Priti Patel wants to ban protest. Bill going through this week.

[flashbac]

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is some scary looking stuff. 10 year sentence for being at any protest that, amongst other things, causes or is at risk of causing 'serious annoyance'. That's all protests then is it?
The right to protest is the cornerstone of every democracy.
Aibu to be scared about where this is heading?

Limiting right to protest is a frightening prospect, but I fear there will be lots of public support for it. People approved last year when police disbanded anti-lockdown protests. The logical extension was the police disbanding the vigil for Sarah.

This is what a police state looks like. We reassure ourselves that truly repressive government couldn’t happen in the U.K., without noticing that we are allowing it to happen.

Even if they don't have the capacity to police every one and throw everyone in jail, such a Bill will act as a deterrent to protest which is surely the point of it in the first place. I have attended peaceful protests but if I could end up with a conviction or fine for protesting that would put me off, as I have my children to think about.

I also think these powers will be used to target particular protests that are particularly sensitive to the culture war this government are encouraging, and that isn't a good thing, BLM, ER, and anti-Tory protesters have a right to protest as much as anyone else. If people engage in rioting, criminal damage, abusive behaviour during etc protests then the individuals involved can be prosecuted under the relevant law that was broken. We do not need sweeping legislation that effectively criminalises most protests.

@roundturnandtwohalfhitches

Online petitions are pretty fucking useless when you've got an authoritarian government who doesn't even uphold the law itself. What scares them is people on the streets. That's why they want to stop it.

People on the streets rioting scares them yes, people marching holding placards doesn't bother them.

Because you need to have the capacity to use it when you need to.

There's an online petition on this if anyone wants to sign www.change.org/p/home-office-stop-police-protest-powers-growing-police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021?recruited_by_id=d410fcd0-84cc-11eb-92c0-31d44be6e52f

The police enforce the law and the law was no large gatherings during covid. You can't have police deciding which laws to enforce - if the gov wanted the law changed for the vigil they should have done that.
The other issue is trouble makers and people with other beefs joining any gathering to get publicity or just to make trouble. They can get away with stuff in a crowd they wouldn't otherwise.
The people being moved on physically by the police at the vigil that was on my tv the other night were white males in hoodies. No bouquets to be seen ie possibly just blokes looking for a bit of excitement.
This might be what Priti Patel is trying to curb.
There are protests daily in London, the only ones which get national coverage are the violent ones hence they attract people with other causes and troublemakers.

Thanks @Redwinestillfine have signed though there needs to be one of those official government petitions really - with those they are guaranteed a debate in parliament when they get to a certain number at least. I know the approval process is not that easy though.

The police enforce the law and the law was no large gatherings during covid

The covid lawa allows for peaceful demonstration. The police decided to ban the vigil instead of working with the organisers.

The people being moved on physically by the police at the vigil that was on my tv the other night were white males in hoodies

Have you not seen the pictures of police holding down a young woman?

Most protests will be unaffected by this law. The law is to stop disruptive protests - thugs smashing shop windows and setting cars on fire, idiots supergluing themselves to trains, that sort of thing.

Any protest that doesn't cause damage, doesn't intimidate or threaten people and allows people to go about their lawful business will still be fine. Any protest that does the opposite deserves to be shut down and the perpetrators locked up.

It's not a police state, it's just protecting the majority who don't care about a particular cause from the minority who want to force them to.

Actually I think my post is wrong, under tier 4 the law forbids protests.

I'm deeply concerned about this.

We're already seeing the increasing militarisation of the police - when 'policing by consent' has historically been the covenant in the UK - and these measures smack of control by stealth.

In a move that comes as absolutely no surprise, there is very little discussion about this or the implications in the media - not even the Guardian, which, for all its faults, was a liberal voice.

@LadyJaye
Indeed I find it troubling. There is quite a lot of discussion on Twitter about it but hardly any on the Guardian which I usually follow fairly religiously. Why do you think that is?

Very worrying.

