Parliamentary Bills 2022
Legal ways that our lords and masters will unlawfully take away our freedoms.
Below is a list of 7 of the 38 Bills which will be the parliamentary agenda for the next year.
These 7 are the most concerning, because these are the Bills and Acts which will take away our rights and freedoms under the law.
You may not have heard of many of these Bills, but when they become Acts of Parliament and therefore law, you are subject to them, even though you haven’t got a clue that they exist, but that doesn’t matter to them, because ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Bills and Acts that Destroy our Human Rights
Online Safety Bill (JUMP DIRECTLY TO IT HERE)
Modern Bill of Rights (JUMP DIRECTLY TO IT HERE)
Public Order Bill (JUMP DIRECTLY TO IT HERE)
Schools Bill (JUMP DIRECTLY TO IT HERE)
National Security Bill (JUMP DIRECTLY TO IT HERE)
Police Crime Courts Sentencing Act (JUMP DIRECTLY TO IT HERE)
Covert Human Intelligence Act (JUMP DIRECTLY TO IT HERE)
The most serious from our point of view are the Online Safety Bill, the Modern Bill of Rights and the Public Order Bill. (see separate sections)
The Online Safety Bill will effectively criminalisethe posting of ‘disinformation’, which is not defined, and will not be defined until after the Bill has become an Act of Parliament and therefore law.
Also it will criminalise anything that anyone finds ‘distressing’, again undefined. If anyone reports you to the authorities, you could be guilty of a criminal offence. And, these terms can and will be defined with thresholds for the offence being lowered and lowered at the whim of the Minister involved, using Secondary Legislation or Statutory Instruments (See separate section).
However, as worrying as this is, a far greater danger is the government intention to repeal the Human Rights Act,1998 and replace it with a new, so called, Modern Bill of Rights.
These Bills are explained in more detail below. Click on anchor links above to go to individual sections.
Click HERE to see a list of some of the resources I use and have used in writing these sections.
How the Government Can Make Laws That Are Totally Unacceptable to Us
Before I go into the many Bills before Parliament, it’s important that we understand why Governments love Secondary Legislation.
Secondary legislation is totally undemocratic
It gives Government ministers the ability to make laws without the scrutiny of Parliament.
They use Statutory Instruments (SIs) You may be more familiar with the United States term – Executive Orders.
Statutory Instruments (SIs)
In the UK there are about 3500 SIs published every year. That’s an average of 10 a day, most of which are never scrutinised by our elected MPs. In fact, many MPs are totally unaware of the existence of most of the SIs.
Here’s how it works: The Government publishes a Bill (that is, primary legislation to produce an Act of Parliament – a law) which sounds altogether reasonable and justified, based on the requirements of a peaceful and prosperous society.
However, as usual, the devil is in the detail.
Also, as per usual, there are many terms used in the Bill that are not defined. These terms will be defined in secondary legislation. There is a reasonable case for this when our leaders have our interests at heart. Instead of having a Bill which is bogged down with technical details, they publish a Bill in a general form which should pass smoothly through Parliament, leaving the technical details to be sorted out through ‘regulations’ at a later stage.
Enter the Statutory Instruments.
However, this seemingly reasonable process is wide open to abuse. It is employed by our beloved leaders to enact laws that would otherwise never survive the scrutiny of Parliamentary debate.
Also, as they are not debated in Parliament, we don’t even know they are happening.
And remember, ignorance of the law is no defence – no excuse.
You are subject to these laws even though you don’t even know that they exist
There are two types of SIs – Affirmative and Negative. Which type it is will be stated in the original primary legislation.
The Affirmative ones need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. They cannot be amended – they must be either accepted or rejected in total. The last time one was rejected by the Commons was in 1979 (43years ago) and the last time one was rejected by the Lords was in 2000 (22 years ago). They are usually ‘nodded through’ in minutes without a vote.
The Government presents the SI to Parliament. In the very unlikely event that it is rejected (see above), the Government amends it, re-presents it and continues the process until it gets what it wants.
The Negative type (about 80% of all SIs, about 2,800 a year, nearly 8 a day) do not need to be approved. They become law on the day the minister signs them. There is a procedure to annul them but it has seldom been used.
