Thread by @IanDunt

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.

There's a lot in the bill that hasn't really been properly covered on issues like sentencing and digital communication. It's because they're forcing it through so quickly.

But the three key issues I'll be covering here are the anti-protest provisions, the public nuisance law and the attack on Gypsies and Travellers.

For the anti-protest provisions, read this piece

politics.co.uk/comment/2021/0…

For the attack on Gypsies and Travellers read this thread

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1371455809436155911?s=20

And for the two best takes on the public nuisance provisions read these blogs by @davidallengreen
and @JoshuaRozenberg

davidallengreen.com/2021/03/the-pr…

rozenberg.substack.com/p/more-than-a-…

@davidallengreen @JoshuaRozenberg Back at 3:30pm for Patel. Going to play some Mario Kart in the meantime. I almost got the golden kart.

Right, off we go. Patel up.

She repeats that footage from the vigil this weekend was upsetting and says she asked for more information. She's awaiting the report from the independent inspector of constabulary.

Very quickly moves off that topic to discuss the killing of Sarah Everard and the experience of women fearing violence.

I mean I appreciate Patel's list of government actions to protect women, but this was supposed to be a statement on the Met's handling of the vigil. Her intention seems to be to avoid the topic entirely.

Oh and now she's defending the police bill - this is the anti-protest legislation - as an attempt to make women safer. But not women who want to demonstrate, of course.

Appalling from Patel. "I note the opposition will today be voting against measures to support victims of violent crimes, including women and girls."

I can see I'm going to need to really restrain my irritation today.

Patel is accusing Labour of failing to defend women against attack. in fact they are opposing anti-protest measures giving police more power over demonstrations. that seems especially pertinent given the events of this weekend, which she refuses to talk about.

Nick Thomas Symonds, Labour shadow home secretary, is up.

"This weekend in Clapham things clearly went very wrong. I share the anger at the scenes we saw."

Wants Patel to publish the report from the Met commissioner and the minutes of the advance meeting held on Friday and to confirm what communication she had with Met prior to events on Friday.

"While the event was a vigil, not a protest, the scenes from Clapham should be a red warning light to the government that ministers should not be rushing through laws cracking down on protest."

"This govt is failing to address violence against women and ministers even want to curtail their right to protest about it." Very good from Symonds.

"The 296 page bill we will consider later today contains the word 'memorial' 8 times and fails to include the word 'women once'."

Patel to respond. "At a time when the country is mourning a significant loss, there are moments of great unity, I'm quite sorry to hear the tone of the honourable gentleman (hon gen)." Christ. A few minutes ago she was accusing Labour of refusing to defend women.

Patel saying the bill does something for women because it ends the halfway release for serious offences. This includes sexual offences, and that includes rape.

So look - that's true. The sentences section of the bill was the brainchild of Dominic Cummings - his attempt to be all fire and brimstone because he thought it would appeal to perceived Red Wall social conservatives.

So there are many crimes in it where the halfway release is ended - for good or ill.

But for Patel to dive into that legislation, find that one little nugget, in a piece of legislation which drives up loads of sentences, and pretend its some kind of feminist law, is cynical in the extreme.

Look, I like the flag. I even have cushions with it. But British politics is starting to look a bit like an am-dram performance of V for Vendetta.

Philip Davies, the man literally no-one needed to hear from today.

Or any other day, really, but especially today.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Lab: "What happened this weekend is a reminder of what happens when the police try to completely bypass the views of the community they serve." Perfectly put.

Patel says the police bill "that is a manifesto bill that this govt was elected on... the British public voted for it. We live in a democracy and the this government will work to deliver on that."

The manifesto is herehttps://www.conservatives.com/our-plan.

It does indeed mention the attack on Gypsies and Travellers. It does not, as far as I can tell, mention the assault on the right to protest. There is no mention of protest or demonstrations anywhere in that document.

Ed Davey, Lib Dem leader: "The scenes of women being forced to the ground, restrained and arrested, simpy for holding a peaceful vigil... were utterly disgraceful. of course Cressida Dick must resign. But can I ask the home sec what responsibility she herself has."

Wants to know if she spoke to Dick in the run up to the vigil. If so what guidance and advice did she give her?

Patel says police are operationally independent but that she had been in touch with Dick on Friday and throughout the weekend. They had "extensive discussions in terms of planning,preparation for the vigil". Interesting.

