Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
 Badger

New policing bill: Criminalising traditional fan behaviour?

Recommended Posts

Cheers for this Badger. It really is a worry that the government are trying to smuggle this dreadfully repressive bill through while we are being distracted by Covid. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a creeping attempt across the UK to make some of the vaguest stuff criminal giving police worryingly broad powers. This bill wants to police 'inconvenience ', in Scotland you've got a bill that wants to make offending someone criminal. It's grim.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, king canary said:

There is a creeping attempt across the UK to make some of the vaguest stuff criminal giving police worryingly broad powers. This bill wants to police 'inconvenience ', in Scotland you've got a bill that wants to make offending someone criminal. It's grim.

Imagine going to jail for making a joke at the dinner table with your family that upsets your gran.

 

Just SNP things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the blue rinse cauliflower brigade at Tory party conferences who thought those nasty football people should  be flogged had all died but obviously they speak from the grave.

if you sing the traditional OTBC, KICK OFF, THROW IT IN you could find yourself hauled out of the ground.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This bill is really terrible on so many different issues. The one that affects me the most personally is now if I park my campervan next to another one I'm part of an 'illegal encampment' and I can have my vehicle confiscated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In my experience it’s the older folk with some of their more, let’s say, ‘outdated’ opinions, that need to be most concerned about causing offence...can you imagine the police showing up to arrest a 90 year-old going on about ‘darkies’ or whatever at a family gathering [obv no offence meant here!]?!

Edited by Branston Pickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The really concerning thing about the bill is the amount of discretion that it gives. I cannot imagine that the police will welcome the vagueness of the wording which will give them a real headache.

Ridiculously serious annoyance, disruption, unease or alarm could be deemed criminal - you could accuse a group of people hanging around together before a match (or in any other context) as causing "unease" and therefore criminalise the activity. The same could be said of a crowd gathering to celebrate promotion or a cup win. The Police already have the power of dispersal and can prevent processions if they believe they will result in "serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community."

The extra powers seem unnecessary and could see mass travel to away games deemed illegal - this may not be the intent - but I'm not quite sure what the intent is. What does the govt want the police to be able to do that they can't currently?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Police already have sufficient powers and I cannot remember when they could not carry out their duties due to insufficient powers. In my mind this is more flag sha..ing, with the added advantage of eroding our rights as a nation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Badger said:

The really concerning thing about the bill is the amount of discretion that it gives. I cannot imagine that the police will welcome the vagueness of the wording which will give them a real headache.

Ridiculously serious annoyance, disruption, unease or alarm could be deemed criminal - you could accuse a group of people hanging around together before a match (or in any other context) as causing "unease" and therefore criminalise the activity. The same could be said of a crowd gathering to celebrate promotion or a cup win. The Police already have the power of dispersal and can prevent processions if they believe they will result in "serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community."

The extra powers seem unnecessary and could see mass travel to away games deemed illegal - this may not be the intent - but I'm not quite sure what the intent is. What does the govt want the police to be able to do that they can't currently?

 

Spot on! It seems this government has been watching the behaviour of the Chinese and Myanmar governments and thought "We could do with a bit of that". I always thought it was supposed to be a foundational principle of Conservatism to limit the powers of the state over an individual's freedom to an absolute minimum. Seems we have a very new sort of Conservative government that believes the absolute opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An egregious clampdown on liberties masquerading as a combination of pandemic protection and "being tough with law'n'order".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Spot on! It seems this government has been watching the behaviour of the Chinese and Myanmar governments and thought "We could do with a bit of that". I always thought it was supposed to be a foundational principle of Conservatism to limit the powers of the state over an individual's freedom to an absolute minimum. Seems we have a very new sort of Conservative government that believes the absolute opposite.

I think you might be conflating economic conservatism with social conservatism there. Social conservatives certainly don't hide from wanting the law to be used to buttress things they don't like - gay marriage being a particularly fine example (or indeed immigration on occasion!).

