Beginning his working life in the aviation industry and trained by the BBC, Tony Gosling is a British land rights activist, historian & investigative radio journalist. Over the last 20 years he has been exposing the secret power of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and élite Bilderberg Conferences where the dark forces of corporations, media, banks and royalty conspire to accumulate wealth and power through extortion and war. Tony has spent much of his life too advocating solutions which heal the wealth divide, such as free housing for all and a press which reflects the concerns of ordinary people rather than attempting to lead opinion, sensationalise or dumb-down. Tony tweets at @TonyGosling. Tune in to his Friday politics show at BCfm.
A landmark ruling today marks the end of wide anti-Traveller injunctions against persons unknown. The judgment harshly criticises the use of wide injunctions as a blanket ban against Gypsies and Travellers who have nowhere to stop.
Charities including Friends, Families and Travellers, London Gypsies and Travellers and the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups who acted as interveners in the case with legal representation from Garden Court Chambers and Community Law Partnership are today celebrating the good news.
The judgment builds on a previous ruling, which found in January last year that borough-wide injunctions are inherently problematic and they comprise a potential breach of both the [European] Convention [on Human Rights] and the Equality Act.
Responding to the news, Emma Bray, Outreach Worker and Campaigns Officer at Friends, Families and Travellers said:
Since my early childhood I have always had a feeling of being invisible or a thorn in the foot for councils and officials. With constant evictions and never being consulted on policies that directly affect our lives added to this feeling so todays decision gives me hope for my childrens futures.
In his judgement today, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that wide injunctions can only be granted against individuals who can be named or properly identified. Councils need to demonstrate they have notified them about the legal proceedings. Secondly, he ruled that wide injunctions cannot apply to anyone who was not notified about the final Court hearing. This means that any Gypsies or Travellers who come on the land at a later date will not be covered by the injunction.
He also highlighted that a significant number of the [] Claims were allowed to go to sleep following the grant of an interim injunction, and no local authority, which had been granted a Traveller Injunction, took steps to return claims to Court for reconsideration following the decisions of LB Bromley and Canada Goose.
Reflecting on the news, Mattey Mitchell, who is Romany and a Campaigns Officer at Friends, Families and Travellers said:
This is a wonderful victory for justice, fairness and equality in a nation that prides itself on these values. Collective punishment should be a thing of the past, especially when it impacts communities already facing such harsh inequalities. Justice Nicklins judgement today is a breath of fresh air in what can sometimes feel like a hopelessly hostile environment.
At the High Court hearing in January 2021, 13 councils from across England defended their wide injunctions. Friends, Families and Travellers, London Gypsies and Travellers and the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups acted as interveners in the case with legal representation from Garden Court Chambers and Community Law Partnership. Following the judgment today, it is likely that all injunctions against persons unknown will be discharged.
The ruling also has serious implications for the current Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which seeks to criminalise the nomadic way of life, and could be used in a legal challenge if the Bill becomes law.
Responding to the news, Abbie Kirkby, Public Affairs and Policy Manager at Friends, Families and Travellers said:
The inhumane approach of acquiring an injunction against all Gypsies and Travellers has once against been recognised by the courts as being unlawful. We are pleased, as joint interveners in the case, to have had the opportunity to assist the court in understanding the discriminatory and disproportionate nature of these injunctions, which are a symptom of the complete failure by local authorities to identify suitable land on which Gypsies and Travellers can stop. This judgment comes at a particularly crucial time as measures which essentially criminalise encampments are set to be introduced in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. There are common sense solutions to addressing the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers, that work with families, not against them.
Adding to this, Debby Kennett, Chief Executive of London Gypsies and Travellers said:
We are proud to be involved in this hugely important case which scrutinised the catch-all injunctions which have effectively banned Gypsies and Travellers from stopping in large areas of the country. It has been a long process and this final hearing was a result of councils ignoring the Bromley and Canada Goose judgments. They have now been seriously criticised for doing so. The judgment reinforces the fact that Gypsies and Travellers have the right to a nomadic way of life and we continue to push for positive alternatives to evictions and injunctions.
Commenting on the case, Marc Willers QC, Garden Courts Chambers, said:
Mr Justice Nicklins judgment is a tour de force and will be required reading for any lawyer practising in this field. The decision reaffirms the fundamental principle that final injunctions do not bind non-parties. The Judge rejected the submission that injunctions against Gypsies and Travellers were an exception to this rule. The decision also emphasises the need for rigorous compliance with the rules of civil procedure, with the Judge concluding that there were grounds to suspect that there had been material and serious breaches of procedure in a significant number of cases brought by local authorities. The judgment also recognises the right of Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers to respect for their cultural traditions, including their enshrined right to travel, as emphasised by Lord Justice Coulson in the Bromley case in 2020.
Critics say bill unveiled in Queen’s speech to spur housebuilding will bring ‘dark age of development’
Ministers are expected to enact a radical shift by zoning land either for growth or protection.
A dramatic loosening of planning laws to create a housebuilding boom will damage local democracy and destroy swathes of countryside by granting property developers a freer hand to build over green fields, planning experts have warned.
The new laws, part of the government’s “Project Speed” to accelerate infrastructure projects, are intended to increase the number of homes being planned by more than a third, and were announced in the Queen’s speech. But critics described them as “an utter disaster” which would return the country to “a deregulated dark age of development”.
Ministers are expected to enact a radical shift in the way decisions are made on new developments by zoning land either for growth, where developers will be allowed to build homes and related infrastructure such as schools and hospitals without individual planning consents, or protection where development will be restricted.
It wants to boost home ownership in areas of increasing Conservative support in northern England and the Midlands and will use post-Brexit freedoms to “simplify … environmental assessments for developments”.
It said there will be stronger rules on design – but countryside campaigners warned the changes would lead to the “suburbanisation” of the countryside and “rural sprawl” without delivering much-needed affordable housing.
The councils body the Local Government Information Unit said the changes would “leave local government with the political liability on planning whilst depriving them … of the powers to manage it effectively”.
The Queen’s speech did not include a bill to improve regulation of social housing despite a government white paper last year. Grenfell United, which represents the bereaved and survivors of the 2017 council block disaster, said it was “deeply let down” at the failure to “redress the balance of power between social housing tenants and landlords”.
Plans to reform leaseholds went as far as a new bill so leaseholders of new, long residential leases cannot be charged a financial ground rent for no tangible service. But there was no plan for helping current leaseholders pay up to £10bn in fire safety costs from faults discovered after Grenfell.
Announcing a planning bill that is expected to be the most radical since the 1948 Town and Country Planning Act, the government promised “simpler, faster procedures for producing local development plans, approving major schemes, assessing environmental impacts and negotiating affordable housing and infrastructure contributions”.
But Fiona Howie, the chief executive of the Town and Country Planning Association, said: “It is disappointing that the government’s narrative has focused, once again, solely on housing numbers. If we are truly committed to building back better, we need the built environment to support communities to thrive.”
She also said the bill must “ensure planning radically reduces our carbon emissions”, describing the legislation as the “last chance”.
The moves were described as an “utter disaster” by the Lancashire, Liverpool city region and Greater Manchester branch of the CPRE charity, which lobbies to protect the countryside.
“We will see a lot more houses on greenfield land and in areas of outstanding natural beauty,” said Debra McConnell, the chair of the branch. “The people in the north of England need these green spaces for their wellbeing.”
