Legislation Watch: three planned changes that will limit our freedoms – politicalbetting.com
Legislation Watch: three planned changes that will limit our freedoms – politicalbetting.com
Never mind “Not Quite Freedom Day”. While few have been noticing, the government is busy trying to introduce some pernicious new principles into our laws which will limit our freedoms even as we are finally allowed not to wear masks.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Utter desperation to suppress Covid presumably derives from combination of past success and current and future worries about Australia's hopeless vaccine rollout (the federal government is copping a lot of flak for this and trying to deflect it onto scapegoats, the latest apparently being Australia's equivalent of the JCVI.) With a combination of factors like that, you have to wonder how many years, rather than months, the country may elect to keep on trying to isolate itself from the rest of the world.
And meanwhile, more than a year into this mess, something like 35,000 Australian citizens are still locked out of the country, many in dire financial and personal circumstances.
But only once they've made it halfway...
Whilst I don't think we should seek to lower ourselves to the standards of the French, it's worth considering that when it comes to it, much of the rest of the world doesn't get hung up about this sort of thing in the way that we do.
I mean, as codified they are a load of nebulous and wildly inaccurate bullshit, but the paradox of them designing a ‘British Values’ system and then systematically ignoring it with legislation like this is quite funny.
Or would be if they weren’t such nasty human beings.
The Online Safety Bill sounds pretty awful.
We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered.
But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I wonder if at the next election, whenever it comes, there might not be a wholesale "throw the B%&tards out", as there was in 1997.
It could happen.
Lab/LD/SNP would oppose at least 2/3 of the above.
But because lots of people voted Tory (and some didn't vote at all) we are stuck with this situation.
Which is one reason why they are getting away with things like this.
It’s Blair 2003 not Brown 2009.
Have a good morning.
Experts now predicting 4% by year end
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/1415086928039276544
I suspect this bit is very important
That the PM is said to think he can't get measures through if it requires opposition support is significant in itself. Blair did it, for example.
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
I cannot recall a time when we had a government so keen to trash British values. The re-toxification of the Nasty Party is in full swing.
It will not happen just yet, but when this government falls, it is going to be remembered as one of the worst in modern British history.
And by the way, it was Sky news website who made the comment
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1415196207043973121?s=21
The idea Sadiq is that the police maintain order
I wonder if the BoE has forecast what the impact would be if/when we return to 'normalized' interest rates of circa 5% given we've been on close to zero for so long now?
Would surely have a major impact given the levels of household debt and cheap credit swirling round the system?
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
Time to end the era of low interest rates and return to normality.
The Nationality and Borders Bill does indeed make it an offence to help an asylum seeker enter the country regardless of whether you are doing it for reward. However, it excludes people acting on behalf of organisations that aim to assist asylum seekers and do not charge for their services. Whilst it is not the primary aim of either RNLI or HM Coastguard, that description appears to cover both. In any event, the chances of the courts convicting a member of either organisation for helping asylum seekers in distress at sea is nil. Interpreting the legislation in that way would be incompatible with the Human Rights Act. Under that Act, the ECHR must be used to interpret UK law and the right to live is one of the central rights. A law that required RNLI to leave people to drown would clearly be incompatible with the HRA so, even if this bill did that (which I don't think it does), the courts would not accept such an interpretation. Whilst it would not harm the bill to add wording to specifically protect RNLI and HM Coatsguard, the reality is that such wording is not required. The Home Office is correct.
Sticking to that bill, clause 23 does NOT say that late evidence must be given minimal weight regardless of the reason. It says that late evidence must be given minimal weight "unless there are good reasons why the evidence was provided late" (clause 23(2)). Cyclefree's arguments on this clause therefore fail as they are based on something the bill categorically does not say. If you have a good reason for supplying evidence late, the evidence must be given weight.
Finally, the actual wording of the Online Safety Bill (which is only in draft form at the moment) requires removal of content where the service provider has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a material risk of "significant" psychological harm. So not "may cause psychological harm". but "a material risk of significant psychological harm", which is rather different. Yes, there is a possibility that pressure groups may seek to misuse this bill if it is introduced and becomes law, but that is a risk with any legislation that seeks to make service providers liable for failure to remove content that is harmful to children (something covered by the bill that Cyclefree chooses to ignore) or adults.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
So what is it that you want?
If we had a principled opposition that cared about young people then we could have seen Labour campaigning for years in favour of fairness for working age people and saying how unfair the triple lock is. But the opposite happens. Any attempt to address it is turned into a party political third rail.
