Scrutable

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

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.”

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

"Thank you for calling 999. Please hold."

"If you are about to be murdered press 1, otherwise press 2"

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.”

Another police leader wrote: It is like there has been an explosion in a strategy factory.

That I like.

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.

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.

I suppose it's slightly encouraging that those in power would still be offended by being called fascists.

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.

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

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.

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but it seems that Scottish lawyers are up in arms over police intervention in legal proceedings. The Edinburgh Bar Council has just tweeted that

One of our members, conducting legitimate business, was removed from Edinburgh Sheriff Court today by @PoliceScotland
on the instruction of @SCTScourtstribs
This is an absolute outrage. You would expect this of a totalitarian state. An urgent investigation is required.

Apparently there is a withdrawal of labour from the COP26 weekend courts and duty scheme. An Edinburgh barrister went in to advise clients of their right to self represent and not use the state public defenders. He was escorted out of the building by police.

More from the Bar Council here https://twitter.com/EdinBarAssoc

Liberty have a breakdown of the new amendments to the Bill. Suffice it to say, they're not good.

Locking On (Amendment 319A)
This is a new criminal offence that means that people can be convicted of up to 51 weeks in prison, a fine or both, if they attach themselves, someone else, or an object to another person, an object, or land in a way that causes, or is capable of causing "serious disruption" and they intend this consequence or are reckless. The amendment doesn't specific how permanent this attachment has to be (does linking arms count?) but is going to criminalise all sorts of previously normal protest actions. The police don't want this to be an offence.

Being Equipped for Locking On (Amendment 319A)
This is a new criminal offence that means people who have an object with them in a public place with the intention that it will be used for locking on can be punished with a potentially unlimited fine. You don't need to be actively protesting to be caught by this one. The amendment is vaguely worded and could end up catching a lot of people, even those not involved in a protest, as there doesn't seem to be any need to show that the item is going to be used by the person carrying it or for the purpose of locking on, just that it could be.

Wilful Obstruction of the Highway (Amendment 319C)
Current punishment for this is a fine. That's being changed to up to 51 weeks in prison, a fine or both. This is going to put increased pressure on courts, prisons and probation services and lead to a chilling effect on potential protests (which are a legal right!).

Obstruction of Major Transport Works (Amendment 319D)
This is a new criminal offence that means people who obstruct "an undertaker" (e.g. construction worker) from being able to work on major transport works, or interfere with apparatus. Again the punishment is up to 51 weeks in prison, a fine or both. This doesn't just cover obstructing actual construction but "any steps in connection with" the construction or maintenance. It's vaguely worded (again) and could even cover activities such as picketing.

Stop and Search (Amendment 319E)
This expands stop and search powers to allow police to search anyone they think is connected with any of the above-mentioned "crimes". It's vaguely worded and the objects it covers could easily include items such as placards, fliers and banners. Police would be allowed to seize these items, derailing protests before they've even begun.

Suspicion-less Stop and Search (Amendment 319F)
What it sounds like - an officer above the rank of inspector can authorise stop and searches of anyone without cause if they think they're likely to be committing any of the above "crimes". These powers can be in force for up to 24 hours.

Obstructing Suspicion-less Stop and Search (Amendment 319J)
A new criminal act that means if you try and obstruct a suspicion-less stop and search you can face up to 51 weeks in prison, a fine or both. The current offence of "wilful obstruction" carries a potential 1-month prison sentence. In this offence you could be convicted of a crime for carrying objects that would normally not be illegal to carry. Liberty are most concerned about the effect this will have on Legal Observers who might be stopped and searched and have their legal advice bust cards confiscated. If they do not cooperate they could commit an obstruction offence.

Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (Amendment 319K)
These can be imposed on people who have taken part in 2 or more protests in a 5 year period, whether or not they have been convicted of an offence. Breach of an SDPO could mean up to 51 weeks in prison, a fine or both. If you are given an SDPO you would be subject to conditions including not associating with certain people, not going to certain places, not carrying certain objects, and not using the internet in a certain way. They would last for between a week and 2 years and can be renewed without limit.

