Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
- Thread starter PR1Berske
- Start date
I think this particularly was aimed at those assaulting paramedics, and rightly so.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Except that every law that has been passed to achieve a specific purpose then ends up being used for other purposes for which it wasn't (ostensibly) intended.
they should have said 'paramedics' if it was (only) aimed at that. but they didn't so we can safely assume they want it to have a wider application.
Either way, if you go around attacking people that are there to largely protect the community you can expect some kind of punishment, and rightly so.
there's already a punishment.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
The police are not largely there to protect the community. If they were they might er protect the community. And it is assaults on the police which have fallen under this clause far more than assaults on paramedics or firemen
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Because yes - up until this bill, it was possible to do exactly that thing LEGALLY.
I think that very few laws are passed because there is a genuine need for them - it's more that politicians like to frame problems simplistically, and then come up with simplistic, voter-friendly "solutions", in the certain knowledge that people - people just like you, cyril_smear - will simplistically say "Yeah! Great idea! Let's completely trash people's civil rights, just so long as we can be seen to be being tough on paramedic-bashers".
I'm pretty sure that anyone convicted of attacking a paramedic is already likely to face a potentially stiff penalty, and I strongly suspect that whatever they're planning will make little or no difference to how many people DO attack paramedics. And, given that people sometimes attack paramedics because they are delirious or terrified, I'd say that there's a bloody good chance that, faced with seeing a patient who lashed out for such a reason being liable for a massive jail term, they simply won't report the assault, and everybody ends up worse off. The law of unintended consequences - the bane of many an authoritarian legislator.
Not me, I’ve never voted in my life.
Do statues of slave traders count as memorials?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
But you're advocating this law?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Then you're a bit of a cunt.
We don’t all have to think the same thing.
dessiato
🇪🇸 my spirit is crying for leaving
The arrogance on Patel’s face, and the strut in her walk, as in this picture, always irritates the fuck out of me. Johnson needs to spend some of his money on a haircut, and a decent suit. Keeping a long rant short, slap the bejesus out of all three of them.
not-bono-ever
meh
Send him down for a ten stretch
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Actually my comment was meant to be about the memorials. I'm sure the fuzz are absolutely ecstatic to be considered 20% of a statue now. Got to get the priorities right.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yes. but we think. and you don't appear to.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
TBF, I don't think it's a choice on his part.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i was trying to be kind.
teqniq
DisMembered
Breakdown of the proposed bill from GLP:
goodlawproject.org
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 (“PCSC Bill”) - Briefing for MPs - Good Law Project
“Freedom of assembly as enshrined in Article 11 of the Convention protects a demonstration that may annoy or cause offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it is seeking to promote… Any measures interfering with freedom of assembly and expression other than in cases of incitement...
goodlawproject.org
Jeremiah18.17
Well-Known Member
Chunks of this bill appear to have been constructed in a basis of “who do the Tory base hate most and how can we get them?”
So:
GRT community - tick
Greeny/Hippy protest camps- tick
“Alarming” BLM protests- tick
“Disruptive” XR tactics - tick
“Noisy” Remainer Bloke with megaphone - tick
Anyone trying to interfere with statues of slavers/fascists/Tories - tick
Anyone having the nerve to protest on the property of some corporate scumbags - tick
Students doing anything on Uni/college property that authorities don’t like - tick
Union members doing just about anything on or even near employers premises - tick
What was that saying about those who make peaceful change impossible?
So:
GRT community - tick
Greeny/Hippy protest camps- tick
“Alarming” BLM protests- tick
“Disruptive” XR tactics - tick
“Noisy” Remainer Bloke with megaphone - tick
Anyone trying to interfere with statues of slavers/fascists/Tories - tick
Anyone having the nerve to protest on the property of some corporate scumbags - tick
Students doing anything on Uni/college property that authorities don’t like - tick
Union members doing just about anything on or even near employers premises - tick
What was that saying about those who make peaceful change impossible?
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
This leaflet issued by Scarfolk Council sums up where we could be heading to
not-bono-ever
meh
It makes me so angry this. So fucking helpless .
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i don't see this as the state feeling strong, i think this is happening because despite their parliamentary majority the government feels weak. after all, we know that protests on their own are often ineffective. but this government is so insecure that they'd risk riots.
not-bono-ever
meh
Cheers Pickman's model , that kinda puts a different perspective on it/ will try to realign huw I view this
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
That sort of post cheers me up no end.
Similar threads