"On Friday my views were know and they were based on the fact that people who wanted to pay tribute within the locality... laying flowers was the right thing to do." Patel strongly suggesting she encouraged the Met to let the vigil go ahead, but not quite saying it.

Caroline Lucas, Greens: "The Met is still obliged to follow the human rights act and execute its powers proportionately and only when necessary and it;s clear to everyone they got it terribly wrong on Saturday night."

"Does she therefore not see that handing over yet more draconian powers to the police when they have so badly misjudged this situation would be both foolish and dangerous."

Patel: "As a country we absolutely believe in freedom of express... through protest as well. But the hon lady has completely misrepresented the proposals we are putting forward.

SPOILER: Lucas described the bill accurately.

Iain Duncan Smith said some stupid shit.

Christ alive, you now the Met fucked up because Ia Paisley is making total sense. "What on earth were the Met police thinking? What on earth happened to police discretion, to proportionality, to flexibility, to empathy, to any sense of self-awareness?"

"Every ingredient of good policing appeared to be completely absent from the policing activity on Clapham Common."

Tory MP Sarah Dinesdoing as she;s told by the whips and asking why Labour are opposing the bill given the sentencing for rape. This is clearly the attack line the Tories have settled on.

Look, I'm not going to say this every time - well, I might, but I will endeavour not to - but this argument is properly despicable. A complete misrepresentation of the legislation and a grotesquely cynical attack on those who would scrutinise it.

Not once so far - not once - has anyone from the government tried to justify the protest provisions. Patel is acting like they don;t exist and this massive bill in fact is composed by one line about rape sentences.

Other ministers have called it "streamlining" old legislation - funny kind of streamlining adding more criteria and powers to existing law. Other pretend it will not affect peaceful protests, which is flatly false.

But not one of them, to my knowledge has even tried to argue for the provisions on silencing protests. They literally will not even try to defend it.

First bit of criticism from Tory benches. Graham Brady - very senior Conservative - wants Patel to work with concerned MPs "to ensure the legislation we're about to pass protects that right of peaceful protest and only stops serious disruption".

If Brady is sincere in that, I would suggest he looks at 54 (4) of the bill. This allows Patel to change the meaning of the phrase "serious disruption" whenever she likes.

The very first demand should be: If you want to change the definition of this term *put it in the fucking bill*. Do not just hand yourself the power to turn it into whatever you like, whenever you like.

Troubling comment from Patel there. A Tory MP suggests some protestors turned aggressive during the vigil, citing a sign that said ACAB (All Coppers Are Bastards).

Patel replies: "A peaceful vigil on Saturday turned into some pretty ugly scene... where individuals were acting inappropriately in the way in which she has said, that'll be subject to consideration too."

Charles Walker, another possible critical Tory vote. "We criminalised the freedom to protest. We are up to our eyeballs in this. Does the home sec agree with me that now is the time to decriminalise freedom of protest."

The lockdown sceptic lunatics seem increasingly to have talked themselves where it is surely impossible for them to vote this bill.

Haha, just joking, they totally will.

The curtains come up on the next act of am-dram V for Vendetta

Dawn Butler, Lab: "Sir Patrick Vallance said it;s clear outdoors is a much lower risk than indoors and it;s difficult to see how outdoor events an cause a spike. So public health was not really the primary driving factor."

James Gray, Con, desperately trying to disassociate the vigil attack from the bill.

"Quite wrong to conflate the perfectly reasonable provisions in the bill which prevent disruptive protests of all kind - prevent people coming into parliament, ambulance, getting in their way - that's a completely different matter."

First, I've been generous by putting comma after ambulance, really he was babbling a lot of gibberish. Second, this is, predictably, entirely wrong. The vigil showed how badly the police can misuse the powers at their disposal. This bill gives them a great deal more powers.

And those powers do not just restrict disruptive protests getting into parliament. It's any that make "noise". Once again: have the courage to make the case for the actual bill you've put forward rather than one you've made up in your head.

End of that statement. I think we go straight into the debate on the bill now.

Sweet God alive another five hours of this to go. I've made a terrible mistake. A terrible, terrible mistake.

Oh no, it's that Grant Shapps chap talking about the National Bus Strategy. Nice of them to let him out of the children's area.

Buses are "far more than just a means of travel... they help us all get about". Thanks for that Grant.

