Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Order Bill

Erlang168

Well-known Member
Interesting to have received an appeal from Dominic Grieve, Former Attorney General for England and Wales to sign a petition to amend the above bill.

The appeal came via Best for Britain campaign.

I'm well-minded to signing it as I do agree it's a direct attack on the current UK democracy, but I fear Parliament (opposition) either won't fight it or will lose due to 80 seat majority.

They want to stop us protesting in Parliament Square. We must not let them.



Clauses in the government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which will be debated in the House of Lords next week, will impose a blanket ban on protesting within hearing range of the House of Commons Chamber.



The UK’s democracy is built on the bedrock of freedoms for the British people. Please sign the petition now and oppose the erosion of our rights to make our voices heard in Parliament.
There is hope, however. Best for Britain is working closely with peers to amend the bill to secure the right to protest in Parliament Square and we are supporting two new amendments to the Bill, which I am proud to have helped draft. Find out more here.



Clause 59 of the bill would, through complex and technical means, impose an effective ban on large-scale demonstrations in Parliament Square, removing protest and dissent from an place where it might have great influence.



The Government wants to limit the ways ordinary people can challenge them. I hope you, like me, agree this is not how a modern democratic government should behave.
By changing this one part of the bill, we can hope to retain this vital method of holding power to account. Protests are meant to make an impact - and that is something I fear this Government does not want. Sign the petition today - and make sure your voice can still be heard.



Whatever our political differences, it is important that we are all allowed to air them freely and fairly. That’s something my political career has taught me, and I want to preserve that right for future generations.

Anyone else, disturbed how this current government are limiting protests or are you happy with the hammer to crack a nut solution?
 

Tolq

Distinguished Member
I'm definitely worried by this bill, and I've been signing pretty much every petition there is against it. I wouldn't trust Priti Patel to use a hammer responsibly with a nail, never mind more power to stop protests.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
I've already signed it. Not just because it's this lot, but because this and just about everything else this government wants to propose is bad legislation.

And bad legislation isn't just for Christmas.

You can bet in future too that if the likes of this benefitted Labour, Conservative supporters would be up in arms asking how was it allowed to happen.
 

Moonunit79

Active Member
This is an absolutely dangerous bill. I have a horrible feeling that it will be passed unfortunately. I hope i am proven wrong and the people of britain defeat it. It is essentially an attempted power grab by a headbanger who should have been out of a job long ago given what she has done herself.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
The interesting thing about this bill is it would potentially put more cases like the Colston one before juries. Which would seem to be the exact opposite of what the Tories want.

I've never thought they knew what they were doing.
 

Autopilot

Distinguished Member
The interesting thing about this bill is it would potentially put more cases like the Colston one before juries. Which would seem to be the exact opposite of what the Tories want.

I've never thought they knew what they were doing.

I don’t agree with the Bill, a large part of it anyway, but I don’t think that’s correct. The case went to court because it was alleged to be criminal damage. Just because someone is found not guilty doesn’t mean they should not have had their case heard. Cases like Colston won’t really be effected. It may mean, however, that people could be charged with offences that currently they have would not be, so I appreciate and share the general concerns.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
I don’t agree with the Bill, a large part of it anyway, but I don’t think that’s correct. The case went to court because it was alleged to be criminal damage. Just because someone is found not guilty doesn’t mean they should not have had their case heard. Cases like Colston won’t really be effected. It may mean, however, that people could be charged with offences that currently they have would not be, so I appreciate and share the general concerns.

I'll have to find the details, but it seems the bill is intent on moving cases with regards memorials from low level magistrate courts. I'm sure I read that in one of the commentaries I posted the other day. I'll have to get back to you on it.
 

Autopilot

Distinguished Member
I'll have to find the details, but it seems the bill is intent on moving cases with regards memorials from low level magistrate courts. I'm sure I read that in one of the commentaries I posted the other day. I'll have to get back to you on it.

I see where you are coming from. When people say ‘before a jury’ I assume they mean court in general, because people often do.

Yes, at the moment, if the criminal damage amounts to less the £5k, it’s tried summarily (magistrates court). If the damage costs more than £5k it an indictment (crown court - jury). The Colston case went to Crown anyway, because although it was valued at £4K they elected for crown and jury (a gamble that paid off).

The bill includes a change where if it’s a memorial it may go to crown even if it’s under £5k. Meaning that potentially you could maybe get 10 years, rather than the maximum 2 years that a magistrates court can give. (That said, when there aggravating factors it can still be sent to court). I don’t think it he proposed change is really necessary or would make much of a difference anyway.

