Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill
- This topic has 37 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
France passed a security bill to extend police powers
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/15/france-passes-bill-giving-more-powers-to-police
On Twitter, someone asks if there will be riots?
Julia James: Killed community officer last seen taking dog for a walk https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-56925294
The polices are also members of the working class, they are employees of the state. They must also take a class and socialist consciousness in order to create a post-capitalist society
There won’t be a vigil for PCSO Julia James. After Police violence against women on the vigil in Clapham against violence perpetrated by men on women. Following the murder of Sarah Everards.
You reap what you sow.In reply to the Women’s Vigil in Clapham and the Bristol demonstrations. I pointed out a few times that the Government were actually encouraging speaking out against China (Uighur internment camps, while itself uses internment camps, (one recently being condemned as unfit for human habitation*) housing asylum seekers, who have committed no criminal offence, support for the people of Hong Kong demonstrating against China’s rule, speaking out against use of violence by the police, against them. You couldn’t make it up………oh wait.
The UK Government plans to welcome 300,000 people from Hong Kong, giving them ‘political’ refugee status, to be granted British citizenship. To live here in freedom loving Britain!* British Red Cross says asylum accommodation – including Napier Barracks – should close immediately
“We have heard from people without basic items like clean clothing, staying in rooms in disrepair, or with serious medical needs that have been ignored.”https://www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/british-red-cross-says-asylum-seeker/
* Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) published on Monday.
Barracks for UK asylum seekers slammed as ‘filthy and unfit for habitation’
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill says group protests should not be loud enough to cause “serious unease, alarm or distress” to people “in the vicinity”. A noise limit would also apply to a single person if they caused “serious disruption” or if they “may have a relevant impact on” people nearby.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-57556947
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights said noise limits could silence lawful and peaceful chants – and the most popular demonstrations could face restrictions on duration and location, interfering with the right to assembly.
It described the proposed limits on single-person protests as “unprecedented”.
The language used in the bill left an “excessive degree of judgement in the hands of a police officer”.
A largely unnoticed and unreported consultation paper on changes to Britain’s Official Secrets Acts drawn up by the Home Office shows that the government is preparing far-reaching threats to the media and the public’s right to know.
It intends to abandon the existing distinction between spying and leaking, and between leakers, whistleblowers and journalists. “Both primary and onward disclosures have the potential to cause equal amounts of harm,” the paper states.
This makes it clear the government wants to claim a journalist responsible for an “onward disclosure” — a publication in a newspaper or website, for example — would be as liable and on a par in criminal law with a primary source, such as a whistleblower in a government agency.
The government is determined to make it easier to prosecute whistleblowers and make it harder to mount a defense for disclosing information the government claims is damaging to national security.
Journalists and others publishing information the government claims damages national security face the prospect of 14 years in jail rather than the current maximum of two years.
The reason they are changing the law?
Four demonstrators who formed a blockade outside a London arms fair have had their convictions quashed by the supreme court, in what has been hailed as an affirmation of the right to protest.
Lord Hamblen and Lord Stephens said: “There should be a certain degree of tolerance to disruption to ordinary life, including disruption of traffic, caused by the exercise of the right to freedom of expression or freedom of peaceful assembly …
“Political views, unlike ‘vapid tittle-tattle’ are particularly worthy of protection … The district judge took into account that the appellants were not a group of people who randomly chose to attend this event hoping to cause trouble. We consider that the peaceful intentions of the appellants were appropriate matters to be considered in an evaluation of proportionality.”
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.