The CPRE also warned the bill, which will largely apply only in England, ran counter to the proposed environmental bill and would “take us back to a deregulated dark age of development”. It fears most of the new homes are unlikely to be low-cost or affordable.
[end]
Since Margaret Thatchers introduction of paramilitary policing in the Miners Strike (1984), Battle of the Beanfield (1985) and Wapping print workers dispute (1986) the number of UK ‘Bobbys on the beat’ has fallen to virtually zero.
Policing has become more arbitrary during the Coronavirus Act (2020-21) period where unprecedented intrusion into peoples homes on the rumour there may be an unauthorised visitor, and violent police action against certain types of demonstration, while facilitating others, has led many to point out that the British police have become a political force.
So here is a selection of the lawyer and traveller groups’ responses to, and briefings on, the bill.
The Good Law Project has summed the failings of the bill up as follows.
• The police already have a wide range of powers to deal with protests.
• The Bill marks a “significant departure” from the historic approach to the policing of protests under the Public Order Act 1986.
• The advice shares our concern that the Secretary of State has the power to effectively prohibit “entire classes or types of protests” and has the power to set a low bar for what constitutes ‘significant disruption’ to the community or organisation – although how that power will be exercised remains to be seen. This includes defining the phrase in ways that would cover a picket or trade union demonstrations (even though their very purpose may be to cause disruption in order to draw attention to concerns around working conditions).
• The Bill broadens the circumstances in which police can impose restrictions on public processions and assemblies, including the introduction of a new “noise” criterion. All of this is likely to have a chilling effect on protests.
• Whether or not the legislation is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) may well depend on the restrictions imposed in specific circumstances, but the new provisions increase the possibility of protests being regulated in ways that could interfere with the rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR.
But these proposals, deeply concerning as they are, risk overshadowing the more immediate danger of the controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (the “PCSC Bill”) being pushed through without robust opposition. The Bill is set to return to the House of Commons in the next couple of weeks for what is known as the Committee Stage.
We commissioned advice from Phillippa Kaufmann QC and Anita Davies at Matrix Chambers on the part of the Bill that deals with protest rights, and we promised we would publish that advice. It can now be accessed here.
The advice confirms some of our deep worries about the protest provisions in the Bill, but also highlights that the defining battle will be around how the Home Secretary exercises her powers under the Bill to define certain key phrases such as ‘significant disruption’. The definitions of these key terms will effectively set the tone for how protests are policed from now on.
Below are some of the key findings from the advice.
The police already have a wide range of powers to deal with protests.
The Bill marks a “significant departure”from the historic approach to the policing of protests under the Public Order Act 1986.
The advice shares our concern that the Secretary of State has the power to effectively prohibit “entire classes or types of protests” and has the power to set a low bar for what constitutes ‘significant disruption’to the community or organisation – although how that power will be exercised remains to be seen. This includes defining the phrase in ways that would cover a picket or trade union demonstrations (even though their very purpose may be to cause disruption in order to draw attention to concerns around working conditions).
The Bill broadens the circumstances in which police can impose restrictions on public processions and assemblies, including the introduction of a new “noise” All of this is likely to have a chilling effect on protests.
Whether or not the legislation is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) may well depend on the restrictions imposed in specific circumstances, but the new provisions increase the possibility of protests being regulated in ways that could interfere with the rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR.
And that’s just the protest provisions. There are, of course, other aspects of the Bill that should concern all of us – including the proposed criminalisation of trespass in a way that disproportionately impacts Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) communities, and the fact that the plans for policing and sentencing are likely to further entrench racial inequality in the criminal justice system.
We are continuing to speak to MPs on both sides of the aisle to highlight our concerns. But if the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, introduces regulations of the sort anticipated, Good Law Project will bring or support legal action, alongside other civil society watchdogs, to try to stem our alarming slide towards authoritarianism.
It is only with your support that we can continue to hold Government to account. If you would like to make a donation, you can do so here.
1. THE PROPOSALS
In November 2019 the Home Office launched a consultation entitled ‘Strengthening police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments’. On 8th March 2021, the Government finally produced their response to that consultation and you can find that response here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/strengthening-police-powers-to-tackle-unauthorised-encampments/outcome/government-response-to-the-consultation-strengthening-police-powers-to-tackle-unauthorised-encampments-accessible-version. After publishing the response, the following day the Government included the new criminal offence of trespass in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (PCSCB) which has already had its Second Reading on 15th and 16th March 2021. You can find the Bill here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0268/200268.pdf.
This new criminal offence, and the other proposed changes to the existing provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) 1994, cover both England and Wales.
In summary, the PCSCB will make it a criminal offence for someone with a vehicle residing or intending to reside on land without the consent of the occupier of the land to fail to comply with a request to leave the land in a case where that person’s residence or intended residence has caused or is likely to cause significant disruption, damage, or distress. If the person fails to leave the land or, having left, re-enters it, he or she can be arrested and his or her vehicle (i.e. his or her home) can be impounded.
2. WOULD THE CRIMINALISATION OF TRESPASS BE LAWFUL?
It seems to us that the proposed criminalisation amounts to an unlawful breach of Articles 8 and 14 ECHR. Article 8 enshrines the right to respect for a person’s private and family life and home. This includes his or her traditional way of life. Article 14 contains the right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of other Convention rights. The measure is an obvious interference with the nomadic way of life of Gypsies and Travellers and is also obviously discriminatory against these minorities. It is difficult to see how the measure is proportionate in light of the concerns set out below and especially the following factors:
(i) Alternative Sites
Many Gypsies and Travellers still have to resort to unauthorised encampments because of the continuing lack of permanent and transit site provision (including emergency stopping places) in England and Wales and a collective failure by national and local government over many years to develop arrangements such as ‘negotiated stopping agreements’ which would ensure that lawful stopping sites were provided.
(ii) The Government’s positive obligation to protect Gypsies and Travellers’ traditional way of life
In Chapman v UK [2001] 33 EHRR 399, the European Court of Human Rights stated:
…the vulnerable position of gypsies as a minority means that some special consideration should be given to their needs and their different lifestyle both in the relevant regulatory planning framework and in reaching decisions in particular cases…To this extent, there is thus a positive obligation imposed on the Contracting States by virtue of Article 8 to facilitate the gypsy way of life… (para 96)
In the case of London Borough of Bromley v Persons Unknown, London Gypsies and Travellers and Others [2020] EWCA Civ 12, the Court of Appeal, in upholding the refusal of the High Court Judge to grant Bromley a wide injunction against Gypsies and Travellers, stated:
Finally, it must be recognised that the cases…make plain that the Gypsy and Traveller community have an enshrined freedom not to stay in one place but to move from one place to another. An injunction which prevents them from stopping at all in a defined part of the UK comprises a potential breach of both the Convention and the Equality Act… (para 109).
(iii) The lack of public support for the measure
It is clear from the Government’s response to the consultation the majority of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposed measures.
(iv) The lack of Police support for the measure
It is particularly significant that the majority of Police forces that responded to the Government’s consultation exercise did not want greater powers.
(v) Chilling effect
The Government suggest that the legislation is only designed to address encampments that cause ‘disruption or distress’.