So it won’t mean case like to Colston one are more likely to go to court, but it means that low level damage could potentially get a higher sentence in some circumstances.
 
Last edited:

richp007

Distinguished Member
I see where you are coming from. When people say ‘before a jury’ I assume they mean court in general, because people often do.

Yes, at the moment, if the criminal damage amounts to less the £5k, it’s tried summarily (magistrates court). If the damage costs more than £5k it an indictment (crown court - jury). The Colston case went to Crown anyway, because although it was valued at £4K they elected for crown and jury (a gamble that paid off).

The bill includes a change where if it’s a memorial it may go to crown even if it’s under £5k. Meaning that potentially you could maybe get 10 years, rather than the maximum 2 years that a magistrates court can give. (That said, when there aggravating factors it can still be sent to court). I don’t think it he proposed change is really necessary or would make much of a difference anyway.

So it won’t mean case like to Colston one are more likely to go to court, but it means that low level damage could potentially get a higher sentence in some circumstances.

Thanks for that, but I'm not sure I'm entirely with you on your last point. I agree about the possibility of a higher sentence, but it does actually mean cases like the Colston one are more likely to go to court, and then be heard in front of a jury. Which is the very concern now those unhappy with the acquittal are citing.

As highlighted by the BIB.
 

Autopilot

Distinguished Member
Thanks for that, but I'm not sure I'm entirely with you on your last point. I agree about the possibility of a higher sentence, but it does actually mean cases like the Colston one are more likely to go to court, and then be heard in front of a jury. Which is the very concern now those unhappy with the acquittal are citing.

As highlighted by the BIB.

No, it’s not more likely it will go to court, but possibly more likely to be heard by a jury and possibly a higher sentence. There is no planned change to the charging standards the CPS use, and there is no change to the criminal damage legislation.

What is changing is what I outlined above - that cases that would have normally heard in a magistrate court (value of damage under £5k) will be able to be heard in crown court. This a higher possible sentence.

Unless they are creating a new criminal offence, but I don’t think they are.
 
Last edited:

richp007

Distinguished Member
No, it’s not more likely it will go to court, but possibly more likely to be heard by a jury and possibly a higher sentence. There is no planned change to the charging standards the CPS use, and there is no change to the criminal damage legislation.

What is changing is what I outlined above - that cases that would have normally heard in a magistrate court (value of damage under £5k) will be able to be heard in crown court. This a higher possible sentence.

Unless they are creating a new criminal offence, but I don’t think they are.

I'm with you now, the BIB. And no new offence as far as I can tell.

I've either forgotten, or it's been a long time since I've seen the amount of criticism aimed at this one and the Borders bill. Even the UN aren't happy about the latter. Terrible legislation.

There's not been any movement from Braverman on the Colston verdict yet. Perhaps the thinking is politically it's not a good time. I'm not aware of any time limit on such a request though.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
The government's Bill has been absolutely battered tonight by the Lords. They took Lucille to it and turned it into Glenn.

And that's being kind.

14 defeats, every vote.

 

richp007

Distinguished Member
I have no time for Claire Fox whatsoever, but this shows just how isolated the government is right now.

What actually happened was Priti Awful's awful Bill got beaten to within an inch of it's life.

 

Erlang168

Well-known Member
The government's Bill has been absolutely battered tonight by the Lords. They took Lucille to it and turned it into Glenn.

And that's being kind.

14 defeats, every vote.


The above is why I appreciate the Lords for all its many faults, and strongly object it either just becoming a rubber stamp elected 2nd house nor a partisan objector ala USA.
 

MrsArcanum

Member
The above is why I appreciate the Lords for all its many faults, and strongly object it either just becoming a rubber stamp elected 2nd house nor a partisan objector ala USA.
This is exactly why, those bleating for the abolition of the HoL need to think long and hard about what would replace it. Leaving it just in the hands of a government, particularly without changing the electoral system would be a disaster.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
So @Erlang168 could you please update the thread title to add "Public Order Bill" to it?

As after having it's arse kicked over this original bill, what the government has decided to do is put all the worst bits in it's new bill. Perhaps hoping even their supporters wouldn't notice.

It turns out taking back control wasn't meant to be for the little people.

Who knew?





 

The latest video from AVForums

Paramount + UK launch: Halo, Star Trek and Beavis, and all the latest 4K + Movie/TV News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom