brad465
Established Member
This bill is currently being rushed through Parliament largely hidden from the media radar, that imposes new powers for Police in protest restrictions:
The main additions seem to be on noise limits (which can be very hard to avoid) and tougher punishment for highly disruptive protests. My thinking is this is Patel getting revenge on BLM and XR, but I do think there is a lot of suppression in even peaceful protest rights in this that would be concerning, and suggests the Government is worried about what will happen once lockdown is over and restrictions are lifted (I'm aware a number of anti-Brexit protests are planned around the country in the week after June 21st, including on some weekdays).
However, I don't see how effective some of these measures will be, and if anything will be counterproductive in places. History has shown that attempting to suppress protesting and some forms of expression doesn't always reduce the amount of protesting, but serves to make them more violent (this is why the police in Bristol didn't intervene in the statue tear-down). Also police force numbers may not be able to fully control them if protestors believe the force can be outnumbered; the Coalition cut over 20,000 officers and not all of them have been reversed. Lockdown restriction enforcement, or lack of, is a test to how difficult enforcing something with mass non-compliance is. Protestors may also realise that there are not enough prison places for them all to go into, on top of the police not being able to arrest them all if there's enough of them. Furthermore if the bill passes with little press coverage (which I expect the Government would like) and/or is out of the news quickly, then it would take protestors by surprise to the point that they feel the police are going overboard and as mentioned above, could turn more violent.
What do others think?
Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida DickEver since the first large-scale Extinction Rebellion protest in April last year I have been talking publicly and with the government about the potential for change to powers and to legislation that would enable the police to deal better with protests in general given that the act that we work to – the Public Order Act – is now very old, [dating to] 1986.
But specifically to deal with protests where people are not primarily violent or seriously disorderly but, as in this instance, had an avowed intent to bring policing to its knees and the city to a halt and were prepared to use the methods we all know they did to do that.
1. What are we going to do?
The measures in the Bill will allow the police to take a more proactive approach in managing highly disruptive protests causing serious disruption to the public.
2. How are we going to do it?
Provisions in the Bill will:
This measure will enable the police to impose conditions such as start and finish times and maximum noise levels on static protests. The police already have the power to impose such conditions on marches.
- Widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on static protests, to match existing police powers to impose conditions on marches
This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”. These regulation-making powers will clarify ambiguous cases where, if they arise, it would not be clear whether the threshold for the use of such powers have been reached. This will enable the police to make use of their powers with the confidence that they are doing so legally.
- Broaden the range of circumstances in which police may impose conditions on a protest
This measure will close a loophole which some protesters exploit. Some will cover their ears and tear up written conditions handed to them by the police so that they are likely to evade conviction for breaching conditions on a protest as the prosecution have to prove that the person “knowingly fails to comply with a condition imposed”. The Bill will change the threshold for the offence so that it is committed where a person “knows or ought to have known” that the condition has been imposed.
- Amend the offence relating to the breaching of conditions
The Bill will implement a recommendation by the Law Commission to introduce a statutory offence of public nuisance, and repeal the existing common law offence. This will provide clarity to the police and potential offenders, giving clear notice of what conduct is forbidden.
- Restate the common law offence of public nuisance in statute
This measure will enable the police to direct an individual to cease obstructing vehicular entrances to Parliament and make it an offence not to comply with such a direction. This will protect the right of access to the Parliamentary Estate for MPs, Peers and others with business there as recommended in the Joint Committee on Human Rights in their 2020 report on Democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association: Threats to MPs.
- Ensure vehicular entrances to the Parliament Estate remain unobstructed
The main additions seem to be on noise limits (which can be very hard to avoid) and tougher punishment for highly disruptive protests. My thinking is this is Patel getting revenge on BLM and XR, but I do think there is a lot of suppression in even peaceful protest rights in this that would be concerning, and suggests the Government is worried about what will happen once lockdown is over and restrictions are lifted (I'm aware a number of anti-Brexit protests are planned around the country in the week after June 21st, including on some weekdays).
However, I don't see how effective some of these measures will be, and if anything will be counterproductive in places. History has shown that attempting to suppress protesting and some forms of expression doesn't always reduce the amount of protesting, but serves to make them more violent (this is why the police in Bristol didn't intervene in the statue tear-down). Also police force numbers may not be able to fully control them if protestors believe the force can be outnumbered; the Coalition cut over 20,000 officers and not all of them have been reversed. Lockdown restriction enforcement, or lack of, is a test to how difficult enforcing something with mass non-compliance is. Protestors may also realise that there are not enough prison places for them all to go into, on top of the police not being able to arrest them all if there's enough of them. Furthermore if the bill passes with little press coverage (which I expect the Government would like) and/or is out of the news quickly, then it would take protestors by surprise to the point that they feel the police are going overboard and as mentioned above, could turn more violent.
What do others think?