First, we find their explanation somewhat disingenuous. In their Frequently Asked Questions factsheet it is stated at page 4:
The Government’s view is that criminalisation of intentional residence on land without consent and the extension of existing powers in 1994 Act will provide Police with sufficient powers to effectively and efficiently enforce against a range of harms caused by some unauthorised encampments. The offence and strengthened Police powers could also deter unauthorised encampments from being set up in the first instance (our emphasis).
Secondly, not only can the offence be committed by someone who is said to be ‘likely to cause significant damage or significant disruption’ but it can be committed once they have been given a notice to leave not just by a Police Constable but also by the occupier of the land or a representative of the occupier. Thus the occupier of the land ( who could be the landowner or a leaseholder or licensee) or their representative can effectively turn a Gypsy or Traveller into a criminal by the giving of this notice. Moreover they risk being arrested and losing their homes without any Court having to conclude that they are guilty of the offence.
Thirdly, it may be said that the Gypsy or Traveller in question could simply challenge the assumption or declaration that they are likely to cause significant disruption or significant damage at the time that the request to leave is made but the reality is that if they were to do so they would then put themselves at risk of being arrested and having their vehicles (their homes) impounded. In those circumstances the vast majority of Gypsies and Travellers will feel obliged to leave the land without delay.
Finally, whereas the Police currently have a discretion as to whether to use their existing powers under CJPOA 1994 s61 or s62 A to E (in the latter case where there is a suitable alternative pitch available), they may feel obliged to make arrests and impound vehicles if they are informed that a criminal offence has taken place.
3. EXISTING POLICE POWERS
It is important to note that (1) the Police already have extensive powers to move on unauthorised encampments and (2) the Police do not support the strengthening of their powers of eviction which are currently contained in the CJPOA 1994.
CJPOA s61(1) states:
If the senior police officer present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and –
(a) that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his, or
(b) that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land,
he may direct those persons, or any of them, to leave the land and to remove any vehicles or other property they have with them on the land.
This existing provision is already draconian since it enables the Police to evict an encampment at very short notice. Even where the Police are arguably exercising their powers unlawfully, it can be difficult to bring a challenge due to how swiftly the eviction can take place.
However, this power is somewhat ameliorated both by Government guidance on the question of managing unauthorised encampments (which stresses the need for the assessment of welfare considerations and alternative locations) and by very important guidance from the Police themselves, namely Operational Advice on Unauthorised Encampments (National Police Chiefs Council, 2018). This guidance stresses that the Police have a discretion as to whether or not to use their powers. Therefore, they may use their powers if an encampment is causing significant anti-social behaviour or if there are crimes occurring but, in other circumstances, may decide not to use their powers.
CJPOA 1994 s62 A – E relate to circumstances where there is a suitable alternative pitch available. Given the continuing lack of transit site provision (albeit that there has been a small increase in such provision over recent times), these provisions are of limited practical relevance and we will not discuss them further here.
It can certainly be concluded, at the very least, that the existing Police powers of eviction are sufficient. There is absolutely no need for them to be increased as the Police themselves accept.
4. THE PROPOSAL TO CRIMINALISE TRESPASS
Clause 61 of the PCSCB introduces a new offence into the CJPOA 1994 as follows:
60C Offence relating to residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle.
(1) Subsection(2) applies where –
(a) A person aged 18 or over (“P”) is residing, or intending to reside, on land without the consent of the occupier of the land,
(b) P has, or intends to have, at least one vehicle with them on the land,
(c) One or more of the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) is satisfied, and
(d) The occupier, a representative of the occupier or a constable request P to –
(i) Leave the land;
(ii) Remove from the land property that is in P’s possession or under P’s control.
(2) P commits an offence if –
(a) P fails to comply with the request as soon as reasonably practicable, or
(b) P –
(i) Enters (or having left, re-enters) the land within the prohibited period with the intention of residing there without the consent of the occupier of the land, and
(ii) Has, or intends to have, at least one vehicle with them on the land.
(3) The prohibited period is the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the request was made.
(4) The conditions are –
(a) In a case where P is residing on the land, significant damage or significant disruption has been caused or is likely to be caused as a result of P’s residence;
(b) In a case where P is not yet residing on the land, it is likely that significant damage or significant disruption would be caused as a result of P’s residence if P were to reside on the land;
(c) That significant damage or significant disruption has been caused or is likely to be caused as a result of conduct carried on, or likely to be carried on, by P while P is on the land;
(d) That significant distress has been caused or is likely to be caused as a result of offensive conduct carried on, or likely to be carried on, by P while P is on the land (our emphasis).
Someone who commits the offence can be arrested and their vehicles (i.e. their homes) can be impounded.
5. CONCERNS ABOUT THE NEW OFFENCE
The new offence is deeply troubling, for several reasons:
(A) Even a single Gypsy or Traveller travelling in a single vehicle will be caught by this offence. When the powers in CJPOA 1994 were first being debated in Parliament, it was stated that the powers were intended to deal with ‘mass trespass’. We have now come to a stage where even a single Gypsy or Traveller will be caught by these draconian provisions.
(B) As mentioned above the ‘request’ to leave the land can be made by the occupier of the land or a representative of the occupier. This is a very important difference as compared to the current powers under CJPOA 1994 s61. The existing powers can only be exercised by the Police, which means that a person only faces criminalisation once they have disobeyed the instruction of a law enforcement official. Under the new offence, a person can be criminalised for disobeying the instruction of a private citizen. Moreover, whilst the Police are – or should be – motivated by concerns such as protection of the public and preservation of public order, the private citizen will be motivated by the protection of his or her personal interests as an ‘occupier’ of land. To criminalise what has previously always been a civil dispute between private citizens is alarming in the extreme.
(C) As currently drafted (and unless any guidance changes this) this request does not appear to have to be in writing. This is extraordinarily casual given the draconian results that may follow.
(D) The period during which the Gypsy or Traveller is effectively banned from the land in question is extended from 3 months (as it is currently under the 1994 Act) to 12 months. For those Gypsies and Travellers who have no alternative but to resort to unauthorised encampments, there are, in effect, very few potential stopping places in any one area. The extension of the time limit to 12 months effectively creates a kind of wide injunction covering the relevant areas where a Gypsy and Traveller might be able to stop in other circumstances.
(E) The interpretation section defines ‘damage’ to include
(a) Damage to the land;
(b) Damage to any property on the land not belonging to P;
(c) Damage to the environment (including excessive noise, smells, litter or deposits of waste)
‘Disruption’ is defined to include interference with:
(a) A person’s ability to access any services or facilities located on the land or otherwise make lawful use of the land, or
(b) A supply of water, energy or fuel.
These definitions are vague and could potentially include a very wide range of issues. Moreover, it is unlikely that judicial clarification will be forthcoming soon, because Gypsies and Travellers will not want to risk potentially being arrested and getting their vehicles impounded in order for them to go to Court and find out what the Court decides is meant by ‘damage’ or ‘disruption’. Moreover, the offence can be committed, as discussed above, if damage or disruption is only ‘likely to be caused’.
(F) There is no specific attempt to define what ‘significant’ means. This is a word which, in another context, has caused confusion and necessitated a definition by the Court of Appeal (Panayiotou v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1624). The lack of clarity here is concerning.
(G) Additionally there will be amendments to other powers in the CJPOA 1994 including adding on to ‘damage’ under s61(1) (see above) the words ‘disruption or distress’. The period of time during which you must not return to the land following a notice under CJPOA 1994 s61 is also extended to 12 months. Section 61 will also be extended to cover the highway.
