Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
FlammableFlower
Dorkwood
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Post by FlammableFlower » Sat Jul 17, 2021 9:37 pm

I read the guardian's report on that. Utterly shocking.

User avatar
Fishnut
Dorkwood
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Post by Fishnut » Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:19 pm

FOI requests have revealed that the Home Secretary was less than entirely truthful when she said that she "worked closely with the Police Federation in developing this bill”.
...a freedom of information (FoI) response reveals she did not consult the federation on the most controversial aspect of the bill – plans to limit protest – which have triggered demonstrations across the UK.

The federation’s response states: “We did not provide a written submission nor were we consulted on issues of protest-related legislation.”

Grey Collier, Liberty’s advocacy director, said: “The home secretary’s assertion is disingenuous and leaves serious questions over whether Parliament has been misled.”
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
Dorkwood
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Post by Fishnut » Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:15 pm

Not specifically about the Bill but definitely a continuation of it.

The Independent reports "‘Ineffective’ and racially disproportionate blanket stop and search powers are to be expanded."
The government said it would be “permanently relaxing voluntary conditions” for using section 60 powers as part of its Beating Crime Plan...

Home Office figures show that in the year to March 2020, only 4 per cent of section 60 stop and searches resulted in an arrest, compared to 13 per cent for searches requiring reasonable suspicion that someone has a weapon, drugs or stolen property.

Across all stop and search powers, black people are nine times more likely to be stopped than white people, and the rate is even higher – 18 times – for section 60.

Available figures suggest weapons are found in only 1 per cent of blanket searches and a government study of an operation using the power found “no statistically significant crime-reducing effect from the large increase in weapons searches”.
The article also notes that The Beating Crime Plan will increase prison sentences for some crimes and introduce league tables for 101 and 999 call answering times, split by regional police force. Because that'll make a difference :roll:
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 7167
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:37 am

"Thank you for calling 999. Please hold."
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

User avatar
JQH
Dorkwood
Posts: 1595
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Post by JQH » Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:58 am

"If you are about to be murdered press 1, otherwise press 2"
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

geejaytee
Stargoon
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:32 pm
Location: Colchester

Re: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Post by geejaytee » Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:05 pm


User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 1187
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm
Location: Your Mum
Contact:

Re: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Post by jdc » Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:24 pm

Police Federation letter to the PM and Chancellor refers to the Beating Crime Plan in less than glowing terms: https://www.polfed.org/media/17130/lett ... y-2021.pdf
We don’t need old ideas presented as new, we need genuine investment for the whole of the Criminal Justice System and genuine consultation over new ideas. Without that, this is just another ill-thought out initiative.
Also complaints about not being paid enough, not getting proper PPE during the pandemic, confusing legislation, mixed messaging, not being paid enough, and false claims by the Home Sec.

And some anonymous chief constables taking the piss in conversation with the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... d-gimmicky
One chief constable condemned a plan for league tables measuring how quickly forces answer emergency and non-emergency calls: “So forces can answer the phone, say ‘hello’, and put it down again. It needs to be about the quality of what you do.”

Another chief constable said: “It’s a real over-50s assumption that picking up the phone is an indicator of effectiveness. It is about what you do after you answer the call. Some mental health calls take two hours.”

One chief said of the overall package: “It is just weird … and a bit gimmicky. Why tag burglars on release from prison, and not domestic violence offenders, or rape suspects?”

Asked if it would cut crime, the chief said: “No, but it will waste some officers’ time. It does not address the big issues.”

Another police leader said of the measures, some of which were recycled from past announcements: “It is like there has been an explosion in a strategy factory.”

User avatar
basementer
Dorkwood
Posts: 1046
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
Location: Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Post by basementer » Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:49 pm

Another police leader wrote: It is like there has been an explosion in a strategy factory.
That I like.
Money is just a substitute for luck anyway. - Tom Siddell

User avatar
Fishnut
Dorkwood
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Post by Fishnut » Tue Oct 05, 2021 12:57 pm

Not the Bill itself but a sign of things to come. This is a good explainer from Netpol on what the government is proposing to stop protestors.

TL:DR below:

Tougher punishments for obstructing the highway
The Home Secretary has proposed changing the punishment from its current maximum fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine, six months imprisonment, or both. Currently you only commit an offence if you block the road “without lawful authority or excuse”. Protests represent a lawful excuse. It's unclear how they're going to get around that problem but you know they're trying.

Stop and search for “lock-on” equipment
She's also proposed expanding stop and search powers to allow police to search protestors suspected of carrying "lock-on" equipment. In reality this means that anyone suspected of attending a protest will be open to searching whether or not they're engaged in direct action.

