On a day like today when Priti Patel a repeat offender when it comes to choosing what laws to break and obey, attempts to create an authoritarian police state where are silenced by draconian state sanctioned penalties, you are fretting about what ifs?
From the Mirror -
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...t-law-23725500
The Bill contains a string of measures to toughen up the police response after Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matters protests were accused of disrupting public life.
They include making it illegal to inflict “serious annoyance” on a person without reasonable excuse, with up to 10 years’ jail in theory if judges choose. Measures also include imposing up to 10 years’ jail on people who vandalise statues - up from three years.
The Bill will also create new offences against obstructing the road or using a loudspeaker at the gates of Parliament.
Police and legal figures have warned this could pose a threat to democracy. Sir Peter Fahy, former Greater Manchester Police chief constable told Times Radio there was a "real danger" that rushed legislation could make the job of the police "more difficult", adding: "People need to be really worried about this."
He said: "If we've learned one thing this weekend, it's the right to protest, the right to gather, the right to have a voice is fundamental to our democracy, and particularly British democracy.
"This weekend has shown the crucial importance of the right to protest, and you've got to be really wary of more legislation being rushed through just because certain politicians didn't like certain protests during the summer."
Human rights barrister Adam Wagner, of Doughty Street Chambers, warned the Bill could "hugely expand" police powers to "allow them to stop protests which would cause 'serious unease' and create criminal penalties for people who cause 'serious annoyance'."
He added: "This would effectively put the current situation where Covid regulations have given police too much power over our free speech rights on a permanent footing."
What are the most controversial parts of the Bill? Police can impose more conditions on protests Clause 55 will let police impose start and finish times and maximum noise levels on a wider range of protests in England and Wales.
Officers will be able to do this if they believe the noise “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” nearby.
The power is not limited in the law to noise levels or start times - a police officer can take “such conditions as appear necessary” to that officer “to prevent disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation.”
The Home Office argue this is simply widening powers that already exist for moving marches to cover static protests as well. But civil liberties groups say noise and disruption are a key part of making your voice heard.
It will be up to the Home Secretary - currently Priti Patel - to decide the definition of “serious disruption”.
Serious annoyance’ will carry up to 10 years’ jail Clause 59 will axe the ‘common law’ definition of public nuisance and replace it with a clear set of words agreed by Parliament.
It will make it a crime to “intentionally or recklessly” cause public nuisance without a reasonable excuse.
Offenders will get up to a year’s jail from magistrates or 10 years from a crown court judge if found guilty, in the worst cases.
The government insists this is simply taking the current definition of public nuisance and putting it on a proper footing. “This will provide clarity to the police and potential offenders, giving clear notice of what conduct is forbidden,” the Home Office said.
But there is not a clear list of “reasonable excuses” - the government just say defendants will have to prove that excuse existed in court, on the balance of probabilities.
And two words in this clause have attracted a lot of interest.
Someone will fall foul of the law if they have caused a person “serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity.” How will “serious annoyance” be interpreted by police?
Most loudhailers will be banned outside Parliament Clause 57 will hugely expand the “controlled area” outside Parliament, where tents and unauthorised loudspeakers or megaphones are banned.
Currently the area only covers the garden and footpaths in the middle of Parliament Square, with other roads around it not under any special anti-protest law.
But the Bill will expand this controlled area to several roads around Parliament after a number of demos stopped traffic. These roads are Canon Row, Parliament Street, Derby Gate, Parliament Square and part of Victoria Embankment.
Those who disobey can be fined up to £5,000.
A similar move was recommended by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, which warned access to parliament must not be obstructed after a wave of threats against MPs.
However, opposition has united critics from Richard Tice, leader of Nigel Farage’s anti-lockdown Reform UK party, to Tom Brufatto, former lead organiser of the People’s Vote marches against
Brexit.
In an open letter today they say: “As long as laws are made in Parliament, then British people must have a legal right to protest them in Parliament Square. Democracy is not an 'inconvenience'. Public opposition and dissent are among the hard-won rights that make our democratic and like-minded groups.”
Clause 60 has already been dubbed the ‘Steve Bray’ law, after the man who spent years shouting ‘Stop Brexit!’ at Parliament.
It will give senior police the power to impose any conditions they see fit on a one-person protest to avoid “disruption or impact”.
This can only be done if they believe the noise that person is making “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the protest.”
But once again, Home Secretary Priti Patel will be able to define this “serious disruption”.
One-man-bands who knowingly refuse to comply with police orders can be fined up to £2,500. Someone who “incites” the one-person protest not to comply could be jailed for up to 51 weeks.
Ardent Remainer AC Grayling tweeted: “It's a great honour to Steve Bray, and an unmistakable sign of the weakness, pettiness, illiberality and unintelligence of this Brexiter 'government', that it seeks to pass a Bill that singles him out.
“He has humiliated and stung them and they want to shut him up; he should be knighted.”
Defacing a statue will carry up to 10 years’ jail Clause 46 will raise the maximum penalty for criminal damage to a memorial or statue from three months to 10 years.
Currently judges and magistrates have to base their sentence on the monetary value of the damage. In future they will be able to look at the “emotional and symbolic value” of the damaged statue too, said minister Kit Malthouse.
The Tories are doing this in a ‘culture war’ after statues including Winston Churchill’s were attacked or damaged with graffiti.
No10 insisted the focus would be on vile things like anti-Semitic graffiti or attacks on gravestones, war memorials, memorials to people who’ve been murdered.
But that’s not quite how it was trailed in right-wing newspapers. The issue has prompted anger from Labour, who say the move is a distraction and will in theory mean longer sentences for attacking statues than some attacks on women.
People in protest camps can be jailed for three months Clause 60 will create a new offence of “residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle”.
This could affect protest camps like Extinction Rebellion, as the law will apply even if their “residing” is only temporary, and will apply equally to common land and private land.
Protesters can be ordered to leave by police if they are deemed to be causing “significant disruption”, or even if they haven’t caused disruption yet but it is deemed “likely” in future.
If they refuse, they can be fined up to £2,500 or jailed for up to three months.
Police will also be given more powers to remove unauthorised encampments on roads.
A petition signed by more than 130,000 people warned criminalising trespass would be “an extreme, illiberal and unnecessary attack on ancient freedoms”, adding: “For a thousand years, trespass has been a civil offence.”
Critics say the law threatens not only protests, but also wild camping, ramblers, new rights of way and Traveller communities.
Bookmarks