6. LOBBYING AND CAMPAIGNING
It will be very important, of course, for Gypsies and Travellers, Gypsy and Traveller national and local groups and those others supporting Gypsies and Travellers in this vital matter to take forward the strongest possible campaign and now to lobby Parliamentarians as the PCSCB passes through Parliament. It is noted that the Government seem intent on rushing this Bill through.
Friends, Families and Travellers (FFT) have already put together an impressive array of materials on this matter which you can find on their website at: https://www.gypsy-traveller.org/news/government-announces-plans-to-introduce-harsh-laws-for-roadside-camps/
FFT have produced an excellent briefing paper and, in summary, they state:
• The measures outlined in the PCSCB will further compound the inequalities experienced by Gypsies and Travellers, needlessly pushing people into the criminal justice system.
• The powers will disproportionately affect specific minority and ethnic communities and are likely to be in conflict with equality and human rights legislation.
• The case for action is flawed. An enforcement approach to addressing the number of unauthorised encampments overlooks the issue of the lack of site provision – there is an absence of places where Gypsies and Travellers are permitted to stop or reside.
• There are other solutions to managing unauthorised encampments, such as negotiated stopping, whereby arrangements are made on agreed permitted times on stopping and to ensure the provision of basic amenities such as water, sanitation and refuse collection.
• The definition of a Gypsy or Traveller in planning terms requires proof of travelling – without which you are not assessed as needing a pitch or get planning permission, but will essentially be prohibited from travelling by law.
• Police bodies do not support the criminalisation of trespass.
• The majority of respondents to the HO consultation opposed more police powers.
• There are very little in the way of measures to mitigate harm from the proposals.
7. WALES
We note that these provisions will apply in Wales too. The Welsh Government has taken a much more positive approach to Gypsies and Travellers than the Westminster Government in recent years, and especially since the duty to meet the assessed need for Gypsy and Traveller sites was enacted in the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 s103. That being so we hope that the Welsh Government will support the call for this proposed new offence and the amendments to the CJPOA 1994 to be withdrawn.
8. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this new offence (leaving aside the other amendments to the existing powers in CJPOA 1994) would be sufficient to make life on the road for Gypsies and Travellers impossible and, thus, drive them from the roadside in England and Wales for the first time since Gypsies appeared in Britain in the early 16th century.
We hope that the campaigning and lobbying from Gypsies and Travellers and their supporters will lead to the relevant clauses being removed completely from the Bill. If these clauses and especially if the new criminal offence is brought into force, then we think it is clear that a legal challenge will come forward immediately to these draconian and inhumane provisions. Once again we would urge Gypsies and Travellers potentially affected by these provisions to contact us. We would urge all those who object to these provisions to join with the Gypsy and Traveller national and local organisations in their campaign against this awful piece of legislation.
Community Law Partnership
23rd March 2021
For full details about the current state of the law please see Willers and Johnson eds. Gypsy and Traveller Law (Legal Action 2019).
We use a combination of collage, creative graphical elements, strong typography and colour palettes to depart from the usual red and black style of the left – an aesthetic which we believe comes across as dated and out of touch.
The communication of ideas in an approachable and clear way is especially important given that the coming years will define the future of humanity. We have until 2030 to prevent being locked into ecological collapse.
We believe in building and supporting popular, unmediated struggle against capitalism.
We reject art as an object of bourgeois enjoyment: artists have mainly only interpreted the world in various ways; the point however is to change it.
Our goal in the mass dissemination of ideas through the street in order to change life. The placing of art onto the street should not just be a one-off thing, a small act of rebellion, photographed and catalogued into an object, which can later be turned into a commodity and sold. Instead posters and stickers should be produced on mass as cheaply as possible, everywhere, repeated thousands of times over, affecting the geography of space, and millions of people’s consciousness.
Labour tax plan ‘could stop parents passing on homes to kids’
https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/01/labour-tax-plan-stop-parents-passing-homes-kids-10095642/
Necessary Land Debates Now Please: LJN/Labour tax inherited homes; LVT; Population; Planet of the Humans...
Under current laws, inheritance tax affects 640,000 households, but Labour's proposed Lifetime Gifts Tax (LGT) would affect up to 10 million homes.
Though the Land Justice Network Facebook page denied it - it was indeed true...
LJN, George Monbiot and the Labour party teamed up last year to write a Labour policy to tax almost all inherited homes rather than just the most expensive. The result was a sneaky move in 'Land For The Many' which would force millions of children out of homes if their parents die
https://landforthemany.uk/summary-of-recommendations/
Labour tax plan could stop parents passing on homes to kids https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/01/labour-tax-plan-stop-parents-passing-homes-kids-10095642/
If you think inheritance tax is hated now, wait until Labour tries to bring in a lifetime gift tax with a £125,000 limit
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-7233637/Labours-threat-inheritance-125k-lifetime-gift-tax.html
This is just one contradiction in land campaign policy emerging as 'mogadon' Starmer looks set to hand Boris a decade in power. BTW here's why Corbyn lost and no it wasn't the media IMO https://www.rt.com/op-ed/475891-corbyn-general-election-destroyed/
Now some on the 'left' have even turned on filmmaker Michael Moore's Planet of the Humans for exposing the massive investment nightmare taking over renewables, every bit as bad as the fossil fuel lobby - basically saying the same money is just shifting to greenwash you can watch PotH here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE and download it as an mp4 to watch/edit using this tool
https://youtube-video.download
Apoplexy is the order of the day among green energy zealots following the release of Mike Moores Planet of The Humans. In the military they call it blue on blue, although when the hard left are pulling the trigger its more aptly described as green on green. But the documentary backed by Moore isnt so much friendly fire, as an all-out assault on the billionaire hypocrites who whipped up fear and frenzy over changes in the weather and then, as if by magic, produced the notional solution to the calamity in the form of heavily subsidised wind, solar and forest-munching biomass. A solution which, of course, they are all heavily invested in.
https://stopthesethings.com/2020/04/25/blood-gore-mike-moores-planet-of-the-humans-unmasks-the-power-money-behind-renewables-scam/
How did Michael Moore become a hero to climate deniers and the far right?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/07/michael-moore-far-right-climate-crisis-deniers-film-environment-falsehoods
Our founder, George Monbiot has used his Guardian column to condemn the film, accusing Michael Moore of being in league with the far right, yeah right, there has been no actual debate whatever
But possibly the most important discussion is about population - as so called environmentalist Prince Charles warns that we will need 'four planets like earth to survive' as we just 'take and take' and urges companies to focus on the 'green recovery' following coronavirus The Prince of Wales spoke via recorded message from Balmoral, Aberdeenshire. He stated that at current rate we would need 'four planets like earth to survive'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8757107/Prince-Charles-warns-need-four-planets-like-earth-survive.html
Environmental Justice or Eugenics? Prince Charles Says We Must Reduce World Population By Three Quarters
https://tlio.org.uk/environmental-justice-or-eugenics-prince-charles-says-we-must-reduce-world-population-by-three-quarters/
“When people talk about 100% renewable energy transition to save the planet, to save civilisation, what they’re actually talking about is sustaining modern high-energy ways of life, at the expense of the natural world.”
A brief review of the film and its ‘deep green’ message.
7th May 2021 – It’s been a year since ‘Planet of the Humans’ caused the leaders of climate campaigns to go into heated meltdown. By comparison, this film throws them an even greater challenge to try and respond to.
