Thread by @docrussjackson

#THREAD

Well there's some very interesting & innovative attempts to clarify Priti Patel's new laws around #protest in the 'Noise-related provisions: Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022 #factsheet'.

#PoliceBill📢😬

gov.uk/government/pub…

The Act allows police to place conditions on public processions, public assemblies & one-person protests where it is reasonably believed that the noise they generated "may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation carried on in the vicinity...

...or have a significant impact on people in the vicinity of the protest."

Priti Patel also "has a power, by regulations, to further define the meaning of 'serious disruption' & provide further clarity to police in the use of these powers."

Clear as mud.

"Recent months have shown that certain tactics employed by some protestors have had a hugely detrimental effect on the hardworking majority seeking to go about their daily lives."

"Hardworking majority" is a cliché used in the Telegraph/Sun/Mail, & party political broadcasts.

"These powers do not silence protestors or curb freedom of expression."

This - like so much that Priti Patel, Boris Johnson & other Government cabinet members & foreign/non-dom billionaire-owned newspapers claim - is obviously a straightforward lie.

"The power to set noise-related conditions will only be used in the most exceptional of circumstances, where police assess the noise from protests to be unjustifiable & damaging to others."

I'm no expert, but "damaging" & "unjustifiable" seems pretty subjective concepts to me.

4.2 Will these measures ban protests for being too noisy?

"No, the police will only be able to impose conditions on unjustifiably noisy protests that may have a significant impact on others or may seriously disrupt the activities of an organisation."

Here, "no" means "YES". 😬

"The threshold for being able to impose conditions on noisy protests is appropriately high. The police will only use it in case where it is deemed necessary & proportionate."

The old "necessary & proportionate" as used with stop & search & use of force (whenever "reasonable").😬

4.3 Will these measures stop protestors from expressing their views?

"Absolutely not." *cough* "This measure has nothing to do with the content of the noise generated by a protest, just the level of the noise."

Rules around precise noise levels & proximity to source are absent.

4.4 Why target one-person protests?

"This particular measure only relates to the noise generated from a single-person protest & does not introduce any other situations in which police can place conditions on single-person protests."

That's ok then. 😬

4.5 What kind of scenarios could police impose noise-related conditions in?

Hypothetical scenarios include:

"a noisy protest in a town centre may not meet the threshold, but a protest creating the same amount of noise outside a school might."

"a noisy protest outside an office with double glazing may not meet the threshold, but a protest creating the same amount of noise outside a small GP surgery, or small street-level businesses might."

So organise protests outside double-glazed buildings? 😬

4.6 How often do the police impose conditions on protests?

"Data from the National Police Chiefs’ Council suggests that, out of over 2500 protests between 21 January & 21 April 2021, the police imposed conditions no more than a dozen times."

I feel a new record coming on!

So there we have it:

Clear as mud for both protesters & police

Police decide what is "justifiable" noise

Almost totally subjective as noise levels aren't specified

Priti Patel now has the freedom "to further define the meaning of serious disruption." 😬

(Pic: @coldwarsteve).