.@GallagherGRT on the Bill's impact on the Rights of the Child, "this Bill is a dangerous presence to children's development"... arguing that Gypsy and Traveller children are going to face a lot more hate and discrimination, because it's bad enough for how it currently stands.
.@mwillersqc "Public authorities have a duty to take account of humanitarian considerations - there is existing public guidance for local authorities issued by the [SoS of @mhclg] that explains that welfare considerations need to be taken into account." (1/4)
"The police also have guidance... before they take the decision to issue a direction and indeed subsequently arrest for failure to comply with the direction, public officials and law enforcement officers will, no doubt, take into account that guidance." (2/4)
"Ultimately though, if the decision is taken to direct Gypsies and Travellers to leave, [Gypsies and Travellers] would find it very difficult to not comply. Indeed, they would end up before a magistrate and ultimately have their vehicle [read: home] seized. (3/4)
"We know, the police are not asking for increased or strengthened powers - the vast majority of police forces say that the powers are sufficient. What is needed is more sites, temporary, transit and permit. (4/END)
🔴Treated as 2nd-class citizens;
🔴Chased from pillar-to-post despite having nowhere to stop, thanks to 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act;
🔴Locked into a cycle of trespass, evictions, race hate and discrimination.
🟠Local authority failures on their obligations;
🟠The Caravan Sites Act and the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order;
🟠The never-ending cycle of having nowhere to stop and being forced from pillar-to-post, "effectively on a road to nowhere".
WATCH📺: On Tuesday, @mwillersqc of @gardencourtlaw outlined to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee the difficulty that will arise from the Bill's vague definitions and the potential no recourse to justice for Gypsies and Travellers. (1/5)
On the vague terms, @mwillersqc said, "...the problem with Part 4 [of the Bill] and the speculation as to whether or not definitions will become crystallised in litigation is that most Gypsies and Travellers will have left the site and will be unable to challenge... (2/5)
...the decision by a police officer to arrest them, given the scenario that would play out under Section 60c. A Gypsy or Traveller...parking on a piece of land with their family...is not going to hang around when threatened with seizure of their vehicle [read: home]... (3/5)
Chair of @PoliceChiefs, Martin Hewitt, gave evidence yesterday to a parliamentary cmte scrutinising the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
Mr Hewitt said, "...Our point fundamentally, as the NPCC group, is that the issue here is the lack of [site] provision". (1/4)
Thank you to @lizziedearden for this write-up on the National Police Chiefs Council view that new powers are not needed, but instead, we need increased provision of sites. (2/4)
Our research has previously shown that the overwhelming majority of police responses to the Government’s 2018 consultation did not want more eviction powers. (3/4)
.@mwillersqc "what the [Gov] are effectively doing in Part 4 of the Bill is creating...'no-go' zones which the Court of Appeal has ruled would fundamentally breach [Human Rights legislation]"
Again, @mwillersqc, "A Gypsy or Traveller parking on land with their family is not going to hang around when threatened with seizure of their vehicle... &[if they tried to argue their case] they would probably not get Legal Aid to challenge...the Section and prosecution. (1/2)
(cont.) In those circumstances, we're probably unlikely to see much, if any, judicial consideration of the vague terms in Part 4." (2/END)
For decades, the Government has failed to identify enough space for Travellers to live and now the Home Secretary is planning to jail, fine and remove the homes of innocent people for the ‘crime’ of having nowhere to go. (1/4)
Against this backdrop, the Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities is handing out leaflets on “dealing with traveller incursions” to win votes at election time. The language is disgraceful, but the issue is so much more than language - it’s the whole approach. (2/4)
It is as cruel as it is illogical to campaign for roadside camps to be “dealt with” when the shortage of places to stop is so severe. We need transit pitches, permanent pitches and negotiated stopping in place - why do we never see that printed on any election leaflets? (3/4)
Politics is already rife with anti-Traveller racism and for a 'Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities' to be doing this is completely beyond the pale.
To then argue that it was a case of not knowing what 'incursions' means is utterly baffling. (2/8)