Being ‘well known’ in eco-circles, you sometimes get strange, often unsolicited stuff arriving in your inbox. This, however, was something I’d been hoping for: A chance to view, and thus review, ‘Bright Green Lies’1 – Julia Barnes’ new documentary about the environmental movement and its support for renewable energy.
‘Planet of the Humans’2(PotH) was entertaining. At a general level it was factual, albeit a polemic expression of those points. But its protracted period of production meant that it lacked coherence, and thus left itself open to easy criticism.
Those criticisms when they came, however, fell directly into the lap of the central argument of the film3: That mainstream environmentalists distort facts to promote an erroneous vision of the measures necessary to ‘save the planet’.
It wasn’t just Josh Fox, backed by green entrepreneurs4, engaging in a cavalier reshaping of fact and quotations to blacken the name of the film. Our own George Monbiot engaged in5 his own well-honed distortion of fact and quotation via The Guardian (symbolic of a number of their recent failures) in order to try and prevent people watching the film on this side of the pond.
‘Bright Green Lies’ is very different: Like PotH, once again it presents the personal viewpoint of the director, Julia Barnes. Unlike PotH, though, it has a very different tone, building upon the immediacy and well-researched content of the eponymous book by Derrick Jensen6, Lierre Keith7, and Max Wilbert8 – all of whom appear in the film.
You get the core of the film’s argument over the first five minutes, as the four main protagonists set out their respective take on the ‘bright green’ position [time index in film is shown in brackets]:
‘Bright Green Lies’, the book
Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, and Max Wilbert,
Monkfish Book Publishing,
1st April 2021.‘Bright Green Lies’, the film
Julia Barnes, 22nd April 2021.
Barnes: “People rarely question the solutions they are taught to embrace, but with all the world at stake we must start asking the right questions. There is a push for a 100% renewable world, and after the research I’ve done for this documentary, I want no part of it. I did not become an environmentalist to protect my way of life, or the civilisation in which I live. I did it because I am in love with life on this planet, and because the world I love is under assault. This film is for those whose allegiance is with the living world. Those who would do whatever it takes to defend it.”[02:26]
Jensen: “You will have hundred of thousands of people marching in the streets of Washington, or New York, or Paris; and, if you ask those individuals ‘why are you marching?’, they will say, ‘we wanna save the planet’. And if you ask them for their demands they will say, ‘we want subsidies for the wind and solar industry’. That’s extraordinary. I can’t think of any time in history when any mass movement has been so completely captured, and turned into lobbyists for an industry.”[03:49]
Keith: “The environmental movement used to be a very impassioned group of people who cared very deeply about the places we loved and the creatures we loved. What happened, though, in my lifetime, was that this movement which was so honourable and impassioned, it turned into something completely different. And now its about protecting a destructive way of life, while it destroys the creatures and the places we love. It’s all become, ‘how to we continue to fuel this destruction?’, as if the only problem was that we were using oil and gas.”[03:16]
Wilbert: “The natural world isn’t really part of the conversation any more. Kumi Naidoo, the former head of Greenpeace, I was watching him being interviewed the other day. He was saying, ‘The planet’s going to survive, the oceans are going to survive, the forests are going to survive, it’s really about can we save ourselves or not’. And I just saw that and I’m thinking, what the hell are you saying?… This is someone who’s considered to be one of the top environmentalists in the world and he’s saying we don’t have to worry about the forests or the oceans? I mean, that just betrays a complete lack of empathy and connection to the natural world. I don’t know how you could possibly say that when we’re in the midst of the Sixth Great Mass Extinction, and it’s being caused by industrial culture. It’s being caused by the same institutions, the same economies, the same systems, the same raw materials, the same extractive mindset, that is being used for these renewable energy technologies.”[04:36]
My introduction to ‘environmentalism’ started before I’d seriously heard the word; growing up in a semi-rural working class family who grew their own food, kept chickens, and foraged. Likewise, coming into contact with ‘mainstream’ environmentalism in the mid-1980s introduced me to the concept of ‘bright green’9 before I’d heard that term either.
If there’s one general criticism I have (in part because the book, too, glosses over it), it is the failure to explore the class bias of environmentalism10. It is dominated by the middle class (and in UK, led by the upper-middle class); and so the economically ‘aspirational’ middle class values suffuse its agenda. That’s overlooked in the film.
That this movement should innately favour individualist materialist values11, over communal or spiritual ones, should therefore be of no surprise. That does not condemn these groups, or render them incapable12 of change. What it makes them do is reflect a narrow focus of both concerns and solutions13. More importantly, in a mass political society, it makes it difficult for them to have empathy with14 a large majority of the public – and that hampers their ability to make change.
That bias towards affluence15 informs their ideological values, which in turn have come to dominate contemporary environmentalism. As said in the film:
“Bright Green Environmentalism is founded on the notion that technology will solve environmental problems; and that you can, through 100% recycling, through wind and solar power, have an industrial economy that does not harm the planet. Deep ecology is the belief that we need to radically change the way society functions in order to be sustainable.”[05:30]
The spectre of this early ideological differentiation has haunted the movement. Just as Keith outlines, for me it became evident around 1988 to 1990. Figures such as Jonathon Porritt16 and Sara Parkin17 sought to divest the movement of its ‘hairshirt’ image18, and put it on a ‘professional’ footing. As a self-acknowledged ‘fundo’ (the pejorative term used for deep green ‘fundamentalists’ in the Green Party at that time) that didn’t enthuse me one bit.
That ‘professionalised’ approach (for which, read compromise with neoliberal values) would slowly percolate through the movement over the next decade. And with it, the compromise that has stalled more radical responses to ecological issues ever since. That failure has, in part, only escalated these historic internal tensions – tensions that this film, almost certainly, will inflame.
First ‘green consumerism’, and then ‘sustainability’, foundered on the reality that the movement’s role as a ‘stakeholder’ in government and industry programmes produced little change. Today, the issue at the heart of this internecine contention is renewable energy – and whether it is a realistic response to the Climate Emergency, or just another distracting ruse.
I think this film is a good contribution to that contemporary debate. If only to make many people aware that this debate exists19, and so cause people to look at the academic research in more detail.
As Barnes succinctly put it: “We are told that we can have our cake and eat it too.”[01:59] And yes, this really is all about cutting the ‘cake’ of affluence. But the film’s criticism of consumerism was couched in a generic “we”, and therein lies its failing.
When it comes to consumption it is not an issue of ‘we’. It is about how an extremely narrow social and economic elite exploit the majority by giving them the ‘illusion of affluence’20. Albeit one that is today precariously founded upon deepening debt and doubtful economics (a ‘deep’ issue21 in-and-of itself).
By not making the case that it is a highly privileged minority22 causing/benefiting from ecological destruction (see graph below)23, the film and book miss the opportunity to state arguments such as:
In a situation where – both globally but also in the most polluting states – it is a minority which is causing these problems, that redefines its political ‘reality’ in different terms. To be fair, Barnes strays into this issue at points:
“The ocean is the foundation of life on this planet. The fact that we’re losing it at the rate we are is alarming. I think part of the reason we’re failing is that we ask what is politically possible more often than we ask what is necessary.”[41:37]
Simple logic demands that this minority urgently change their lifestyle, lest the majority, threatened by ecological breakdown, seek to rest it from them. It is how they do this which is another live issue. Frankly, that’s not going too well right now:
Currently Western states are seeking to repress protests28 against the climate emergency, to forestall calls for more radical change;
While at the same time, billionaires create bunkers29 in remote locations to survive any future backlash from the dispossessed majority.