He's said the word bus a lot. I mean even for a statement on buses, he''s really saying it an awful lot.

"Today's strategy marks a new beginning for buses.... we want to put the passenger first... transform our country". It's management-twat-speak on steroids.

Crowds gathering in Parliament Square demanding MPs vote against the bill

https://twitter.com/karlaadam/status/1371513180938240000?s=09

What did we do as a country to deserve the phrase "Bus Back Better".

Patel is back - MPs are now finally going to debate the anti-protest bill.

Patel gives way for the first Tory whip meat puppet question from a Tory MP saying the Labour party is voting against increased sentences for rapists.

Sorry my bad - it wasn't on rapists. it was on assaults against emergency workers.

But of course, the point remains. If the government wanted to pass these provisions, it could have put them in a short focused bill. Instead, they stuffed it full of all sorts of other abysmal ideas.

Murmer of discontent from Tory benches. Patel asked to assure MPs that the bill won't in any way get in the way of the right to cause offence.

Patel: "When it comes to freedom of expression, the rt hon will know my views and those of this govt as well in terms of enshrining those."

Yeah, not so much mate. You're literally presenting a bill which says protesters can't make noise which could have an impact on anyway.

The provisions targeting Gypsies and Travellers apply if the police *suspect* there is *a risk* of them engaging in "offensive conduct". In their case, police can confiscate all their possessions on the basis of that risk.

That includes "insulting words or behaviour". But I have a sneaking suspicion that when supposed free speech Tory MPs talk about the right to cause offence, they're not talking about Gypsies and Travellers.

First "I'll take no lectures from the party opposite" of the night. Drink.

Patel: "Before members opposite start to pre-judge any aspect of this bill.... there'll be plenty of time to debate this bill". In fact, it was published last Tuesday.

I've spent much of the time since talking to civil liberties groups, privacy groups, lawyers, Gypsy and Traveller groups.

It's a huge bill. They are small outfits, understaffed. And they are furiously going through it, but everyone is making sacrifices because of the eye-watering time frame between publication and second reading.

Protest still going outside

https://twitter.com/JoanaRamiroUK/status/1371524360532594694

Patel says current legislation to manage protests is now over 30 years old. Protesters have exploited "gaps in the law" which have led to disruption. She is not hiding the fact that she is targeting Extinction Rebellion.

"This bill will give the police the power to take a more proactive approach". Patel says the "threshold at which police can impose restrictions on the use of noise at a protest is rightfully high". This is false.

In fact, if police *suspect* just one person nearby could be caused “serious unease, alarm or distress”, they can impose restrictions.

The previous Act required protests to be causing “disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation”. The new bill adds the word “impact”,which is neutral and extremely broad.

Patel then justifies her frankly insane culture war nonsense of a max 10 year jail sentence for criminal damage of a memorial.

She's now moved on to the attack on Gypsies and Travellers.

Labour MP: "What consideration has she given to the rights of generations of people, who often have been around longer than our property laws, of travellers and Gypsies who might want to pull up on a road side for a night?

"What consideration for their rights has this bill which will automatically criminalise them been given?"

Patel: "The hon gen will be aware there was an extensive public consultation on this issue and all those points were considered at the time."

This is highly misleading from the home secretary. In fact, there was a majority opposition to the introduction of more punitive powers in the consultation responses.

Patel claims to be speaking for the police force. In reality, the majority of the police forces and Police and Crime Commissioners that responded to the Home Office consultation opposed the proposal to criminalise trespass.

Nick Thomas Symonds, Labour shadow home secretary, gets up to respond.

He says "deep and profound lessons need to be learned" from what happened oat the vigil this weekend.

Saturday's event "brings into sharp focus the proposed measures in this bill about curtailing the right to protest, the right to give public expression to deep feeling, the right to campaign for change."

"On our statute book we already have the 86 Public Order Act together with other existing powers to police protests... this bill significantly expands the conditions that can be imposed on protest". He cites the noise provisions.

This is very good from Symonds. He knows the provisions well - both the low bar and the fact people can be imprisoned if they “ought to know” of the restrictions - ie can be ignorant of them.

Tory MP says "no-one should be able to block an ambulance and if he does why won't he vote for this bill." Symonds rightly replies: "Because the existing laws we have already deal with those issues."