If it peaks at only 4% that would be quite reassuring. I was and still am expecting higherr, but temporary.
We know the boats they come in on are not safe. Many need rescuing by the heroes in the RNLI. As someone posted on here, "not a good look" for the RNLI to be rescuing drowning asylum seeking children. These are Tory voters, they deserve a good pander and the sneering one is up for the task.
So we get this disgrace of a bill. Almost certainly illegal under international law. I wonder if illegal under our own Human Rights Act. The government are happy to propose yet more illegal laws, probably happy to have them struck down by doo-gooder "Enemies of the People" hudges. Anything to virtue signal to the hardcore cnuts in their vote that they are on their side.
Concerns raised by the asylum/RNLI bill (particularly if a sailor unwittingly rescues a drowning person who he, er, should've let drown) are entirely valid. It's poorly written law designed for headlines, devoid of competence.
The late evidence having less weight is similarly bullshit.
But the Online Safety Bill is the most alarming one. Censorship is on the rise due to the terminally offended, religious zealots, and, in this case, authoritarian government.
It's far too vague, and further curtails free speech, which needs defending not diminishing. Added to that is the fashionable idiocy of criminality being a subjective matter (as psychological harm is inherently subjective).
I agree with those who say the government has been in too line if it's coming up with this nonsense, and doing altogether more harm than good. And yet, what is the alternative? The far left remains embedded in Labour, albeit dormant, and Starmer's pathetic kneeling for a cabal of iconoclast race-baiters with a 'philosophy' (I use the term quite wrongly, as philosophy means love of wisdom) imported from America) and his mooted devolution (likely carving England into pieces) do not exactly enthuse me.
What do you say @Philip_Thompson, @Big_G_NorthWales and the other right-wing nutjobs that live on this blog.
Prepared to call this out or support this racist wretched lot?
Abject nonsense
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
Give a citation please that the government wants that, given they've said the exact opposite. Rather than that you're deliberately misinterpreting what a proposed law to tackle evil people traffickers means.
And you've proved the point yourself - if the desire was to tackle evil people traffickers the "for profit" motive within the current law would have been kept in place and not explicitly removed.
The only guiding political or philosophical principle the tories have is how something focus groups with thick chavs. So it's interesting that they get caught on the wrong side of a question to third sector megafaunae like the RNLI.
Why, what has he done now...?
* though I am not far off joining them!
God this is a pernicious, nasty, toxic, vile, stench-ridden, putrefying and thoroughly evil Government.
I hate them with a passion.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
Maybe at that time you will apologise for your scaremongering
Rescuing drowning people from the water is not that, and its a lie to say that is what people want prosecuting.
This week the Home Office served him a deportation notice. Two weeks to leave the country. No right to appeal.
Friday - Practice 1 and Qualifying
Saturday - Practice 2 and Sprint Qualifying
Sunday - Race
Some teams may skip practice over clutch concerns.
I would like to say how impressed I am with the dignified way the England players have dealt with everything. Very impressed indeed.
It doesn't mean that supporting a far left lunatic in Corbyn was preferable.
Doesn't marriage confer residency rights?
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/19440455.red-funnel-third-staff-self-isolating-50-jobs-available/?ref=wa
One of the most notorious trolls on PB.
How do we judge the government’s priorities based on their legislative programme to date.
1. Dishing the woke.
2. Cracking down on asylum seekers
3. Muzzling the BBC
4. Performative stuff on Brexit
Oh, and austerity is coming, but they haven’t fessed up openly to it yet.
Anything else?
I also think that I v much doubt any jury will pass a guilty verdict on a guy in a RNLI boat who saves a life on the open seas. But crap drafted laws should be amended during the process rather than relying on the good sense of juries.
Not least about my neutral stance on foreign aid, as I made that clear yesterday long before Sky web story
You are wrong yet again
Let's see. Are the Tories still around 10% clear in the polls? Oh yes so they are!
Keep on dreaming hard lefters!
😊
Would the CPS prosecute? Who can say? Probably not - but the public interest test is not set in stone and can be removed or changed.
And having a badly drafted law coupled with uncertainty about its enforcement is a very bad way of legislating. It is arbitrary and uncertain.
Prosecuting people smugglers is desirable. The existing legislation provides for that. So what is this changed provision intended to do?
Anyway, good to see that I have stimulated some discussion. It is a gloriously sunny day here - positively Mediterranean - so once I've finished breakfast on my terrace, the beach and hills beckon.
Have a lovely day all.