This creates a powerful incentive for the ‘impoverished majority’ to rest control away from the economic elite driving ecological breakdown.
The reality is, though, neither Greenpeace, WWF, nor even Extinction Rebellion, are likely to pick up that banner any time soon. Their failure to recognise affluence as a driver for ecological destruction negates their ability to act to stop it. Instead tokenistic measures, like renewable energy, supplant calls for meaningful systemic change.
About half-way through, Max Wilbert elucidates a truth that doesn’t get nearly enough exposure:
“When people talk about 100% renewable energy transition to save the planet, to save civilisation, what they’re actually talking about is sustaining modern high-energy ways of life, at the expense of the natural world.”[26:38]
I’m sure a number will recognise that from many of my previous workshops. In fact, I’ve just had a Facebook post blocked for, ‘violating community standards’. The offence? It linked to a summary of the research30 making this same point; and it’s not the first time that’s happened. It’s a touchy subject!
In 2005, my own book, ‘Energy Beyond Oil’31, visited many of the issues explored in the film/book. In far less detail though, as there was nowhere near the quantity of research evidence available back then. What that also highlights, though, is how over the interim: ‘Bright green’ environmentalism has been unable to comprehend32 the message from this new research; while at the same time deliberately deflecting people’s attention towards points of view which have a questionable basis33 for support.
On that point, I think Max Wilbert gives a most eloquent view for how mainstream environmentalism sold itself on the altar of green consumerism:
“They want us to believe that consumer choices are the only way we can change things. But if we accept that then it means that they’ve won, because we’re defining ourselves as consumers…
I have to buy things within this culture to survive, and that is not something that defines me or my power as an actor in this world. I would say much more fundamentally I am an animal. I have hands. I have feet. And I can walk places. And I can do things. And I have a voice. And I have the ability to speak with people and build a relationship with people. And I have the ability to organise. And I have the ability to fight if need be. These are all much more important than my ability to buy or not buy something.”[48:28]
Since ‘Planet of the Humans’, many on the ‘bright green’ side of the aisle have learned a lesson. Their hysterical condemnation of the film, to the point of calling for it to be banned, only served to feed it greater publicity, ensuring more would see it.
Their lack of response this time is perhaps also due to how well the film exposes the fragility of their arguments. One of the bright points in the film was the way in which ‘deep green’ criticisms were dovetailed alongside interviews with those they criticised – amplifying the substance of the disagreement between each side.
I think my favourite was the segment on Richard York’s research34, showing that growing renewable energy actually displaces a very minimal level of fossil fuels. When York’s point was put to David Suzuki, his reply, which I too have often received, was, ”So what is the conclusion form an analysis like that, we shouldn’t do anything?”[24:08]
The film brilliantly explodes this false dilemma. When pushed, about needing to tackle things systemically rather than just trying to influence behaviour, Suzuki’s response was, “yeah, there’s no question our major impact on the planet now, not just in terms of energy, is consumption. And that was a deliberate programme…”[24:26]
When it comes to the ‘liberal’ solutions to the climate crisis generally, I think Lierre Keith gives the most perceptive criticism of the simplistic, ‘bright green’ arguments for change[1:03:23]:
“[Capitalism] takes living communities, it converts those into dead commodities35, and then those dead commodities are turned into private wealth. And a lot of people think, well, if we just make that into public wealth, we all could get an equal piece of the pie, that’s the solution. The problem is that’s not going to be a solution because you’ve still got the first two parts of that equation. Why are we taking the living planet and turning it into dead commodities? That’s the problem…
It’s the fact that rivers, and grasslands, and forests, and fish, have been turned into those dead commodities, that’s the problem.”
Jensen then bookends Keith’s point with another, straightforward invalidation of the basic premise of the bright green approach[1:04:33]:
“What do all the so called, ‘solutions’, to global warming have in common? They all take industrial capitalism as a given, and so conform to industrial capitalism. They’ve switched the dependent and the independent variables. The world has to be primary, and the health of the world has to be primary36, because without a world you don’t have any economy whatsoever. And the bright greens are very explicit about this. What they’re trying to save is industrial capitalism, industrial civilisation. And that’s my fundamental beef, because what I’m trying to save is the real world.”
Jensen makes an interesting observation towards the end of the film:
“The thing that blows me away is the lengths that people will go to avoid looking at the problem. That they will create all these extraordinary fantasies in order to do something that’s not going to help the planet so they can avoid looking at the real issue. Which is that industrial civilisation itself is what’s killing the planet.”[59:40]
Likewise Barnes astutely characterises the basic block to progress towards the near end:
“Bright green environmentalism has gained popularity because it tells a lot of people what they want to hear. That you can have industrial civilisation and a planet too. It allows people to feel good about maintaining this destructive way of living and to avoid asking hard questions about the depth of what must be changed.”[1:05:04]
For me, though, it was Keith’s discussion about what it is ‘civilisation’ is based upon[1:00:02] which brought a long overdue argument into circulation: Criticism of the ‘resource island’ model for the modern city, and its inherent link to the global expropriation and exploitation of land.
Driven by the wealthiest ‘city’ state’s need to maintain consumption, the inherent ‘neocolonial’ aspects of international climate negotiations are something the climate lobby too often overlook. Especially in relation to issues such as carbon offsets, and the global allocation of carbon budgets, and their inherent global inequality.
At some point environmental groups must call ‘bullshit’ on these whole neocolonial proceedings37, and start giving equal value to all humans, irrespective of their present-day privilege. More importantly, we have to give ecological capacity, currently occupied by human societies, back to natural organisms to allow them sufficient space to live too.
Before ‘Bright Green Lies’ turned up, I had just seen Raoul Peck’s excellent, ‘Exterminate All The Brutes’38. Coming to the end of ‘Bright Green Lies’, what startled me was how the two films arrived at a very similar place. Both showed similar blocks towards acceptance of the radical change required, around both ecological change and decolonialism.
To understand Peck’s film it helps to have read, ‘Heart of Darkness’39. In structuring the film around the characters in that book, and contrasting it to The Holocaust, Peck shows how indifference to European and US colonialism enabled The Holocaust to take place[Episode 4, 46:57 to 54:11]:
“It is not knowledge that is lacking… The educated general public has always largely known what atrocities have been committed and are being committed in the name of progress, civilization, socialism, democracy, and the market…
At all times, it has also been profitable to deny or suppress such knowledge… And when what had been done in the heart of darkness was repeated in the heart of Europe, no one recognized it. No one wished to admit what everyone knew.
Everywhere in the world this knowledge is being suppressed. Knowledge that, if it were made known, would shatter our image of the world and force us to question ourselves. Everywhere there, Heart of Darkness is being enacted…
Black Elk, holy man of the Oglala Lakota people, said after the Wounded Knee Massacre, ‘I didn’t know then how much was ended… A people’s dream died there. It was a beautiful dream. The nation’s circle is broken and scattered. There is no centre any longer, and the sacred tree is dead.’”