“Illegitimate protest"
The government is trying to classify certain protests as "illegitimate". It's unclear to me if this is something they're trying to do through legal means or it's just a choice of rhetoric, but either way, Netpol points out that this has real consequences including increased racist targetting of black and brown campaigners and a chilling effect that will discourage people from participating in protests they believe in.

Criminal Disruption Prevention Orders
The Home Secretary has announced today (5/10/21) that she wants to introduce new Criminal Disruption Prevention Orders which would prevent campaigners with a "history of disruption" from participating in protests. This disruption includes minor, non-violent offences committed on conscientious grounds and even if they are a civil order, no convictions at all. Netpol state that this constitutes "an important departure from international human rights guidance endorsed by the British government." It's another example of the government giving powers to identify and punish people who might break the law.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
Dorkwood
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Post by Fishnut » Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:10 pm

A protestor was arrested today outside the Conservative party conference. He was protesting alone and his protest consisted of him holding a cardboard sign that was approximately A4 in size with the words 'Priti Fascist' written on it.

According to an interview he did with Netpol,
"within 30 seconds of holding this sign outside the Conservative party conference it was confiscated by Manchester police for "offensive language". When I asked to have my property back, I was arrested for breach of the peace"
He was later "dearrested".

The video of him getting into the police van shows, by my count, five officers escorting him and one sat in the front passenger seat of the van. If that isn't overkill I don't know what is.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
wilsontown
Stargoon
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:51 am

Re: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Post by wilsontown » Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:21 am

I suppose it's slightly encouraging that those in power would still be offended by being called fascists.
"All models are wrong but some are useful" - George Box

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4117
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 am

Fishnut wrote:
Tue Oct 05, 2021 12:57 pm
Not the Bill itself but a sign of things to come. This is a good explainer from Netpol on what the government is proposing to stop protestors.

TL:DR below:

Tougher punishments for obstructing the highway
The Home Secretary has proposed changing the punishment from its current maximum fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine, six months imprisonment, or both. Currently you only commit an offence if you block the road “without lawful authority or excuse”. Protests represent a lawful excuse. It's unclear how they're going to get around that problem but you know they're trying.
It’s a bit different. At present the organisers of, say, a protest march along a road should inform the police about a week in advance, and the police can impose conditions on the route, timing and length of the march, and on other aspects of how it’s organized. A protest which blocked a road without having done all that wouldn’t be lawful.

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Fuzzable
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Post by Cardinal Fang » Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:00 pm

Marches at the mo are treated differently from static protests. Marches have to provide routes etc. Police may set conditions, but if those conditions are so restrictive that they would basically amount to the march being banned, they are open to legal challenge.

A static protest doesn't. And at the mo a static protest that "obstructs the highway" isn't illegal because protest is considered a legitimate use of the highway. One of the things the Tories want to do is to bring in rules to make static protests covered by the same rules as marches (so needing advance permission etc). If they do that I'm reinstituting mass lone demos

(And it isn't just roads. I was threatened with arrest at a demo for "obstructing" a pavement because I wanted to go down it one way on my way to meet someone, and the police officer told me I had to go in the opposite direction).
Fishnut wrote:
Tue Oct 05, 2021 12:57 pm
Stop and search for “lock-on” equipment
She's also proposed expanding stop and search powers to allow police to search protestors suspected of carrying "lock-on" equipment. In reality this means that anyone suspected of attending a protest will be open to searching whether or not they're engaged in direct action.
Seeing that "lock on" equipment normally constitutes things like bike locks, how are they going to differentiate between protesters and cyclists?

Sounds like I'm going to have to dig out my stop and search card and start carrying it again

CF
Image

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4117
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:01 pm

Cardinal Fang wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:00 pm
Marches at the mo are treated differently from static protests. Marches have to provide routes etc. Police may set conditions, but if those conditions are so restrictive that they would basically amount to the march being banned, they are open to legal challenge.

A static protest doesn't. And at the mo a static protest that "obstructs the highway" isn't illegal because protest is considered a legitimate use of the highway. One of the things the Tories want to do is to bring in rules to make static protests covered by the same rules as marches (so needing advance permission etc). If they do that I'm reinstituting mass lone demos

(And it isn't just roads. I was threatened with arrest at a demo for "obstructing" a pavement because I wanted to go down it one way on my way to meet someone, and the police officer told me I had to go in the opposite direction).
Fishnut wrote:
Tue Oct 05, 2021 12:57 pm
Stop and search for “lock-on” equipment
She's also proposed expanding stop and search powers to allow police to search protestors suspected of carrying "lock-on" equipment. In reality this means that anyone suspected of attending a protest will be open to searching whether or not they're engaged in direct action.
Seeing that "lock on" equipment normally constitutes things like bike locks, how are they going to differentiate between protesters and cyclists?

Sounds like I'm going to have to dig out my stop and search card and start carrying it again

CF
Ah ok, thanks for that.

Post Reply