Thread by @libertyhq

On Monday the House of Lords can bin some of the most dangerous and discriminatory anti-protest measures in Gov's #PolicingBill.

🗳️Liberty's voting guide for Peers⬇️

The #PolicingBill allows police to put conditions on a protest if they reasonably believe the noise generated may seriously disrupt an organisation in the area or may "have a significant and relevant impact on persons in the vicinity".

This has to go.

Noise is - LITERALLY - how we make our voices heard.

Noise might also simply be a result of the number of people at the protest - like the 100s of 1000s who took to the streets for the countryside march, or to oppose the Iraq War.

This huge expansion of police power enables officers to make judgment calls, no doubt leading to major inconsistencies where some protests are clamped down on and others go ahead.

And despite being meant to facilitate protest, police often prioritise people not involved in demos

And police haven't shown support for it.

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services didn't call for it when responding to Home Office proposals.

And Nat. Police Chiefs' Council didn't advocate for it when giving evidence to the Human Rights Committee.

The #PolicingBill creates Protest Banning Orders that stop people:

🔘associating with certain people
🔘going to certain places
🔘carrying certain items
🔘using the internet in a certain way

for up to 2 years but can be renewed indefinitely.

They must be scrapped.

Breach of an SDPO can be punished by either:

1⃣up to 51 weeks in prison
2⃣fine
3⃣both

They can be imposed on conviction of an offence OR NOT.

Court has to believe it's necessary reasons incl:

🔘stopping protest-related offences
🔘stopping potential serious disruption
🔘stopping them contributing to someone else committing an offence or causing serious disruption

ON CONVICTION

Banning Orders on conviction can be given by a court to an adult who's committed a protest-related offence in the last 5years.

The current offence and earlier offence must relate to different protests or have been committed on different days.

NOT ON CONVICTION

Banning Orders can also be given by a magistrate when applied for by a listed police officer.

List includes a chief police officer in the area where the person lives, and a chief officer who simply believes the person is in, or intends to come to, their area.

Before the Mags Ct can impose an order, it has to be satisfied that on at least 2 occasions in the last 5years, the person has either
🔘been convicted of a protest-related offence
🔘carried out protest acts likely to cause serious disruption
🔘contributed to someone else doing so

The conditions for imposing imposing a banning order and taking away a person's fundamental right to protest (eg contributing to someone else causing serious disruption) are extremely broad and vague.

measures like this aren't supported by the police *or even the Home Office*

When consulted on similar protest banning orders, they said:

"Such orders would neither be compatible with human rights legislation nor create an effective deterrent"

And police said banning orders "unnecessarily curtail people’s democratic right to protest".

Banning Orders appear to be based on a model of preventative justice - particularly concerning because someone might be stopped from attending future protests for twice 'contributing to another person's protest-related acts that were *likely* to result in serious disruption'

So didn't do anything themselves, and the activities were only *likely* to cause serious disruption.

The terms for protest banning orders are so broad they can catch any and all protest activities.

Banning orders aren't just about stopping people protesting.

If we think about what makes up a movement, it's the community, the relationships people develop, the regular meetings in places of safety, the safety that comes from carrying legal advice cards at demos.

THIS is what these measures are targeting: political community.

They have to go.

The #PolicingBill drastically expands stop and search in relation to protests.

These proposals must be scrapped

The #PolicingBill will enable police to stop and search a person or vehicle if they reasonably suspect they’ll find an item intended for use in connection a protest-related offence, incl:

🔘wilful obstruction of the highway
🔘locking on
🔘obstructing major transport works

The list of objects that could be "made, adapted, or intended for use in the course of or in connection with" the listed offences is potentially endless and could include placards, fliers and banners.

The police can seize any prohibited item – and can therefore derail a protest before it even gets going.

This is a huge expansion of stop and search powers which are already used disproportionately against people of colour.

Latest stats show Black people are 7 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. Expanding these powers will further entrench discrimination

There's no consensus among police that these powers are necessary or desirable.