"Our existing laws on protest strike a careful balance between legitimate rights and the need to keep order. What our laws on protest do not and should never do is seek to shield those in power from public criticism and public protest."

"We on these benches will oppose a bill that outs at risk the whole right to protest, hard won by previous generations, that is part of the fabric of British democracy."

"We on these benches stand in a long tradition of British democracy. it is is this government that seeks to undermine those traditions."

Symonds says the bill applies a maximum prison sentence of ten for attacking a statue when rape sentences start at five years. I'm glad he is raising the issue of the statues, where the max sentence is disproportionate. But comparing a max sentence to a starting one is odd.

There is a difference between average sentencing on assault - which may in itself by be too low - and stating the maximum sentence in vandalising a statue. One is what someone on average gets, the other is the top limit of what they can get.

(In reality I would be astonished if anyone is given a ten year sentence for vandalising a memorial."

Tory MP: "I'm watching you go through this bill actually saying for so many things you're welcoming and agreeing with, why on earth have you asked your party to vote against it?"

Such a powerfully stupid thing to say. Symonds just laid out that the bill is a threat to the right of protest in Britain. To then basically say 'yeah so what mate, you like this other bit' shows what you think of the right of protest.

Of course, he other way to look at it is that the govt could simply remove parts 3 and 4 of the bill - on protest and trespass - and Labour would support it.

Iain Duncan smith has said something else stupid.

Symonds reaches the trespass section targeting Gypsies and Travellers. "This is clearly targeted at Gypsy, Roma and traveller communities. And the criminalisation would potentially breach the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act."

He says nine different organisations have written to the home secretary around this - including from ramblers. They warn wild camping might be criminalised.

Symonds was doing so well but then he made a Commons joke and now I must die.

Still, it was a good speech. He focused on the right areas, understood them well and had the right judgement on them.

Theresa May is up. She says she supports a lot of the bill, including the trespass section, unsurprisingly.

She's wary of the stop and search provisions, some elements of serious violence reduction orders, pre-charge bail and - wow - the anti-protest provision. I wasn't expecting that rfom her.

"Freedom of speech is an important right in our democracy, however annoying or uncomfortable that may sometimes be... I do worry about the potential unintended consequences of some of the measures in the bill, which have been drawn quite widely."

Oh god. I agree with Theresa May.

She highlights the wide definitions around noise and nuisance and "the power for the home secretary to make regulations" about serious disruptions.

"It's tempting when home secretary to think that giving powers to home secretary is very reasonable because we all think we're reasonable, but actually future home secretaries may not be so reasonable." I mean, coming from her, that is really rather striking.

She wants a draft of those regulations during the bill so they can all see the power. There is a fine line, May says, "between popular and populist - our freedoms depend on it."

Not only is Theresa May right but she made a good speech fuck my life.

Anne McLaughlin confirms the SNP will vote against the bill. "This bill we're debating today directly contradicts the rights of citizens to protest where when and how they choose."

"That is unacceptable in a democracy, especially one that likes to claim to be a bastion of democracy and has a history of telling the rest of the world ho to behave."

Sorry, have to take a break and order a vegan burger.

Yvette Cooper, Lab, on the protest provisions: "These powers are too broad."

She makes a brilliant point. "When people protested outside the Iranian embassy for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the embassy could well have argued that the protests were disruptive to their activities but none of us would have wanted those protests to be stopped."

She tells the home sec to withdraw those measures and build a consensus on the other measures in the bill.

Harriet Harman gets up. Calls for the govt to make curb crawling an offence and also following, filming etc women on the street as a form of harassment. She is introducing two new clauses on them and calls on govt to accept them.

Philip Davies. Again. In one day. He talks an awful lot. He raises absolutely no concerns whatsoever about the fact the bill silences protesters. This is notable. Because in different contexts Davies has quite the track record in standing up for free speech.

Here's Davies on covid restrictions, for instance: they "serve to restrict people’s freedom". itv.com/news/calendar/…

Here's Davies on free speech in university: "Freedom of speech in this country is something we have long held dear... while I often will disagree with things people say I will always defend their right to say it." thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/19025879.…

Quite the Voltaire right? Yeah, except when the government did actually silence people he did not agree with, Davies said the square root of fuck all.

Alberto Costa, Con, shames himself by defending the provisions targeting Gypsies and Travellers.