I wrote this as I was reading the thread for the first time and all I can say is holy f.ck. They are banning protest. There's no other way to put it. They are making it that anyone who wants to go to a protest will end up with a criminal record.

Liberty have a petition here and a template email to send your MP. I urge you to do these and whatever else you can otherwise soon these ineffective methods will be the only legal avenues we have left.

Holy crap

I mean I knew the new sneaked in amendments were bad, I just didn't think they were as bad as that.

No wonder the Conservatives are also trying to repeal the HRA and limit the right to judicial review. Because I can't see how those causes in the PCSC Act would be permitted to stay in law if they breach human rights legislation

I'm philosophically opposed to the House of Lords but they keep being the voice of sanity against the government which makes them very difficult to oppose in practice.

There’s no conflict between believing that an upper legislative chamber that sits at a remove from day-to-day party politics is a good thing and believing that there are better ways to select that chamber than heredity, patronage or religious office.

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:44 pm

I'm philosophically opposed to the House of Lords but they keep being the voice of sanity against the government which makes them very difficult to oppose in practice.

nekomatic wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:42 am

There’s no conflict between believing that an upper legislative chamber that sits at a remove from day-to-day party politics is a good thing and believing that there are better ways to select that chamber than heredity, patronage or religious office.

I have the same issue, fishnut, but I agree with nekomatic I think - my problem is not with the existence of a chamber that is somewhat removed from party politics, but with the specifics of how the incumbents of the House of Lords are selected.

bagpuss wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:52 pm

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:44 pm

I'm philosophically opposed to the House of Lords but they keep being the voice of sanity against the government which makes them very difficult to oppose in practice.

nekomatic wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:42 am

There’s no conflict between believing that an upper legislative chamber that sits at a remove from day-to-day party politics is a good thing and believing that there are better ways to select that chamber than heredity, patronage or religious office.

I have the same issue, fishnut, but I agree with nekomatic I think - my problem is not with the existence of a chamber that is somewhat removed from party politics, but with the specifics of how the incumbents of the House of Lords are selected.

Agreed. I think the HoL should be the house of Scientists and other experts. Haven't really thought through the specifics but maybe a nomination + a certain number of seconds then a quick vote in the commons to allow?

nezumi wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:57 pm

bagpuss wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:52 pm

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:44 pm

I'm philosophically opposed to the House of Lords but they keep being the voice of sanity against the government which makes them very difficult to oppose in practice.

nekomatic wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:42 am

There’s no conflict between believing that an upper legislative chamber that sits at a remove from day-to-day party politics is a good thing and believing that there are better ways to select that chamber than heredity, patronage or religious office.

I have the same issue, fishnut, but I agree with nekomatic I think - my problem is not with the existence of a chamber that is somewhat removed from party politics, but with the specifics of how the incumbents of the House of Lords are selected.

Agreed. I think the HoL should be the house of Scientists and other experts. Haven't really thought through the specifics but maybe a nomination + a certain number of seconds then a quick vote in the commons to allow?

That's pretty much how many appointments are made in the US - see the Supreme Court for example. That's not political at all.

There are obvious differences between UK and US politics and the effect might be mitigated by the number of Lords you'd need, but that sort of method is no guarantee that an upper chamber selected in such a manner would be above party politics. In fact, it may be because selections are made by involving party politics is what causes the USian judiciary to be partisan (whilst pretending it isn't).

MPs voted to put back the restrictions on protests that the House of Lords removed. The noise restriction proposals were reinstated by 288 votes to 238, a majority of 50, with only one Conservative MP - Steve Baker - rebelling.

Ahead of the vote, Mr Baker said: “It’s time to say protests are … inherently noisy, they’re inherently annoying and if noise is ever used as a weapon I’m sure there are other instruments of law that can be used.”...

Policing minister Kit Malthouse said protest is a qualified right and there have been in recent years “examples of wholly unacceptable forms of protest”.

Amazing that they're still pushing this with all the media focus on arrests of Russian protesters.

The UK is on a very dark and tragic trajectory AFAICT.