Police Crime Sentencing & Courts Bill

[bad company]

Someone put this on Facebook. I’m not sure what to think, is it an over reaction?

While the media distracts you with never ending discussions on whether you will choose to wear a mask or not after 19th July, the Police Crime Sentencing & Courts Bill has just passed its 3rd reading with 365 in favour to 265 against. This is a very serious turn of events, you are about to lose your right to PEACEFUL protest, even a 1 person peaceful protest. Nomadism is about to be criminalised, wiping out several nomadic cultures that have existed on this land for a millennia - in other words ethnic cleansing. Trespass will be criminalised (as opposed to being a civil offence) meaning you will be a criminal if you wild camp or ramble on some of the 92% of privately owned land that makes up this tiny island. Alarm bells are ringing, red flags are flying, if you still cant hear them or see them then you have been successfully gaslighted by the media & a government that pretends to care.

This is not a conspiracy theory! This is real st! Persecution & eradication of the Roma people in Germany under the Nazis should act as a lesson not a model! And when they come for something you hold dear, like your sick pay, holiday pay, severance pay or your local nature reserve being sold to a property developer, there will be F all you can do about it cos you could get 10 years for peaceful protest!
But the fight is not yet lost, stand up in every way you can if you value human rights.

Get out & protest if you can, write to your MP if you can, sign petitions, create petitions, put up a banner, write an article, donate to organisations working to stop this happening. Come on people , let's not let em get away with this!!

Thoughts anyone?

[Durzel]

Where does the Facebook screed end and your thoughts begin, or is it basically aligned and this post is just an RSS feed of the "Bonkers st People Say On Facebook To An Echo Chamber" group?

[mac96]

I assumed first and last lines were Bad Company, the rest Facebook.

And it's a pity they brought Nazis and Nomads into it, but there are real concerns and as it says, not much coverage or debate. Perhaps i have just missed it.

[Stoofa]

Casually reading through the post - always willing to give people benefit of doubt, you've gotta right?
Managed to get all the way to "Ethnic Cleansing" - nope, I'm out, not got time for this crap, there are some real issues in the world that probably demand my time.

[carreauchompeur]

Slightly florid language aside, there are some slightly draconian aspects to this bill… as someone who does ocasionally park up off the beaten track in my van there is a slight concern that it will be applied sensibly!

[bad company]

mac96 said:

I assumed first and last lines were Bad Company, the rest Facebook.

And it's a pity they brought Nazis and Nomads into it, but there are real concerns and as it says, not much coverage or debate. Perhaps i have just missed it.

The first and last indeed. It looks like an over reaction but some of it could be worrying.

[mmm-five]

Sounds like it's written by the same sort of person who considers 'peaceful protest' to include blocking major thoroughfares with boats or glued/cemented in humans. If it caused any disruption then it isn't 'peaceful' it's intimidatory.

If all the 'nomadic peoples' and 'peaceful protesters' followed the current rules, there would be no need for more draconian measures...but they'll all probably still 'get away' without any fine/conviction as they'll be seen as martyrs if they don't and will fill social media with complaints about police brutality and demands to defund the police.

[TonyRPH]

There's 20 page summary of the bill including myths available here:

https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/the-poli...

[Castrol for a knave]

TonyRPH said:

There's 20 page summary of the bill including myths available here:

https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/the-poli...

I have read that, and it makes some sensible points, but it is through the lens of a politically right think tank.

I suspect the real truth lies between that and Liberty's take on it all.

[qwerty360]

My opinion is the bill is awful.


For one very simple reason. No-one can review 300+ pages of legalese to determine what has actually changed.


There is no good reason that laws concerning whether protests are legal should be in the same law change as rules on close passing cyclists (yet I have seen discussions about this law with references to sections in it covering both!)

The main reason for someone pushing in such a huge document is to try and hide some of the changes to law from scrutiny. Whether that is so that they can block changes (we tried but these evil opposition members refused our bill (failing to mention it was refused for something unrelated) or so that they can get in a dreadful new law (well the opposition also voted for it, so it must be fine...) this should not be allowed...