Iain Duncan Smith: "I accept there are issues around freedom of speech and the right to assemble, but this overall is a good bill." My what a sentence. Really gives an indications of his moral priorities.

Bear in mind this is a bloke constantly talking for the need for more aggressive action against China. Because of its authoritarianism.

Tonight is a bonfire of superficially held liberal principles.

He is now spending several minutes talking about dog theft.

We're one year into the pandemic, and not one MP has their webcam above eye level.

Right, gonna eat this vegan burger.

It is insane to me, btw, that some of you still eat burgers with meat in them. This shit is far superior.

Also, I've started drinking. It's Iain Duncan Smith's fault. Apologies in advance for the typos to come.

Wera Hobhouse, Lib Dem, brilliant: "If the govt was really serious about protecting women from violence, it would never attempt to silence their protest."

Frank Mancoir - sorry Mark Francois - is up. It will not surprise you to learn that he supports the measures targeting Gypsies and Travellers.

He tells the House these measures have proved very popular with his constituents. Yes how unusual for the majority to support measures oppressing a minority.

Robert Syms, Con, now up to support the measures against Gypsies and Travellers, Just waiting around in a queue to stick the knife in.

Each of them banging on about "unauthorised encampments". In reality, these powers allow the police to confiscate all the possessions of a minority on the basis of their suspicions about their future behaviour while on public land.

Just the worst kind of odious, ignorant, populist, curtain-twitching bullshit.

Andrea Leadsom, you won't be surprised to learn, is also jumping on the bandwagon to celebrate the measures targeting Gypsies and Travellers.

Sweet Christ she just mentions John Stuart Mill the fuck.

She just....

That happened. She deployed John Stuart Mill in an argument which explicitly celebrated "the majority" imposing restrictions on a minority.

It's extremely telling that all Tory arguments for this bill involve highlighting events which are already against the law and then suggesting that the bill is needed to address them.

Several Tory MPs have highlighted the need for the bill to handle Extinction Rebellion closing down a printing press. But that is already covered by the 86 Act, which allowed restrictions for "serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community".

Leadsom said the trespass law was required because Travellers in her local area had engaged in anti-social behaviour.

We already have law against that - it is the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which allowed for removal if anyone "caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words".

So again, not a single minister or Tory MP has tried to defend the *actual provisions* in this bill. They have defended the provisions in bills which were passed decades ago.

Gareth Johnson, Con, just did the same thing: "This legislation.. will allow protests, vigil, demonstrations and marches, but not the blocking of bridges, stopping traffic and bringing cities to a standstil'. Protests yes, serious disruption to others no."

Once again, serious disruption is in the 86 Act. This bill is about noise.

I am now watching the speech by Lee Anderson, Con, and I suspect he might have taken the mantle of the most stupid MP in the Commons.

"Now then, before lockdown residents would often see me sat in the front of a police car going on patrol and supporting our police, which is in sharp contrast to some Labour politicians who have been seen in the back seat of a police car on the way to the station."

I am not making this up. That was something that just happened.

That was a thing he actually said.

Labour's Toby Perkins gets up. "We'll try to get the speeches back to some sense of reality after the nonsense we just heard."

Chris Bryant, Lab: "My worry is about personal freedom. It;s a wooly jumper that snags easily and once snagged can easily unravel. Be very careful about the provisions in here."

"I've been on miners' marches where we sang so loud the walls rocked and been on Pride marches where I wondered who on earth gave a gay man a whistle in the first place. Noise is part of protest and pat of our freedom."

James Sunderland, Con: "To those who claim this bill is anti-libertarian, or even seeks to ban peaceful protest, you;re wrong. This is actually about the silent majority." Incredible.

Like being governed by fucking Nixon.

This is your regular update that not one Tory MP or minister - not a single one - has yet attempted to defend the noise provision.

Yeah I need another drink.

Jonathan Gullis, Con: "The party opposite claim the new law will silence lawful protest., This is simply not the case. In fact the bill simply clarifies the existing common law offence of public nuisance."

Fascinating Jonathan, fascinating. But here's the thing. There's the public nuisance provision in section 59. So tell me: What the fuck are sections 54-58 & 60?

"As a constituent emailed me today said: If you are not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about." Just beyond my wildest predictions about the human capacity for idiocy.

