Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

[AmateurAgitator]

The only thing this will achieve is an increase in the likelihood of disruptive protest.

I hope you are right

 

[AmateurAgitator]

More details here:

Tories' 'authoritarian' crackdown on protests passes final Commons hurdle

MPs backed the Police and Crime Bill which will make it illegal to inflict “serious annoyance” or "noisy" protests without reasonable excuse, punishable by up to 10 years’ jail

www.mirror.co.uk

Unfortunately this article takes ages to get to the point, but does eventually go into some detail about the bill:

All you need to know about Tory crackdown on protests - 6 reasons to be worried

Extinction Rebellion have accused the Tories of trying to create 'an authoritarian police state'. So what will the law actually do? Here's an explanation, and a few things to be worried about

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Chilli.s]

Throughout history protest, peaceful or otherwise takes on many different guises. In the last few years one of the most effective/disruptive protests was that drone flights over Heathrow thing. JackBoot Patel aint bright enough to realise is that having a load of people marching around is perhaps easier to keep an eye on.

 

[Argonia]

Tyrants. There should be a 1926 General Strike and millions on the streets until they are finally all gone.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Tyrants. There should be a 1926 General Strike and millions on the streets until they are finally all gone.

We also require a general uprising with the infrastructure, property and land (and means of production in general) of the country being seized by the workers.

 

[Pickman's model]

We also require a general uprising with the infrastructure, property and land (and means of production in general) of the country being seized by the workers.

not to mention the guns and tanks

 

[Dogsauce]

If peaceful protest is made illegal, you might as well kick off properly as you’re in trouble anyway.

 

[Argonia]

A little hint of a separation of powers between executive, judiciary and legisature and a hint of the judges sticking up for protest in the face of the tyrants

Supreme Court backs protesters and rules blocking roads can be ‘lawful’ way to demonstrate

Judges say there should be ‘degree of tolerance to disruption’ caused by right to protest

www.independent.co.uk

 

[teqniq]

What the fuck:

Government says discrimination against black people and Travellers ‘justified’

Documents defend disproportionate impact of Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Badgers]

What the fuck:

Government says discrimination against black people and Travellers ‘justified’

Documents defend disproportionate impact of Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

www.independent.co.uk

#ToryScum in racists shocker

 

[BillRiver]

2nd reading in the House of Lords today.

 

[ruffneck23]

‘That’s not the way to legislate’: Lords slam the Police and Crime Bill for being too big, wide-ranging and draconian - The Bristol Cable

This week the government’s controversial proposed legislation was debated in the House of Lords, with peers joining a chorus of voices who have criticised its measures to quash protest and criminalise trespass.

thebristolcable.org

 

[DotCommunist]

‘That’s not the way to legislate’: Lords slam the Police and Crime Bill for being too big, wide-ranging and draconian - The Bristol Cable

This week the government’s controversial proposed legislation was debated in the House of Lords, with peers joining a chorus of voices who have criticised its measures to quash protest and criminalise trespass.

thebristolcable.org

'Fellow Tory, Baroness Stowell of Beeston, said it was important not to legitimise forms of protest that are “perniciously undermining our society”. She added that until the big disruptions in central London from the Extinction Rebellion (XR) protests in 2019, people would have never assumed it was possible to blockade main roads and junctions and not be stopped from doing so in the name of any cause, “however important, urgent or noble”.'

clueless cunts

 

[Philo]

Tyrants. There should be a 1926 General Strike and millions on the streets until they are finally all gone.

We also require a general uprising with the infrastructure, property and land (and means of production in general) of the country being seized by the workers.

The whole point of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is to ensure that it DOESN'T take a 'General Strike' to get rid of them. There are only about 400 in total involved in the current disturbances, and when the bill is passed, a stiff fine will be sufficient to deter the lot.

 

[Philo]

What the fuck:

Government says discrimination against black people and Travellers ‘justified’

Documents defend disproportionate impact of Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

www.independent.co.uk

There is nothing in the Bill which should discriminate against Black people. If there is discrimination, that is the fault of individual officers. As for 'travellers', the Bill is a socially progressive move, which will stop the state sponsored child abuse involved in bringing up small children in crowded vehicles, with no chance of a fixed and settled education and little opportunity for the police and social services to keep an eye on those to whom they are entrusted.