When asked about the proposal by @HMICFRS, one police officer stated that "a little inconvenience is more acceptable than a police state". HMICFRS agreed.

A police officer of or above the rank of inspector can authorise police officers to stop and search a vehicle of person WITHOUT SUSPICION in a particular place for a specified period of time.

They can do this under the following conditions...

1⃣They reasonably believe

🔘wilful obstruction of the highway that's capable of causing serious disruption to 2 or more ppl or an organisation
🔘intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance
🔘locking on
🔘obstruction of major transport works

may be committed in that area

OR

2⃣if the senior officer reasonably believes that people are carrying prohibited objects.

AND

3⃣the officer reasonably believes:

🔘the authorisation is necessary to prevent the above offences, or the carrying of prohibited items
🔘the specified locality is no greater than is necessary, and
🔘the specific period is no longer than is necessary

A prohibited item is an object which:

🔘is made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence related to the listed offences

OR

🔘is intended by the person who has it in their possession for such use by them or someone else

All protests risk causing public nuisance, so in reality this allows police to whack suspicion-less stop and search measures onto any demo.

And then seize any ‘prohibited’ items – which mentioned above could incl placards, banners, basically anything used during a protest

And when the need for suspicion is removed, Black people are 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched by police than white people.

These powers will worsen discriminatory policing of people of colour.

Peers must vote against these plans.

The #PolicingBill creates a new offence if you

1⃣attach yourself to another person, an object, or land
2⃣attach someone else to another person, an object, or land
3⃣attach an object to another object or to land

and it's capable of causing serious disruption to 2 or more ppl

The punishment for locking could be:

1⃣up to 51 weeks in prison
2⃣a fine
3⃣both

There are some serious issues with this proposal.

What does 'attach' mean? It's not defined, so it's unclear how ‘permanent’ the attachment has to be.

Could linking arms count as attaching yourself to another person, for example?

Either way it looks set to criminalise a wide range of acts, like chaining wheelchairs to traffic lights as disabled rights activists did in 2012, or chaining yourself to a tree.

And attaching an object to another object or land could could criminalise the use of some props at protests.

Not to mention it goes against established case law that people have a right to choose how to protest.

And police don't even want a 'locking on' offence.

Source: page 125 of this justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-con…

This plan's one for the bin.

You don't need to 'lock on' to commit an offence, because the #PolicingBill makes 'being equipped to lock on' another new crime.

So an item which is fine to carry anywhere else could suddenly be prohibited because you're near a protest.

Peers need to chuck this out too.

The #PolicingBill makes it an offence to "interfere with the use or operation of any key national infrastructure in England and Wales", incl:

🔘road transport
🔘rail
🔘air transport
🔘harbour
🔘downstream oil
🔘and newspaper printing infrastructure

Peers must vote against this.

Our right to choose how we protest is confirmed in case law, but this event targets specific direct action tactics - such as those used by the Stansted 15 - that are used to protect rights.

The Home Secretary will also have the power to edit and add to the list of "key national infrastructure", enabling them to change it as and when to effectively crush protests they don't like.

Get rid.

The #PolicingBill will increase the punishment for wilfully obstructing the highway from a fine to

1⃣up to 51 weeks in prison
2⃣a fine
3⃣both

Heavy punishments will prevent people exercising their fundamental right to protest.

Peers must vote against.

The #PolicingBill will make it an offence to obstruct someone from taking any steps connected to the construction or maintenance of any major transport works.

Or to interfere with "any apparatus" relating to that construction or maintenance.

The punishment for committing this offence will be either:

1⃣up to 51 weeks in prison
2⃣fine
3⃣both

This potentially criminalises A LOT of actions because the offence doesn't just cover obstructing the actual construction.

It also covers obstructing *any steps in connection with* the construction or maintenance of any major transport works.

It’s so vaguely worded that it could essentially be a catch-all offence.

Peers must vote against it.