Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Actions against the policing bill

Jenny Jones' Twitter feed this morning makes it look like they defeated all or most of the amendments, so that's something. The main bill is still awful, of course.

In other news, Voter ID is still on track to happen mind. Does that still needs to get through Lords?
 
teqniq said:
As far as I understand it the amendments to this bill were added after the bill had left the commons which means that if they are defeated in the Lords, that's game over - the government cannot seek to reintroduce them. Which goes to show that at least in this instance, sneaky underhandedness does not pay.
Click to expand...

Also means the stuff in the original bill cannot be so easily got rid of.
 
Christ they really like to drive home that they are the Nasty Party...

BBC News said:
Baroness Fox argued against the proposal, saying the data collected would be "almost entirely based on subjective perceptions" of what constituted misogyny.
She warned that police resources would be wasted if they got "tangled up in the reporting and monitoring of stats and data which I do not think is reliable".
Click to expand...

Replace misogyny with racism and see how that statement stands up.


Home Office Minister Baroness Williams pointed to a report by the Law Commission last year which concluded that making misogyny a hate crime would not solve the problem of hostility towards women.
Click to expand...

Likewise the laws against killing politicians don't seem to have solved the problem of politicians being killed, best bin them an'all.
 
Last edited:
www.bbc.co.uk

Crime bill: Lords defeats for government's protest clamp-down plans

Peers vote against plans to clamp down on noisy protests and in favour of making misogyny a hate crime.
www.bbc.co.uk

The list of government defeats​

Peers voted against the government's plans to:
  • create a new offence of "locking on", a tactic used by protesters to make it difficult to remove them, carrying with it a penalty of up to a year in prison
  • create a new offence of obstructing the construction or maintenance of major transport works
  • make it an offence for a person to interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure, including airports, the road network, railways and newspaper printers
  • allow police officers to stop and search a person or vehicle if it was suspected an offence was planned, such as causing serious disruption or obstructing major transport works
  • allow police to stop and search anyone at a protest "without suspicion"
  • allow individuals with a history of causing serious disruption to be banned by the courts from attending certain protests
Peers voted for new amendments to the bill that would:
  • scrap the power to impose conditions on protest marches judged to be too noisy
  • protect Parliament Square as a place to protest
  • require police officers to tell the truth in public inquiries
  • demand an urgent review into the prevalence of drink-spiking offences
  • restrict the imposition of tougher sentences for blocking a highway to major routes and motorways (rather than all roads)
  • scrap the Vagrancy Act 1824, which makes it a crime to beg as well as sleep rough
  • make misogyny a hate crime by giving the courts the power to treat misogyny as an aggravating factor in any crime and increase sentences accordingly
 
ddraig said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Crime bill: Lords defeats for government's protest clamp-down plans

Peers vote against plans to clamp down on noisy protests and in favour of making misogyny a hate crime.
www.bbc.co.uk

The list of government defeats​

Peers voted against the government's plans to:
  • create a new offence of "locking on", a tactic used by protesters to make it difficult to remove them, carrying with it a penalty of up to a year in prison
  • create a new offence of obstructing the construction or maintenance of major transport works
  • make it an offence for a person to interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure, including airports, the road network, railways and newspaper printers
  • allow police officers to stop and search a person or vehicle if it was suspected an offence was planned, such as causing serious disruption or obstructing major transport works
  • allow police to stop and search anyone at a protest "without suspicion"
  • allow individuals with a history of causing serious disruption to be banned by the courts from attending certain protests
Peers voted for new amendments to the bill that would:
  • scrap the power to impose conditions on protest marches judged to be too noisy
  • protect Parliament Square as a place to protest
  • require police officers to tell the truth in public inquiries
  • demand an urgent review into the prevalence of drink-spiking offences
  • restrict the imposition of tougher sentences for blocking a highway to major routes and motorways (rather than all roads)
  • scrap the Vagrancy Act 1824, which makes it a crime to beg as well as sleep rough
  • make misogyny a hate crime by giving the courts the power to treat misogyny as an aggravating factor in any crime and increase sentences accordingly
Click to expand...