 

[Serge Forward]

I do hope that's said in a sarcastic way.

 

[teqniq]

There is nothing in the Bill which should discriminate against Black people. If there is discrimination, that is the fault of individual officers. As for 'travellers', the Bill is a socially progressive move, which will stop the state sponsored child abuse involved in bringing up small children in crowded vehicles, with no chance of a fixed and settled education and little opportunity for the police and social services to keep an eye on those to whom they are entrusted.

Evidence to back up your claims? Particularly as from the article which is quoting the Home office itself:

 

[PR1Berske]

There is nothing in the Bill which should discriminate against Black people. If there is discrimination, that is the fault of individual officers. As for 'travellers', the Bill is a socially progressive move, which will stop the state sponsored child abuse involved in bringing up small children in crowded vehicles, with no chance of a fixed and settled education and little opportunity for the police and social services to keep an eye on those to whom they are entrusted.

Thank you, poor office temp at the Home Office, working late into your vending machine coffee.

 

[Peter Painter]

‘That’s not the way to legislate’: Lords slam the Police and Crime Bill for being too big, wide-ranging and draconian - The Bristol Cable

This week the government’s controversial proposed legislation was debated in the House of Lords, with peers joining a chorus of voices who have criticised its measures to quash protest and criminalise trespass.

thebristolcable.org

A glimmer of hope, perhaps, that the Lords might yet amend the worst parts of this Bill.

I"be been concerned that the Lord's would have their hands tied (regarding the criminalisation of trespass) because of an agreement to not oppose any legislation that relates to a manifesto promise.

I'm getting evicted this week. Got a few ideas where to go next but all of those will require trespass. Really not sure where I'd go if this becomes a law that is widely enforced

 

[Artaxerxes]

There is nothing in the Bill which should discriminate against Black people. If there is discrimination, that is the fault of individual officers. As for 'travellers', the Bill is a socially progressive move, which will stop the state sponsored child abuse involved in bringing up small children in crowded vehicles, with no chance of a fixed and settled education and little opportunity for the police and social services to keep an eye on those to whom they are entrusted.

Have you considered actually finding social services for a change?

 

[Cado]

I'm getting evicted this week. Got a few ideas where to go next but all of those will require trespass.

Stumble into hospital when you can't get food and run out of money. You must have some money or you haven't thought about that bit yet.

 

[Peter Painter]

Stumble into hospital when you can't get food and run out of money. You must have some money or you haven't thought about that bit yet.

Thanks. Things not yet quite that desperate though. I'm even a home owner! I just don't own any land to park it on (and even if I owned the land it'd still not be legally that easy to just live on it, what with planning permission laws, and the usual discrimination against us meaning that the majority of our applications are rejected).

 

[Artaxerxes]

Ramping up the powers

 

[teqniq]

George Monbiot asks where are the protests? Where indeed?

Jailed for 51 weeks for protesting? Britain is becoming a police state by stealth | George Monbiot

The government’s back-door amendments to the policing bill are tyrannical. We should be on the streets in our millions, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot

www.theguardian.com

 

[Carvaged]

George Monbiot asks where are the protests? Where indeed?

Jailed for 51 weeks for protesting? Britain is becoming a police state by stealth | George Monbiot

The government’s back-door amendments to the policing bill are tyrannical. We should be on the streets in our millions, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot

www.theguardian.com

Broken Brexit Britain on its last legs. What a dump this country has become.