I can't see a good reason why it is one bill rather than several (e.g. part 1 is changes to protect emergency workers - a quick look suggests to me that is more than big enough and sufficiently unrelated to anything else in the bill to be dealt with alone (and compared to other sections, non-controversial changes that should get near universal support to pass quickly...))

[APontus]

qwerty360 said:

My opinion is the bill is awful.


For one very simple reason. No-one can review 300+ pages of legalese to determine what has actually changed.


There is no good reason that laws concerning whether protests are legal should be in the same law change as rules on close passing cyclists (yet I have seen discussions about this law with references to sections in it covering both!)

The main reason for someone pushing in such a huge document is to try and hide some of the changes to law from scrutiny. Whether that is so that they can block changes (we tried but these evil opposition members refused our bill (failing to mention it was refused for something unrelated) or so that they can get in a dreadful new law (well the opposition also voted for it, so it must be fine...) this should not be allowed...

I can't see a good reason why it is one bill rather than several (e.g. part 1 is changes to protect emergency workers - a quick look suggests to me that is more than big enough and sufficiently unrelated to anything else in the bill to be dealt with alone (and compared to other sections, non-controversial changes that should get near universal support to pass quickly...))

It's one big bill so those MPs who don't like the awful bits still have to vote for it, otherwise the record will show they voted against the bits that most people will say are good.

In 2 years time you're moaning about the government and they turn around and say "well last time we offered free kittens to orphans YOU voted against it". The fact the kittens bit was wedged in between 10 years imprisonment for voting Labour and early release for peadophiles will be long forgotten.

[donteatpeople]

mmm-five said:

Sounds like it's written by the same sort of person who considers 'peaceful protest' to include blocking major thoroughfares with boats or glued/cemented in humans. If it caused any disruption then it isn't 'peaceful' it's intimidatory.

If it doesn't cause any disruption then it's not a protest. That definition would limit peaceful protest to paying for a billboard and that's about it. Any large gathering of people would definitely be out.

mmm-five said:

If all the 'nomadic peoples' and 'peaceful protesters' followed the current rules, there would be no need for more draconian measures....

I don't follow your logic there. If people are not following the current rules then why not enforce the current rules?

I'm uncomfortable giving a Home Secretary the power to have a protest shut down because it's annoying. Maybe it's well intentioned but it seems wide open to abuse.

[Derek Smith]

There are too many laws. Each one restricts. The question one should be asking is whether the sacrifice of an allowed action is commensurate to the gain.

This Bill is masquerading as something it is not. The much heralded purpose is not the reason it is being brought in. The rather patronising pdf linked to earlier points out what it could be used for but, as always, it will be used for other matters as well. There are many such examples.

Laws limit people’s actions, so they should limit the actions of those who enforce the laws. They should be precise. They should stop specific wrongs and should not be open to misinterpretation. This bill has been criticised for being badly worded. And it seems to be. One wonders if this is deliberate. Or rather, one doesn’t.

[Derek Smith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What sources do you trust.

[CraigyMc]

Derek Smith said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What sources do you trust.

Parler? The daily beast? guido?

[Derek Smith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What sources do you trust.

A combination of sources cross-referenced.

Find it on regular news?


Visit the following..

Reuters, DW news, Aljazeera etc.

Although Aljazeera has bias on certain neighbours it can be very open on many others.

I wouldn't trust anything the BBC pumps out or your old employers or mine.

You realise, don't you, that all news sources are biased. All sift. All nuance. The idea there is a truth is unsupportable. Your blanket ban of the BBC and my old employers (what's a butcher's shop done to upset you?) shows a bias, you must realise that. You don't mention ITN, yet it is one of the most trusted and awarded out there. Aljazeera is great, but not for particulars.

The problem is that people believe that what they believe is the truth, that it actually happened, yet we see evidence that no one knows the truth, certainly not the news outlets. TV puts reporters out there, on the front line, but it seems you don't believe them. Odd that when there's often video of journos putting their lives on the line.

I love history, but the one thing that comes over in all histories is that the truth was corrupted at the time. What historians do is try and make sense of the various biased reports. And they fail. Do you honestly think that you've cracked it?

You, like me, like everyone, are being fed what the feeders think we should have. The difference between you and me is that I accept we can't know. I mean, cross-referenced? Are you serious?

