Rifkind - permanent protests 'pointless'

In theory, there is nothing wrong with this development, for few rights are as fundamental as the right to protest.

If citizens are unable to express opposition to the status quo, it is unlikely that the status quo will ever change.

Yet unfortunately, the growth in protests has been accompanied by a worrying development.

Those who have chosen to demonstrate have sometimes come to the conclusion that to show opposition to policy, they must also disregard long held customs. One of these is that protests, by their nature, are temporary.

The most successful protests of all are those that show the ability to organise, assemble, and then disband, all within a short period of time.

However in the current climate, in which protesters achieve a kind of fame through the glare of 24 hour news channels, the willingness to go home has been undermined. The consequence has been marked.

The permanent protest outside Parliament Square has foreshadowed the 'occupy' protest, which has formed a permanent encampment outside St Paul's Cathedral.

This is a most unwelcome development. Permanent gatherings disrupt life for those who work in the area, and make life a misery for tourists who wish to visit notable landmarks.

It also burdens the taxpayer, forcing a post-protest clean-up operation that can cost thousands of pounds.

Yet perhaps most important of all is the fact that permanent protests tend to become famous for their existence, rather than the cause they aim to highlight. I suspect that more people are aware of the protesters outside St Paul's than conscious of their main grievances.

This problem ought to be addressed. In some cases existing legal provisions can be employed. In other instances, new legislation would be required.

Yet above all, it is incumbent upon protesters themselves to retain a sense of perspective.

While specific protests can be used to make a point, permanent protests quickly become pointless.