of democratic governance now sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment outfit. John Biggs, the London Assembly member, tells me he has been prevented from doing television interviews outside the building by private security guards who insist he needs a special permit; protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission. “I think that as active citizens we’ve got a reasonable responsibility to test and push at these public/private borders,” he tells me. “It’s clear we’ve got the balance wrong at the moment.”
You “quoted”:
> City Hall sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment company. Protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission.
That’s a summary! But not a quote.
> You “quoted”...That’s a summary! But not a quote.
Look again! [0] It's a tagline for a photo that you overlooked. Please take a break and go outside.
[0] https://i.postimg.cc/XvW4pN8Q/image.png