[Andeh1]

bad company said:

Someone put this on Facebook. I’m not sure what to think, is it an over reaction?

While the media distracts you with never ending discussions on whether you will choose to wear a mask or not after 19th July, the Police Crime Sentencing & Courts Bill has just passed its 3rd reading with 365 in favour to 265 against. This is a very serious turn of events, you are about to lose your right to PEACEFUL protest, even a 1 person peaceful protest. Nomadism is about to be criminalised, wiping out several nomadic cultures that have existed on this land for a millennia - in other words ethnic cleansing. Trespass will be criminalised (as opposed to being a civil offence) meaning you will be a criminal if you wild camp or ramble on some of the 92% of privately owned land that makes up this tiny island. Alarm bells are ringing, red flags are flying, if you still cant hear them or see them then you have been successfully gaslighted by the media & a government that pretends to care.

This is not a conspiracy theory! This is real st! Persecution & eradication of the Roma people in Germany under the Nazis should act as a lesson not a model! And when they come for something you hold dear, like your sick pay, holiday pay, severance pay or your local nature reserve being sold to a property developer, there will be F all you can do about it cos you could get 10 years for peaceful protest!
But the fight is not yet lost, stand up in every way you can if you value human rights.

Get out & protest if you can, write to your MP if you can, sign petitions, create petitions, put up a banner, write an article, donate to organisations working to stop this happening. Come on people , let's not let em get away with this!!

Thoughts anyone?

Well don't blame me, YOU voted them into power!! Reap what you sow.

[Derek Smith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Every news outlet has angles. That's what they employ journos for. News is a view. You read that a man has built a recording studio and has breached planning laws. That, on its own, would not get viewers.

The problem with the BBC is that it cannot print what it wants to. It is governed by lawyers and the threat of litigation. It could once get information from police officers. Now that's banned. Why? 20 years ago, a local journo had free access to Brighton nick, to come and go as he pleased. That was news. That was banned.

Those news outlets that can publish what they want often get their information from FB and Twitter. You can't avoid it.

Where do you think Google gets its news? Has it local reporters in various parts of the country, people who are aware and comply with the ethics of reporting?

True picture means what you believe. Nothing more.

[bad company]

Andeh1 said:

Well don't blame me, YOU voted them into power!! Reap what you sow.

How do you know who I voted for?

[Derek Smith]

I had a short course on a period in history that had particular relevance to the area I then lived in. The historian, a retired professor from a local university, started with a story. It’s an old one and there are many variations, but he told it well.

A professor from Oxbridge was concerned about not getting his contract renewed so went to the science department where he knew they were experimenting with a time machine. He sent the machine back to the days he specialised in and it grabbed someone from parliament, bringing him back. He questioned him as to what was actually happening at the time.

“The problem was,” the Oxbridge professor said. “He got it all wrong.”

I’ve been involved in situations that have become historical events, so I, rather obviously, know that how these were reported was totally, utterly wrong. I can prove it. I was there. Yet others who were there saw something different. It doesn’t mean someone who takes on board both points of view and collates them into their reality knows the truth.

You say you don’t believe what the police ever say. Yet they are there, on the ground. You believe what you want to believe not because the source is dependable but because the source tells you what you want to know. Everyone does it. That’s what people do.

There were two major enquiries into police actions where I was a part of the incident. The official reports were rubbish, telling the government what they wanted to tell the public, that's you and me. I spoke to police officers who were part of one of the biggest ever enquiries into an incident. At the end, all three could point out inaccuracies, and quite significant ones. The officers said what they experienced and, for reasons unknown, it was trumped. One officer, whose actions were heavily criticised by a report, one of the few people to be singled out, was not interviewed and did not submit a statement. They had a complete defence to their accusations, but it wasn’t required. Didn't fit the narrative.

You can't believe anything you didn't see yourself. Oh, wait. Two people saw me push a fleeing man into a parking meter, breaking his ribs and puncturing a lung. Yet my prisoner said I didn't, he just turned away when I was catching him. I said I didn't. Who to believe, eh?

Edited by Derek Smith on Tuesday 13th July 21:59