Also, never forget that with some old-fashioned borderline evangelical sorts, what they can't get into law, they just try to make socially unacceptable instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Badger said:

The really concerning thing about the bill is the amount of discretion that it gives. I cannot imagine that the police will welcome the vagueness of the wording which will give them a real headache.

Ridiculously serious annoyance, disruption, unease or alarm could be deemed criminal - you could accuse a group of people hanging around together before a match (or in any other context) as causing "unease" and therefore criminalise the activity. The same could be said of a crowd gathering to celebrate promotion or a cup win. The Police already have the power of dispersal and can prevent processions if they believe they will result in "serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community."

The extra powers seem unnecessary and could see mass travel to away games deemed illegal - this may not be the intent - but I'm not quite sure what the intent is. What does the govt want the police to be able to do that they can't currently?

 

The early days of lockdown showed the police can be a bit...'over enthusiastic' in enforcing powers that are a bit vague. At that point there were almost daily stories of police overreach (searching shopping trollies anyone?) so the idea of giving them powers that are enforced based around 'discretion' is not something that fills me with confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I think you might be conflating economic conservatism with social conservatism there. Social conservatives certainly don't hide from wanting the law to be used to buttress things they don't like - gay marriage being a particularly fine example (or indeed immigration on occasion!).

Also, never forget that with some old-fashioned borderline evangelical sorts, what they can't get into law, they just try to make socially unacceptable instead.

Not quite I don't think, as I'm talking about the rhetoric of what they claim are the fundamental principles of what the Conservative Party stands for. You're spot on that there has always been this contradiction at the heart of the Conservatism, and many of its adherents simply ignore its existence, or pretend that individual liberty isn't at all compromised by such (moral) "social" conservatism. Whether it be financial or social, "true" Tories will always claim that a principle of the freedom of the individual from state interference is fundamental. That you are right that this claim is incoherent and hypocritical in actual practice is not something they seem to worry about too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Not quite I don't think, as I'm talking about the rhetoric of what they claim are the fundamental principles of what the Conservative Party stands for. You're spot on that there has always been this contradiction at the heart of the Conservatism, and many of its adherents simply ignore its existence, or pretend that individual liberty isn't at all compromised by such (moral) "social" conservatism. Whether it be financial or social, "true" Tories will always claim that a principle of the freedom of the individual from state interference is fundamental. That you are right that this claim is incoherent and hypocritical in actual practice is not something they seem to worry about too much.

I think it's the inverse of what Karl Pöpper would basically state - there's a glorious paradox within more liberal strains of thought that at some point, borders have to be set regarding tolerating (or indeed not tolerating) what is considered intolerant.

This is essentially the conservative version. By all means take the state out of things where possible... to what extent?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Badger said:

The really concerning thing about the bill is the amount of discretion that it gives. I cannot imagine that the police will welcome the vagueness of the wording which will give them a real headache.

Ridiculously serious annoyance, disruption, unease or alarm could be deemed criminal - you could accuse a group of people hanging around together before a match (or in any other context) as causing "unease" and therefore criminalise the activity. The same could be said of a crowd gathering to celebrate promotion or a cup win. The Police already have the power of dispersal and can prevent processions if they believe they will result in "serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community."

The extra powers seem unnecessary and could see mass travel to away games deemed illegal - this may not be the intent - but I'm not quite sure what the intent is. What does the govt want the police to be able to do that they can't currently?

 

Absolutely, any enforcement agency wants clear and well drafted legal powers, unambiguous and clearly defined boundries leaving not too many grey areas for subsequent challenge. There always has to be some room for discretion but we have seen too often that there are a few clowns in the police force, just as there are in any walk of life, who have questionable judgement. Keep discretion to a minimum. Also of course if you leave too much discretion and things go **** up, I wonder how many chief constables will be able to rely on political support from their masters, putting the police in an impossible position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...