 

[Artaxerxes]

You can very much tell the prospect of XR working out what to hit next has the government worried

But now, it’s even worse. In a private letter to members of the House of Lords, the government says it intends “to introduce a new offence of interfering with the operation of key infrastructure, such as the strategic road network, railways, sea ports, airports, oil refineries and printing presses, carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both”.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

With this police state leglislation harshly targetting non-violent protest people may aswell riot or fight the police

 

[Pickman's model]

With this police state leglislation harshly targetting non-violent protest people may aswell riot or fight the police

Given the retreat by the police from detecting and preventing crime this bill draws the lines between an illegitimate police force defending the state and people who demand a better society. The police refusal to investigate or prosecute rape, assault, mugging, theft, burglary etc, their willingness to rob, rape and kill people off and on duty, and their role in preventing and quelling dissent means fewer and fewer people see Dixon of dock green in a black uniform and more and more see an occupying army

 

[Artaxerxes]

Went through last night

Government wins Commons battle to reinstate protest limits despite Tory concerns

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill contains a wide-ranging raft of measures aimed at overhauling the criminal justice system.

www.standard.co.uk

 

[PR1Berske]

From The Guardian

A new law making it easier for the police to put conditions on peaceful protests is “constitutionally unprecedented” and unlawful, according to a claim filed at the high court in London.

The legal challenge from the National Council for Civil Liberties, also known as Liberty, is seeking to have the controversial regulations quashed, given what the advocacy group describes as the draconian consequences for fundamental rights.

The former home secretary Suella Braverman used the government’s so-called Henry VIII powers to lower the threshold for the police to impose restrictions on protests, allowing it where there is merely a “more than minor” hindrance on people’s daily lives.


The change, through a statutory instrument in the Lords, came after the chamber rejected the same change, proposed months earlier in a heavily debated and scrutinised new public order act. Peers do not by convention normally vote down statutory instruments.

The manner in which the regulations are said to have been forced through parliament is said by lawyers acting for Liberty to “represent a constitutionally unprecedented attempt on the part of the executive to achieve by the back door through delegated legislation what it was unable to achieve by the front”.

There had been “no reasonable justification” provided for using a statutory instrument to change the law, it is claimed, and there was inadequate consultation of those who would be affected.

Katy Watts, a lawyer at Liberty, said: “We all want to live in a society where our government respect the rules, but time and again this government has done the opposite. The previous home secretary’s actions to sneak in rejected laws through the back door are a particularly egregious example of this.

A protester leads the chanting using a megaphone during the march in London for a ceasefire in the Hamas-Israel conflict
How will recent and future legislation affect the right to protest in the UK?
Read more
“The wording of the government’s new law is so vague that anything deemed by police to cause ‘more than a minor’ disturbance could have restrictions imposed upon it. This has serious implications for everyone’s right to stand up for the things they believe in.

“These laws had been thrown out by parliament just months before the then home secretary introduced them. It’s shocking to see the government so flagrantly disregard our vital democratic checks and balances, and we’re determined not to let this stand.


“Our legal action is intended to stop this government’s flouting of the law in its tracks, and make sure that nobody – including our politicians – is above the law. It’s vital that they are not allowed to get away with it.”

In the protest regulations brought into force on 14 June, “more than minor” hindrances or delays are included in the definition of “serious disruption” that is the threshold at which the police may impose conditions on a protest under the public order act 1986.

The police are also allowed to take into account the cumulative effect of repeated protests when deciding whether the threshold had been met.

The government has said the regulations are an attempt to deal with the activities of Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, and that the language around “more than minor” hindrances mirrors that in other new offences of ‘locking-on’ and ‘tunnelling’.

The changes were nevertheless rejected by the House of Lords in February by 254 votes to 240 when they were put forward as amendments during the passage of the public order bill 2023, only for them to re-emerge in a statutory instrument.

Rally outside parliament in March 2021, protesting against the murder of Sarah Everard and heavy-handed policing in Clapham a few days before.
Anti-protest laws and culture wars weakening UK’s democracy, finds report
Read more
Regulations brought in by such means, known a Henry VIII powers in reference to the monarch’s preference for legislating directly by proclamation, are subject to minimal parliamentary scrutiny and decided on an “all or nothing” basis without amendments.

Between 1950 and 2017, only 0.01% of the total number of such instruments laid before parliament were rejected.

Liberty’s legal challenge refers to supporting comments by the Lords’ secondary legislation scrutiny committee, which had been sufficiently alarmed to warn peers of “constitutional issues” and told them it was “not aware of any examples of this approach being taken in the past”.