[zpeti]

Can someone explain to me how this makes sense when they are letting insulate britain block motorways? Like which protests are they trying to stop?

I assume blocking motorways is illegal already, yet the police are doing nothing, which is leading dangerously to vigilante justice as per some videos, which is only a question of time before it turns really violent.

Wtf is the UK government doing? Why do they need more powers when they don't use the current ones? Or is it for "other" types of protests? Shutting down motorways is fine.

[michaelt]

> Or is it for "other" types of protests?

There was a BLM protest that pulled down a statue of a slave trader in Bristol. Honestly, pretty much every elected politician would have been OK with that. But then there was another protest in London where some critical graffiti was sprayed on a statue of Winston Churchill. Despite his faults, Churchill is an extremely popular figure; no elected politician would support statues of him being damaged or removed.

So a bill to stop protests damaging statues seemed like a good idea to them.

From the perspective of civil servants and the police, if you offer them more power of course they'll say yes. Who wouldn't want more power, after all?

But getting the bill through the bureaucracy took time, and by the time it was ready the most recent protest-policing news was a police crack-down on a candle-lit vigil for a woman who'd been raped and murdered just days before... by a policeman.

[that_guy_iain]

> Can someone explain to me how this makes sense when they are letting insulate britain block motorways? Like which protests are they trying to stop?

They are letting them? I'm pretty sure they get arrested every single time. Or are you wanting a instant jail sentence for being suspect of making people late?

[valdiorn]

the police and courts have the ability to impose bans on individuals returning to protests and re-offending. They could quite easily say "if you participate in another protest where a road is blocked in the next 12 months, we'll hand you a 1 month jail sentence".

For some reason this isn't being used, and they just let people go again and again, and they always return a few days later. Well, actually, they DO issue these restrictions, but don't follow up with actual punishment. Boggles the brain. You take a handful of grandmas and stick them in actual, factual jail for a month, see how many people return to protest next time.

[that_guy_iain]

The bans have been imposed. They've literally got multiple injuctions againist them.

> You take a handful of grandmas and stick them in actual, factual jail for a month, see how many people return to protest next time.

What you think they would be victimised? Mate they won't be touched and all the cons will love them. Bashing old people gets you put into protection in the jails.

[misnome]

> Why do they need more powers when they don't use the current ones?

Is this a serious question? To make their job easier, always. It's a lot easier to do what you want when you don't have little things like the law or people's rights standing in the way.

[pydry]

Since when are they doing nothing? They have been arresting them.

[makomk]

Blocking motorways is probably illegal - the trouble is, the police arrest people and then they just go ahead and do it again. (Also, I think the Supreme Court decided that the law on blocking highways didn't apply to people doing it in the name of protest so it's far from clear that those people could be convicted - the court has shown activist tendencies in general, something that some pundits predicted would happen as soon as the UK created one.) One of the things the final law is expected to include is more provisions allowing the police to take action to stop people form doing this.

[pmyteh]

The SC didn't rule that the obstruction of the highway offence didn't apply in cases of protest. The question is whether the exception in the Act applies:

“if a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence” (Highways Act, 1980, s.137).

They ruled that, under some circumstances, 'proportionately' exercising the right to protest could qualify as a lawful excuse. In the case in point, the protesters had blocked one of multiple entrances to an arms fair, in circumstances when only arms fair traffic was likely to even notice the protest (it was an entryway to the Excel centre). Also, the protest was of short duration.

The consequence of the decision is that the question of lawfulness is now case-by-case, as it is with other highway obstructions. There is essentially no chance that protesters blocking motorways are going to escape a conviction on the basis of this decision. They're also likely to be given post-conviction orders making repetition imprisonable.

FWIW I pretty strongly support the campaign's expressed aims, but reckon that this is some of the shittest praxis I've seen from protest group. Like the previous stunt by a bunch of XR-aligned people of gluing themselves to public transport, it's got a tenuous link with the aim pursued and is going to cost their cause vastly more public support than it can hope to gain.

[see https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-during-protes...]

[maxehmookau]

the court has shown activist tendencies [citation needed]

[pmyteh]

I mean, it's almost identical to the old Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, but with different hats. They've always done a fair amount of development of the common law. The court under Baroness Hale was maybe a little more vigorous at that than usual, the current regime maybe a little less than usual. I don't see any of it as outside the usual bounds of British jurisprudence.