I don't find it worrying at all. I think the wording is pretty clear in that it is targeting destructive protests.

And of course the vigil was against the law, irrespective of how peaceful it was intended to be. So disrespectful to Sarah's family too to go against their wishes. They'll be limited on how many people can attend her funeral, meanwhile complete strangers have done this in her name. It's horrid.

@skirk64
Can't work out if your either very naive/trusting in authorities or you work for Priti/the Tories.

@skirk64

Most protests will be unaffected by this law. The law is to stop disruptive protests - thugs smashing shop windows and setting cars on fire, idiots supergluing themselves to trains, that sort of thing.

Any protest that doesn't cause damage, doesn't intimidate or threaten people and allows people to go about their lawful business will still be fine. Any protest that does the opposite deserves to be shut down and the perpetrators locked up.

It's not a police state, it's just protecting the majority who don't care about a particular cause from the minority who want to force them to.

There are already plenty of laws that govern behaviour like this.

Arguably why the police want this law is that they aren’t very good at applying those laws.

Frankly it’s desperate and shows that they would rather pass more restrictions over their own people than use the powers they have, because they don’t have the man power, training, or brains to use the tools they have.

@Bourbonic

I don't find it worrying at all. I think the wording is pretty clear in that it is targeting destructive protests.

And of course the vigil was against the law, irrespective of how peaceful it was intended to be. So disrespectful to Sarah's family too to go against their wishes. They'll be limited on how many people can attend her funeral, meanwhile complete strangers have done this in her name. It's horrid.

Of course it was against the law? Who are you to say that? A high court judge couldn’t decide that.

I bet you that none of those women at Clapham are charged. For that reason.

Have you not seen the pictures of police holding down a young woman?

Yes on every front page. So, as a woman she must have been sitting quietly thinking of Sarah, couldn't possibly be doing anything troublesome, disobeying police orders?
I haven't watched any footage except for the clip I mentioned which was about 10 seconds long.

I feel the media go for clicks - and a comment that some disrupters were present wouldn't have got them so they stick a photo of a woman being arrested - lots of clicks, lots of bad publicitiy for the met - win, win lots of people happy to believe that the police went in heavy handed to destroy a peaceful vigil knowing full well how much bad publicity that would get, why would they, now calls to sack Cressida and probably replace with a white male police commissioner, win win for the vigilantes

@skirk64 Doesn't the law make a protest illegal if it causes 'serious annoyance'? Which encompasses pretty much all protest. Noise or taking up space cause annoyance.

The minority getting the majority to care about a cause is literally what protest is about. It draws attention to a cause. That's the flipping point. When people feel upset or angry about something, in a free society they get to voice those feelings through protest.

But I think your use of the words thugs and idiots reveals what side you are on.

It's not a police state, it's just protecting the majority who don't care about a particular cause from the minority who want to force them to.

Based upon this interpretation, "the minority" who have no voice anywhere else, are being silenced and will no longer have a platform to raise awareness to their issues & concerns.

@CrunchyBiscs it was a candlelit vigil. It was socially distanced until the police started kettling them. FFS.

Skirk64 all protests are affected by this law, if they are noisy or cause annoyance the protester can face a fine or up to 10 years in prison. They already have powers to arrest people who are destructive during protests.

The right to protest is hugely important, even if one never or rarely uses it. It's the principle. Police and totalitarian states work by not only actually stopping or preventing 'dissenting' behaviour but by making the populace feel that they might. Eventually a populace becomes so cowed by/inured to the idea that they mustn't 'rock the boat' that they no longer do. And so the totalitarian state wins.

@skirk64 there's no need to tighten the laws on destruction of property in a protest. This law extends the reasons to ban a protest to include it might be 'noisy' or have an 'impact'. It also extends it to single people protests.

It makes it illegal to stand outside parliament as an individual and shout your opinion. Illegal. How is that not a terrifying restriction of our rights???

The police already have powers to handle matters. They just aren’t very good at it.