There are uncomfortable parallels between Peck’s insights into Holocaust denial, and the denial of the crimes of colonialism, and the everyday denial of the damage that affluence and material consumption are causing to the entire planet. From the horrors of resource mining40, to the devastation of the oceans by plastics, such evidence represents a constant ‘background noise’ in the modern media. A noise people have learned to ignore, in order to keep functioning amidst the cognitive dissonance of their everyday, disconnected lives.
As Peck says, “It is not knowledge that is lacking”. People are aware. The fact that they will not engage with the issue, as outlined in ‘Bright Green Lies’, is that people innately know the extent of their own complicity. To do so, ‘would shatter our image of the world and force us to question ourselves’.
We do not need more ‘evidence’. The block to ecological change is not simply a lack of ‘knowledge’. It is that many all too well understand the reality of what stopping the ecological crisis41 would entail. Trapped by their subconscious fear for what that would mean personally, they cannot see a solution to the psychological dependency engendered by consumerism and industrial society.
Mainstream environmentalism, as the film outlines, is its own worst enemy. In advocating ephemeral, consumer-based solutions to tackling ecological breakdown, it creates its own certain failure. Unfortunately, unless the counter-point to that, the ‘deep green’ argument, is able to give people the confidence to accept and let go of industrial society, it will not make progress either. I think this film almost gets there; but we need to focus far more on the workable, existing examples of people living outside of that system to give people the confidence to make that internal, ‘leap of faith’. For those who want to follow this road, and perhaps provide those examples, this film is a good starting point to build from.
Created: Friday 7th May 2021.
Length: ~3,450 words.
he Housing Ombudsman has launched an investigation into “disgusting” social housing conditions after ITV News reports revealed damp and mould was widespread throughout the UK.
Following an initial report on “unliveable” conditions in a number of homes in the London borough of Croydon, ITV News Political Correspondent Daniel Hewitt was “inundated” with “hundreds and hundreds” of examples.
ITV News investigations have found there is a “growing problem with severe mould and damp” throughout the UK, with councils often not dealing with residents’ complaints.
Richard Blakeway, Housing Ombudsman, said mould and damp in someone’s home can have a “significant” impact on their health and their life chances.
He said he’s also “concerned that we are not seeing cases where we could help, and want to investigate further into this issue”.
He said he wants to use new powers to look “in-depth at the response of social landlords to damp and mould issues”.
“I want us to make far-reaching recommendations to promote greater understanding and learning, helping landlords develop their approach to the benefit of residents.”
An initial review of case data found there had been a “high rate” of “maladministration” on cases that feature damp and mould over the last two years.
It said the fact that £68,000 in compensation had been ordered in same period showed “significant impact on residents in some cases”.
We’ve seen hundreds and hundreds of examples’: Daniel Hewitt on the widening housing crisis:
Public reaction to the report was huge, with social media users labelling the conditions uncovered as “disgusting”, “horrible”, “heartbreaking”, and more.
The Ombudsman wants to publish the findings of its investigation by autumn, and aims to “make far-reaching recommendations that promote greater understanding of the complexity of tackling damp and mould and share best practice across the sector”.
But those with private landlords will not have their concerns addressed as the Ombudsman investigation will only look at council housing and housing associations.
Citizens Advice, which has received 49% more complaints this year about unacceptable living conditions, says the Ombudsman investigation should look at all housing.
Katie Martin, director of external affairs at Citizens Advice said the problem is a “real imbalance of power” between tenants and landlords.
Speaking to ITV News she said: “Landlord are still able to evict a tenant for no reason whatsoever.
“So many people live in fear, that if they make complaints, if they cause problems for their landlords by insisting that they get repairs done, they’re going to get evicted and all too often that happens.”
The Housing Ombudsman has issued a call for evidence to tenants and landlords, asking them to provide information to the information.
The following list of demands (which lacks only the crucial criminalising of satanism) seems to have first appeared here on December 5th. You’ll have to click on the image to enlarge it if you want to read it in French. We’ve translated it into English (in summary, not word-for-word) below…
Gilets Jaunes’ List of Demands:
Economy/Work
A constitutional cap on taxes – at 25%
Increase of 40% in the basic pension and social welfare
Increase hiring in public sector to re-establish public services
Massive construction projects to house 5 million homeless, and severe penalties for mayors/prefectures that leave people on the streets
Break up the ‘too-big-to-fail’ banks, re-separate regular banking from investment banking
Cancel debts accrued through usurious rates of interest
Politics
Constitutional amendments to protect the people’s interests, including binding referenda
The barring of lobby groups and vested interests from political decision-making
Frexit: Leave the EU to regain our economic, monetary and political sovereignty (In other words, respect the 2005 referendum result, when France voted against the EU Constitution Treaty, which was then renamed the Lisbon Treaty, and the French people ignored)
Clampdown on tax evasion by the ultra-rich
The immediate cessation of privatisation, and the re-nationalisation of public goods like motorways, airports, rail, etc
Remove all ideology from the ministry of education, ending all destructive education techniques
Quadruple the budget for law and order and put time-limits on judicial procedures. Make access to the justice system available for all
Break up media monopolies and end their interference in politics. Make media accessible to citizens and guarantee a plurality of opinions. End editorial propaganda
Guarantee citizens’ liberty by including in the constitution a complete prohibition on state interference in their decisions concerning education, health and family matters
Health/Environment
No more ‘planned obsolescence’ – Mandate guarantee from producers that their products will last 10 years, and that spare parts will be available during that period
Ban plastic bottles and other polluting packaging
Weaken the influence of big pharma on health in general and hospitals in particular
Ban on GMO crops, carcinogenic pesticides, endocrine disruptors and monocrops
Reindustrialise France (thereby reducing imports and thus pollution)
Foreign Affairs
End France’s participation in foreign wars of aggression, and exit from NATO
Cease pillaging and interfering – politically and militarily – in ‘Francafrique’, which keeps Africa poor. Immediately repatriate all French soldiers. Establish relations with African states on an equal peer-to-peer basis
Prevent migratory flows that cannot be accommodated or integrated, given the profound civilizational crisis we are experiencing
Scrupulously respect international law and the treaties we have signed
We are calling for action on the23rd March. (To tie in with the closure of the Legislative Scrutiny consultation led by the Joint Committee of Human Rights of the UK Parliament on the Police Powers and Protections Bill.)
We want to show solidarity with Travellers who are targeted by this bill that will criminalise trespass with intention to reside. We also stand in defiance with other groups under threat including; squatters, rough sleepers, protesters, hunt saboteurs, van dwellers, ravers, boaters
We demand the right to roam and reside. Our land rights have for too long been eroded by a handful of elites who concentrate land ownership. This bill is a direct threat to our ways of life by criminalising our already limited access to the countryside. The government must drop this bill immediately.
LETS TAKE BACK WHAT IS OURS,
RECLAIM THE LAND & RESIST ANTI-TRESPASS LAWS! Join us for a day of decentralised action against anti-trespass measures to raise awareness and fight this pivotal issue.
TEARING UP THE POST WAR SETTLEMENT – THE 1948 UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS – Police State UK Criminalising Protest & Homelessness: MPs Are Bringing In Priti Patel’s Police Crime Sentencing & Courts Bill
Clause 55 will let police impose start and finish times and maximum noise levels on a wider range of protests in England and Wales.
Officers will be able to do this if they believe the noise may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation nearby.
The power is not limited in the law to noise levels or start times – a police officer can take such conditions as appear necessary to that officer to prevent disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation.
