*The government is targeting groups such as Extinction Rebellion in its bill*
–
Police will have to assess if buildings are double glazed when deciding whether protests are breaking the law under the government’s crackdown on “noisy” demonstrations.
It is among a range of factors that police must “take into account” when using the powers they will be given under the government’s [Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill](https://archive.ph/2IRrg).
The guidance has been published by the Home Office as the bill reaches its final stages, with ministers hoping it will be on the statute book in weeks.
The government is in a stand-off with the House of Lords, which this week voted down plans to enable police to ban demonstrations that they judge to be too noisy. It is the second time it has defied the government over the measure. Critics warn that it threatens the right to protest because it will allow officers to shut down demonstrations.
The government has said that the changes are necessary to prevent groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain or antivaxers causing disruption. Ministers say that the threshold for imposing noise conditions will be high.
The guidance published with the bill states that when making use of the powers, the police will need to take into account a range of factors, including the “intensity of the impact” of protests.
It states: “An extremely noisy protest outside a large, double-glazed office building is unlikely to have the same impact or cause the same disruption as a similarly noisy protest outside a care home for the elderly, a small GP surgery or small, street-level businesses.”
The guidance says this means that “a noisy protest outside an office with double glazing may not meet the threshold”.
Lord Paddick, a Liberal Democrat peer and former deputy assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan Police, said that the powers could have unintended consequences that would drag police into making political rather than practical decisions.
“You could have a demonstration against the war in Ukraine attracting hundreds of thousands of people who could be banned because police anticipate it to be noisy,” he said. “And then you could get a pro-Russian demonstration, because they’re not going to anticipate many people and it’s allowed.
“Then you get the police dragged into making political decisions rather than practical ones. The police already have the ability to divert marches away from sensitive premises.”
Lord Coaker, a former Labour policing minister, said the guidance exposed the arbitrary nature of the powers being given to police. He told the Lords: “This will be a good advert for the double-glazing companies. You can see the problems the government are having in trying to define what they mean by ‘too noisy’. As soon as you do that, you disappear down a hole. There is an old phrase: ‘If you are in a hole stop digging.’ The government are still digging.”
The Home Office defended the guidance, insisting that it was one of many considerations that the police may have to take into account. “It’s reasonable to suggest that the type of building would have an impact on whether the noise is penetrating it,” a source said.
The government is expected to reinsert the proposals to crack down on noisy protests when the bill returns to the Commons next week. The government has a deadline of early May to pass the bill.
A Home Office spokesman said: “It is perfectly reasonable to suggest the type and construction of a building targeted would impact on the level of outside noise that penetrates through.
“The threshold for imposing conditions based on noise will be high and most protests wouldn’t reach it. But nobody should have unchecked rights to intimidate or endanger the public or prevent hardworking businesses from functioning.”
*Matt Dathan, Home Affairs Editor*
Friday March 25 2022
All these woolly limits and vague measures aren’t designed to be accurate or smart.
They are designed to deliberately muddy the waters to give the police the ability to stop and clear away protests in the name of a vague law **before** anyone can judge whether the protest is legal or not.
An extinction rebellion protest can’t argue the toss on whether or not they are being too loud in the street. It’s completely arbitrary and just gives the police (and government) leeway to get rid of those protests they want.
If a ‘Pro Boris and the Met’ protest broke out with speakers, megaphones and banging pots and pans. I’m sure the Met would be straight down to break it up with riot police on the grounds of it being too noisy. Right?
>The government has said that the changes are necessary to prevent groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain or antivaxers causing disruption.
Future generations are going to be amazed when they read about how we gave up the right to protest just to prevent people from causing traffic jams.
Incredible times.
Shows you how much of a threat ER are to Westminster, fucking crazy times.
4 comments
*The government is targeting groups such as Extinction Rebellion in its bill*
–
Police will have to assess if buildings are double glazed when deciding whether protests are breaking the law under the government’s crackdown on “noisy” demonstrations.
It is among a range of factors that police must “take into account” when using the powers they will be given under the government’s [Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill](https://archive.ph/2IRrg).
The guidance has been published by the Home Office as the bill reaches its final stages, with ministers hoping it will be on the statute book in weeks.
The government is in a stand-off with the House of Lords, which this week voted down plans to enable police to ban demonstrations that they judge to be too noisy. It is the second time it has defied the government over the measure. Critics warn that it threatens the right to protest because it will allow officers to shut down demonstrations.
The government has said that the changes are necessary to prevent groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain or antivaxers causing disruption. Ministers say that the threshold for imposing noise conditions will be high.
The guidance published with the bill states that when making use of the powers, the police will need to take into account a range of factors, including the “intensity of the impact” of protests.
It states: “An extremely noisy protest outside a large, double-glazed office building is unlikely to have the same impact or cause the same disruption as a similarly noisy protest outside a care home for the elderly, a small GP surgery or small, street-level businesses.”
The guidance says this means that “a noisy protest outside an office with double glazing may not meet the threshold”.
Lord Paddick, a Liberal Democrat peer and former deputy assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan Police, said that the powers could have unintended consequences that would drag police into making political rather than practical decisions.
“You could have a demonstration against the war in Ukraine attracting hundreds of thousands of people who could be banned because police anticipate it to be noisy,” he said. “And then you could get a pro-Russian demonstration, because they’re not going to anticipate many people and it’s allowed.
“Then you get the police dragged into making political decisions rather than practical ones. The police already have the ability to divert marches away from sensitive premises.”
Lord Coaker, a former Labour policing minister, said the guidance exposed the arbitrary nature of the powers being given to police. He told the Lords: “This will be a good advert for the double-glazing companies. You can see the problems the government are having in trying to define what they mean by ‘too noisy’. As soon as you do that, you disappear down a hole. There is an old phrase: ‘If you are in a hole stop digging.’ The government are still digging.”
The Home Office defended the guidance, insisting that it was one of many considerations that the police may have to take into account. “It’s reasonable to suggest that the type of building would have an impact on whether the noise is penetrating it,” a source said.
The government is expected to reinsert the proposals to crack down on noisy protests when the bill returns to the Commons next week. The government has a deadline of early May to pass the bill.
A Home Office spokesman said: “It is perfectly reasonable to suggest the type and construction of a building targeted would impact on the level of outside noise that penetrates through.
“The threshold for imposing conditions based on noise will be high and most protests wouldn’t reach it. But nobody should have unchecked rights to intimidate or endanger the public or prevent hardworking businesses from functioning.”
*Matt Dathan, Home Affairs Editor*
Friday March 25 2022
All these woolly limits and vague measures aren’t designed to be accurate or smart.
They are designed to deliberately muddy the waters to give the police the ability to stop and clear away protests in the name of a vague law **before** anyone can judge whether the protest is legal or not.
An extinction rebellion protest can’t argue the toss on whether or not they are being too loud in the street. It’s completely arbitrary and just gives the police (and government) leeway to get rid of those protests they want.
If a ‘Pro Boris and the Met’ protest broke out with speakers, megaphones and banging pots and pans. I’m sure the Met would be straight down to break it up with riot police on the grounds of it being too noisy. Right?
>The government has said that the changes are necessary to prevent groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain or antivaxers causing disruption.
Future generations are going to be amazed when they read about how we gave up the right to protest just to prevent people from causing traffic jams.
Incredible times.
Shows you how much of a threat ER are to Westminster, fucking crazy times.