But how are you going to know what the law is, Jonathan, given the bill gives the home secretary the power to change it by statutory instrument? Oh but I forget, those sections don't exist.

It's not so much that I have no political hope at this point, but really that watching this stuff removes all my hope for the human species in general.

All I ask at this stage is that one supporter of the bill defends the protest provisions that are actually in it. That's all. I don't even care how badly. Just make an argument which concerns what's in the bill. I feel this is a reasonable request.

Jane Hunt going for the more-obscure hipster version of the am-dram V for Vendetta show.

Wendy Chamberlain, LD: "My challenge to those on the other side of the House who claimed to be acting in the name of liberty the last few months is this: Will you oppose this bill or does liberty only matter to you when it's your liberty, and not that of those you disagree with?"

Jack Brereton, Con, whose parents allowed him to stay out late tonight for this bill, insists that "Our freedom loving democratic values enshrines rights to peaceful protests. This bill does not curtail that."

Wait for it, any minute now he'll explain how that can possibly be true when the bill allows police to impose severe restrictions on protests which make any noise that might "impact" a single passer-by. Any minute now.

Oh yeah, no. No he didn't.

Literally every Tory MP, like Sara Britcliff right now, justifying the protest provisions mentions protesters gluing themselves to trains and buses, blocking access to hospitals etc. It's the same list, in the same order, every time.

As I've said already, so much in fact that I'm starting to irritate myself, we already have laws for that and this bill does nothing to address it.

But what's telling is it's the same exact order and same exact examples every single time. They are literally reading out the script written for them by the whips.

At least half an hour more of this relentless shitshow to go.

Which room is Tom Randall in? Does one of the doors lead to a bad place?

"In the short time I have this evening, I a unable to cover the breadth of this bill." Sure mate, sure. But you still dedicated a full minute to reading out the exact same words that other Tory MPs said.

Still, I'm absolutely sure you've read it. Never let it be said that Tom Randall does not read a bill shortly before deciding which of his many doors he will walk through.

Stop press. We've found a Tory with a spine. Fiona Bruce. You can tell something's up because she actually mentions the sections she is talking about.

"They would significantly lower the legal test for the police to issue conditions on protest. The phrase 'serious unease' is a significant departure, reducing the test for a threshold of harm to as to potentially capture peaceful protest."

Telling that she mentions anti-abortion protests - aiming the argument against the provisions to those on the right. "It is incumbent on this House to defend those rights, however much he approve or disapprove of those views."

"Removing intentionality from the offence of failing to comply with the condition issued by police on the protest means police will be able to enforce the law based on their subjective interpretation of what the potential offender should have known."

"Without amendment this bill looks like it will potentially increase police apprehension of otherwise lawful speech and could have a profound chilling effect on free speech more widely."

Right, so that's sorted. Fiona Bruce just became my favourite sitting Tory MP (low bar I know, but bear with me - I'm grasping for positives here). That was hugely impressive.

It's not just the arguments - although they were very good, specific and intelligently presented. It's that with all her colleagues doing what they're told, she stood up and showed independence of character, presence of mind and commitment to her stated values.

Back to reality with Antony Higginbotham. Here it comes. Drumroll. "Nothing in this bill alters a person's fundamental right to protest and make their voice heard."

Here's the thing Antony. It quite literally alters their fundamental right to make their voice heard, unless you know a way of doing that without making any noise.

"The right to protest does give anyone the right to block an ambulance going to a hospital". The ambulance! There it is. Aaaand we're back on script.

Richard Drax, doing the voiceover for a villain in a 1970s children's cartoon. "We hear a lot about rights. Now it;s time for responsibilities."

I wonder if anyone's considered making a Tory MP toy, that you can press a button and they say any one of these key dimwit phrases.

Oh thank Christ. It's over until tomorrow.

God knows why I'm doing this to myself. I was baptised Catholic, maybe some kind of latent need for self-punishment is working it;s way through my atheist brain. But I'll be back tomorrow for the next bit of this thing, when we'll get a vote.

On that vote, I don't think there's any reason to have the slightest whiff of hope about those supposed civil liberties supporters on the Tory benches. The only two Tory MPs who showed any sign of having even read the bill were Theresa May and Fiona Bruce.

But at least we can form a concrete list of those Tories who absolutely do not give a fuck about free speech and wave it in their face the next time they claim otherwise. Small blessings, but then that's all there is nowadays. Night all.