The Home Office argue this is simply widening powers that already exist for moving marches to cover static protests as well. But civil liberties groups say noise and disruption are a key part of making your voice heard.
It will be up to the Home Secretary – currently Priti Patel – to decide the definition of serious disruption.
Serious annoyance will carry up to 10 years jail
Clause 59 will axe the common law definition of public nuisance and replace it with a clear set of words agreed by Parliament.
It will make it a crime to intentionally or recklessly cause public nuisance without a reasonable excuse.
Offenders will get up to a years jail from magistrates or 10 years from a crown court judge if found guilty, in the worst cases.
The government insists this is simply taking the current definition of public nuisance and putting it on a proper footing. This will provide clarity to the police and potential offenders, giving clear notice of what conduct is forbidden, the Home Office said.
But there is not a clear list of reasonable excuses – the government just say defendants will have to prove that excuse existed in court, on the balance of probabilities.
And two words in this clause have attracted a lot of interest.
Someone will fall foul of the law if they have caused a person serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity. How will serious annoyance be interpreted by police?
Most loudhailers will be banned outside Parliament
Clause 57 will hugely expand the controlled area outside Parliament, where tents and unauthorised loudspeakers or megaphones are banned.
Currently the area only covers the garden and footpaths in the middle of Parliament Square, with other roads around it not under any special anti-protest law.
But the Bill will expand this controlled area to several roads around Parliament after a number of demos stopped traffic. These roads are Canon Row, Parliament Street, Derby Gate, Parliament Square and part of Victoria Embankment.
Those who disobey can be fined up to 5,000.
A similar move was recommended by Parliaments Joint Committee on Human Rights, which warned access to parliament must not be obstructed after a wave of threats against MPs.
However, opposition has united critics from Richard Tice, leader of Nigel Farages anti-lockdown Reform UK party, to Tom Brufatto, former lead organiser of the Peoples Vote marches against Brexit.
In an open letter today they say: As long as laws are made in Parliament, then British people must have a legal right to protest them in Parliament Square. Democracy is not an ‘inconvenience’. Public opposition and dissent are among the hard-won rights that make our democratic and like-minded groups.
One-person protests face a crackdown
One-man anti-Brexit protester Steve Bray (Image: Jeff Mitchell)
Clause 60 has already been dubbed the Steve Bray law, after the man who spent years shouting Stop Brexit! at Parliament.
It will give senior police the power to impose any conditions they see fit on a one-person protest to avoid disruption or impact.
This can only be done if they believe the noise that person is making may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the protest.
But once again, Home Secretary Priti Patel will be able to define this serious disruption.
One-man-bands who knowingly refuse to comply with police orders can be fined up to 2,500. Someone who incites the one-person protest not to comply could be jailed for up to 51 weeks.
Ardent Remainer AC Grayling tweeted: It’s a great honour to Steve Bray, and an unmistakable sign of the weakness, pettiness, illiberality and unintelligence of this Brexiter ‘government’, that it seeks to pass a Bill that singles him out.
He has humiliated and stung them and they want to shut him up; he should be knighted.
Is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill fit for purpose?
YesNo
Defacing a statue will carry up to 10 years jail
Clause 46 will raise the maximum penalty for criminal damage to a memorial or statue from three months to 10 years.
Currently judges and magistrates have to base their sentence on the monetary value of the damage. In future they will be able to look at the emotional and symbolic value of the damaged statue too, said minister Kit Malthouse.
The Tories are doing this in a culture war after statues including Winston Churchills were attacked or damaged with graffiti.
No10 insisted the focus would be on vile things like anti-Semitic graffiti or attacks on gravestones, war memorials, memorials to people whove been murdered.
But thats not quite how it was trailed in right-wing newspapers. The issue has prompted anger from Labour, who say the move is a distraction and will in theory mean longer sentences for attacking statues than some attacks on women.
People in protest camps can be jailed for three months
Clause 60 will create a new offence of residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle.
This could affect protest camps like Extinction Rebellion, as the law will apply even if their residing is only temporary, and will apply equally to common land and private land.
Protesters can be ordered to leave by police if they are deemed to be causing significant disruption, or even if they havent caused disruption yet but it is deemed likely in future.
If they refuse, they can be fined up to 2,500 or jailed for up to three months.
Police will also be given more powers to remove unauthorised encampments on roads.
A petition signed by more than 130,000 people warned criminalising trespass would be an extreme, illiberal and unnecessary attack on ancient freedoms, adding: For a thousand years, trespass has been a civil offence.
Critics say the law threatens not only protests, but also wild camping, ramblers, new rights of way and Traveller communities.
What else is in the Bill?
The plans include new laws to reform sentencing, the courts and the management of offenders, as well as more powers and protections for the police, some of which will be UK-wide while others may only apply in England and Wales.
All these could in theory still be approved by MPs later, while removing the bits on protest, if the Bill passes second reading.
Whole Life Orders for premeditated murder of a child
Maximum sentence to 18 to 20-year-olds in exceptional cases, like for acts of terrorism leading to mass loss of life.
Powers to halt the automatic early release of offenders who pose a danger to the public
Ending the automatic release halfway through a sentence of serious violent and sexual offenders.
Life sentences for killer drivers.
Expanding position of trust laws to make it illegal for sports coaches and religious leaders to engage in sexual activity with 16 and 17-year-olds in their care.
Officers could also be allowed to stop and search people more if plans for serious violence reduction orders go ahead.
Legal duty on councils, police, criminal justice bodies, health and fire services to tackle serious violence and share intelligence.
Deaf people could sit on juries for the first time.
What does it do for women whove suffered violence?
There are some limited clauses, such as ending early release for serious sexual offenders. But Labour have complained the Bill does not do enough to help women.
Shadow domestic violence minister Jess Phillips said: The Bill is full of divisive nonsense like locking up those who damage statues for longer than those who attack women. Now is a moment to change the criminal justice system so it works for women, not to try and divide the country.
Shadow Justice Secretary David Lammy said: In the 20 schedules, 176 clauses and 296 pages of the Conservatives’ Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, “women” are not mentioned even once.
Police minister Kit Malthouse insisted the government had taken steps to protect women.
He said: The domestic abuse bill, which is an extensive bill that will significantly enhance our ability to confront domestic violence and abuse is just finishing its passage through the House and contains enormous provisions to help us with that fight.
The Domestic Abuse Bill is currently in its report stage in the House of Lords – one of the later steps towards it becoming law.
But it has taken three years to get this far – having been delayed in coming to a vote by two successive General Elections.
What is Labours position?
Labour will vote against the entire Bill at second reading. If that succeeded (it wont) it would kill off the entire Bill at the first hurdle.
Realistically, its likely Labour will then try to amend the most controversial bits of the Bill while supporting other bits of it.
The party says it supports several measures contained within the bill, including proposals on dangerous driving, increased sentences for terrorists and other dangerous offenders, a police covenant, reform to criminal records and closing the loophole to criminalise sexual abuse by people in positions of trust.
The Tories claimed Labour was voting against tougher sentences for child murderers, sex offenders, killer drivers. While Labour is voting against the Bill at its first hurdle, this characterisation is misleading to the point of being untrue.
Shadow Domestic Violence Minister Jess Phillips responded: This is a disgusting and untrue statement. The Conservative Governments Bill does absolutely nothing currently to increase sentences for rapists, stalkers, or those who batter, control and abuse women. It does nothing about street harassment and assaults.
