This article is from the source 'rtcom' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.rt.com/uk/518298-policing-bill-commons-patel/
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| House of Commons passes ‘draconian’ policing bill that vastly expands protest crackdown & boosts penalties for ‘public disorder’ | House of Commons passes ‘draconian’ policing bill that vastly expands protest crackdown & boosts penalties for ‘public disorder’ |
| (6 months later) | |
| Legislation vastly expanding the UK government’s powers to suppress peaceful protests for the sake of public order, promoted by Home Secretary Priti Patel, has been backed by the House of Commons after heated debate. | Legislation vastly expanding the UK government’s powers to suppress peaceful protests for the sake of public order, promoted by Home Secretary Priti Patel, has been backed by the House of Commons after heated debate. |
| Lawmakers voted 359 to 263 to pass the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill on its second reading on Tuesday. After clearing the Commons, it’s set for consideration in the House of Lords. | Lawmakers voted 359 to 263 to pass the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill on its second reading on Tuesday. After clearing the Commons, it’s set for consideration in the House of Lords. |
| Spanning nearly 300 pages, the legislation proposes a wide range of stiff measures, including harsher punishments for serious offences and granting judges the power to slap those convicted of child murder with life in prison, among other things. | Spanning nearly 300 pages, the legislation proposes a wide range of stiff measures, including harsher punishments for serious offences and granting judges the power to slap those convicted of child murder with life in prison, among other things. |
| Perhaps most controversial is the bill’s section on “public order,” which calls for a new nuisance law that would threaten up to 10 years behind bars for anyone causing “serious annoyance or inconvenience” in public, making it a criminal offence. | Perhaps most controversial is the bill’s section on “public order,” which calls for a new nuisance law that would threaten up to 10 years behind bars for anyone causing “serious annoyance or inconvenience” in public, making it a criminal offence. |
| Exactly what constitutes “serious disruption to the life of the community” or “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation,” as stated in the bill, will be left to the Home Office to define. | Exactly what constitutes “serious disruption to the life of the community” or “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation,” as stated in the bill, will be left to the Home Office to define. |
| The government insisted that the new law is necessary because the current statutes don’t allow law enforcement to confront a “recent change in tactics” by street demonstrators, such as eco-activist group Extinction Rebellion, whose members have glued themselves to pavement outside official buildings, including Parliament, in order to bar entry. | The government insisted that the new law is necessary because the current statutes don’t allow law enforcement to confront a “recent change in tactics” by street demonstrators, such as eco-activist group Extinction Rebellion, whose members have glued themselves to pavement outside official buildings, including Parliament, in order to bar entry. |
| During debate over the law on Monday, Home Secretary Patel, a vocal supporter of the bill, argued that the legislation currently in place to deal with protests, passed more than 30 years ago, is obsolete. She said activists had exploited “gaps in the law,” resulting in “disproportionate amounts of disruption.” | During debate over the law on Monday, Home Secretary Patel, a vocal supporter of the bill, argued that the legislation currently in place to deal with protests, passed more than 30 years ago, is obsolete. She said activists had exploited “gaps in the law,” resulting in “disproportionate amounts of disruption.” |
| At the same reading earlier this week, former Prime Minister Theresa May countered that “protests have to be under the rule of law, but the law has to be proportionate,” voicing concerns that the bill was “drawn quite widely” and could have “potential unintended consequences.” | At the same reading earlier this week, former Prime Minister Theresa May countered that “protests have to be under the rule of law, but the law has to be proportionate,” voicing concerns that the bill was “drawn quite widely” and could have “potential unintended consequences.” |
| Democratic Unionist Party MP Gavin Robinson echoed those fears more forcefully, saying the policing bill includes “overreaching, sweeping and draconian provisions on protest” that would “make a dictator blush.” | Democratic Unionist Party MP Gavin Robinson echoed those fears more forcefully, saying the policing bill includes “overreaching, sweeping and draconian provisions on protest” that would “make a dictator blush.” |
| Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! | Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! |
| Dear readers and commenters, | |
| We have implemented a new engine for our comment section. We hope the transition goes smoothly for all of you. Unfortunately, the comments made before the change have been lost due to a technical problem. We are working on restoring them, and hoping to see you fill up the comment section with new ones. You should still be able to log in to comment using your social-media profiles, but if you signed up under an RT profile before, you are invited to create a new profile with the new commenting system. | |
| Sorry for the inconvenience, and looking forward to your future comments, | |
| RT Team. |