Quick thread on an aspect of the policing bill which has been under-discussed: the provisions on trespass. This section targets Gypsies and Travellers.
They are groups who very few people give a damn about and have been targeted by governments throughout the centuries. It is happening again now.
It's in Part 4 of the bill, which amends Part 5 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Both relevant sections here:
These provisions refer to any kind of land, but they are mostly going to concern public land. Private landowners already have a whole array of powers to get people off their property.
Previously, police could take action against Gypsies and Travellers if they had done something wrong. They had to have "caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words".
Alternately, they could take action if they had six or more vehicles on the land. But the new bill allows police to take action if they have just one vehicle.
And they do not need to have done anything at all. The police officer just needs to suspect that significant damage or disruption "is likely to be caused".
Similarly, if they suspect that "significant distress... as a result of offensive conduct" - defined as "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour" - is likely to be caused, they can also take action.
In other words: You do not actually need to have done anything. All that is required is that the police *suspect* you will do something.
If the police do suspect this, they can "seize and remove any relevant property". This includes the vehicle. But for these communities, it is not just a vehicle. It is their home.
So on the basis of a suspicion that a Gypsy or Traveller might in future insult someone, they can take away all their belongings.
What does this mean? In effect, it takes away any kind of justice from Gypsies and Travellers.
Sure, they can challenge. They can get their day in court. But at that moment when the police officer arrives, they can take everything from them if they do not comply with their demand that they leave.
And what really means is that they will not be able to settle anywhere. They will be kept permanently on the road to nowhere, moving for fear of having everything taken from them.
This bill is massive. Hundreds of pages. And everywhere you look you find draconian powers, handed to police, to do as they damn well please, targeting the most vulnerable and marginalised people in the country.
The fact it is being rushed through the Commons just days after being published is an insult. But not just that: It is a plan. A plan to make sure you don't know what's in it. To ensure that MPs pass it before they understand what's in it.
This is a law enforcing the silencing of protestors. But the most alarming thing about it was not its provisions. It was the silence from ministers about what it contained and the silence from Tory backbenchers about their duty to scrutinise it.
I keep thinking back to this thing that a Hungarian journalist told me about living under Orban. That the scariest part was when the silence came - when the newspapers stopped criticising and the protests stopped happening. That's when you knew you were fucked good and proper.
Day two of the anti-protest bill debate is going to start in about 15mins. For some unfathomable reason which I now deeply regret, I have committed to live tweeting it.
If you're not interested in the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill: mute this thread. Seriously. I'm like the haggard old man at the gas station at the start of a horror movie, telling the kids not to go to the cabin the woods.
This is yesterday's thread from the debate, if you missed the excitement of watching a country's moral capacity degrade in real time.
The police bill "may create uncertainty by giving far too much discretion to the police in determining this balance, and far too much power to the executive to change the law by decree if it chooses" conservativehome.com/platform/2021/…
This is a very interesting joint piece by Brexiter Steve Baker & Remainer Dominic Grieve for ConHome. It may encourage some Tories to take a closer look at the bill they have been defending.
But it ends with a very one-the-one-hand-and-on-the-other section which pretty much sets the battle for committee stage. Basically saying to MPs: vote it through for now and we'll see if we can fix the troublesome bits as it progresses.
Right, you know that shit is fucked up because I'm going to do a live thread of the Commons debate.
If you are not interested in the policing bill, please mute this thread now, because I suspect it's going to be very long.
We've got Priti Patel up in the Commons at 3:30pm to make a statement about the police attack on the vigil over the weekend. Then the debate on the policing bill starts. It'll go on until 10pm, then restart again tomorrow, when there'll be a vote.
I took this video in May 2019. Hundreds of school kids protesting inaction in climate change, chanting "where the fuck is the government". It was a beautiful sight: young people, passionate, politically engaged, demanding a better future.
You're going to hear a lot of nonsense today about how this bill does not threaten peaceful protest. That's categorically false. This demonstration would breach its thresholds in several ways.
In this case a police officer could reasonably conclude that the noise of the protest "may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation" - in this case parliament. After all, that was the purpose: to get the attention of MPs and ministers.
Funny thing, politics. The govt tried to rush this bill through - publishing last week, second reading this week. But by one an unpredictable coincidence, the events of the weekend made it more vulnerable in the Commons than it would have been if debated later.
I still don't think there's any chance of defeating it. That would take a degree of moral and intellectual consistency which the free speech/lockdown-sceptic brigade on the Tory benches just don't have. Would love to be proved wrong.
But there is a chance - slim but possible - that the threat of a rebellion could lead the govt to water down the bill in a bid to get back benchers onside.