I suspect that the Commons will alter the above.
 
ddraig said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Crime bill: Lords defeats for government's protest clamp-down plans

Peers vote against plans to clamp down on noisy protests and in favour of making misogyny a hate crime.
www.bbc.co.uk

The list of government defeats​

Peers voted against the government's plans to:
  • create a new offence of "locking on", a tactic used by protesters to make it difficult to remove them, carrying with it a penalty of up to a year in prison
  • create a new offence of obstructing the construction or maintenance of major transport works
  • make it an offence for a person to interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure, including airports, the road network, railways and newspaper printers
  • allow police officers to stop and search a person or vehicle if it was suspected an offence was planned, such as causing serious disruption or obstructing major transport works
  • allow police to stop and search anyone at a protest "without suspicion"
  • allow individuals with a history of causing serious disruption to be banned by the courts from attending certain protests
Peers voted for new amendments to the bill that would:
  • scrap the power to impose conditions on protest marches judged to be too noisy
  • protect Parliament Square as a place to protest
  • require police officers to tell the truth in public inquiries
  • demand an urgent review into the prevalence of drink-spiking offences
  • restrict the imposition of tougher sentences for blocking a highway to major routes and motorways (rather than all roads)
  • scrap the Vagrancy Act 1824, which makes it a crime to beg as well as sleep rough
  • make misogyny a hate crime by giving the courts the power to treat misogyny as an aggravating factor in any crime and increase sentences accordingly
Click to expand...
so many of the roads worth blocking are major routes, eg the a1 from little britain all the way to 'the north', the a23 as it runs through brixton, the a10 - surely i'm not the only one who remembers the rts demo in brixton and tottenham the same day back in the 90s? think you'd find it hard to argue in court that any a road was not a 'major route'
 
Sasaferrato said:
I suspect that the Commons will alter the above.
Click to expand...

teqniq said:
As far as I understand it the amendments to this bill were added after the bill had left the commons which means that if they are defeated in the Lords, that's game over - the government cannot seek to reintroduce them. Which goes to show that at least in this instance, sneaky underhandedness does not pay.
Click to expand...
 
Liberty posted a piece including their summary:
Votes in the House of Lords last night mean that these threats to protest are defeated and cannot be returned to the Bill:

The offence of locking on and being equipped to lock on.
Interference with major transport works.
Interference of key national infrastructure.
Stop and search on specifically for items associated with other parts of the Bill, such as causing “nuisance”.
Suspicionless stop and search related to protest.
Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (protest banning orders)
Click to expand...

These threats to protest were defeated but MPs must defeat them again to ensure they do not become law:

Creating a ‘buffer zone’ around Parliament.
Giving police power to impose noise-based restrictions on protest.
Criminalising one-person protests.
Giving police power to impose restrictions on public assemblies.
Creating the offence of wilful obstruction of the highway (amended to only include the Strategic Road Network.

Powers to criminalise trespass, which threaten the way of life of Gypsy and Traveller communities, were already passed by the House of Lords, meaning MPs must defeat them or scrap the Bill wholesale. New police powers, which will increase the danger of police interactions, particularly for Black men, were previously amended so that there will be a pilot programme unless MPs vote to block the Bill.
Click to expand...

www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk

VICTORY OVER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS SHOWS UNITED FRONT CAN DEFEAT GOVERNMENT POWER-GRAB - Liberty

www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk
 
Pickman's model said:
Yeh brave words. Check what they want you for first, be a pity to die over a section 5 poa
Click to expand...

I was joking.

Lots in the Bill concerns me but the criminalisation of trespass is the bit that could effect my life the most. I'm currently living on squatted land, and often have been over the last 20+ years.

Will just have to wait and see, I suppose.

An I right in thinking that the Bill could yet be defeated by the Lords at the Third Reading?
 
Peter Painter said:
I was joking.

Lots in the Bill concerns me but the criminalisation of trespass is the bit that could effect my life the most. I'm currently living on squatted land, and often have been over the last 20+ years.

Will just have to wait and see, I suppose.

An I right in thinking that the Bill could yet be defeated by the Lords at the Third Reading?
Click to expand...
I think it's going to go through broadly as is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

zedr
Actions Against Immigration Raids and the Hostile Environment
Replies
20
Views
2K
zedr
zedr
B
The Public Order Bill
Replies
2
Views
333
Brainaddict
B
frogwoman
Protest against lockdowns
Replies
1
Views
515
frogwoman
frogwoman
ska invita
Legal challenges against the establishment
Replies
12
Views
909
kabbes
K
YouSir
Practical Action Infosheets?
Replies
4
Views
514
DaveCinzano
DaveCinzano
Back
Top Bottom