In the hands of a tyrannical Government such as the UK Government:
Statutory Instruments are a deadly weapon
The UK Government really likes this despotic legal system.
It can pass sprawling, incomprehensible, primary legislation without defining any of the most crucial precepts the new law is supposedly based upon.
For example, the Government is almost certainly going to manage to pass the forthcoming Online Safety Act, but hasn’t bothered to explain what key terms, such as “harm” or “disinformation,” actually mean.
Parliament will rubber stamp the Online Safety Bill into law as an Act and will empower the executive (Crown ministers) subsequently to use negative SIs—which Members of Parliament won’t even read, let alone oppose, to add the meat to the bones of the legislation.
The executive will prescribe whatever it, its favoured NGOs and its international “partners” wants to call “disinformation” or “harm” as it sees fit, whenever it chooses, using secondary legislation. Thus, the new law can “be enforced and operate in daily life” in the absence of any genuine Parliamentary scrutiny or debate.
This is just about as dictatorial as it gets, but that’s the way Government operates in reality
Online Safety Bill
The Online Safety Bill, soon to be nodded through parliament, will become the Online Safety Act and thus law.
In common with most government legislation, it’s not what it says that matters, it’s what it doesn’t say that tells you everything.
The Government tells us that its purpose is to protect children from online grooming and abuse, and everyone from online harm, especially from terrorist organisations. The Government also states that it will protect freedom of expression and free speech.
The problem with this is that it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The real purpose is control of the narrative.
What does control of the narrative mean? It means that you will be able to say whatever you like online, but that the social media platforms will have a duty to ensure that nobody can see your input if it disagrees with what the Government is saying.
Using the Government’s own published data, you can prove that there was no Covid pandemic in 2020.
However, if you try to include their own data online when you make a post, you will be accused of spreading misinformation or disinformation or fake news or that you are a conspiracy theorist, or all four.
Facebook actually stated that they would take down any content that countered the Government’s narrative, even if it were true. That says it all.
This Bill is yet another example of the Government using Secondary Legislation and Statutory Instruments to make laws that would never get through the parliamentary process if their true purpose were clear from the beginning.
The Online Harms Bill, as with all other similar pieces of legislation in the recent past, relies on not defining any of the terms in the Bill.
Examples of terms not defined:
Content harmful to children
Content harmful to adults
Preventing harm to individuals
Category 1 services
The list goes on…
Even when they appear to define a term, they use more words that are not defined in law.
This means that the Bill is seemingly not controversial and this should give it smooth passage through Parliament. Once it has become an Act, the Government will define the terms in the Act, using Secondary Legislation.
In other words, this means that the Government can make the Act mean whatever they want it to mean – this week. If next week they want it to mean something different, even the complete opposite, they just introduce more Secondary Legislation, or get the Minister concerned to sign a Statutory Instrument.
In addition, Ofcom (the broadcasting regulator) will oversee the implementation of the Act and will be required to issue guidance, regulations and Codes of Practice.
The Government said that an independent regulator would be appointed. It then appointed Ofcom. Hardly independent. Almost all of the board members have ties to the BBC, or, are currently or have been working in government roles. (Source: ofcom.org.uk search ‘Register of Disclosable Interests’)
Ofcom is directly accountable to parliament. It is ‘sponsored’ by the DCMS (Dept. of Digital, Cultural, Media and Sport)
It is funded by the broadcasters it regulates.
It also regulates video sharing platforms where terrorist material is often shared. It doesn’t use the counter-terrorism powers it currently possesses, so the claim by the Government that the Bill will enable Ofcom to regulate such platforms seems somewhat hollow.
Child Sexual Abuse And Exploitation
The UK Government accepts that online child sexual abuse and exploitation (CSEA) overwhelmingly occurs on the dark web. “Statistics from the National Crime Agency (NCA) show that last year 2.88 million accounts were registered globally across the most harmful child sexual abuse dark web sites, with at least 5% believed to be registered in the UK.”
Law enforcement agencies in the UK are currently arresting around 450 individuals and safeguarding over 600 children each month through their efforts to combat online CSE. In the UK alone, it is estimated there are 80,000 people who present a sexual threat to children online.
(Source: Gov.uk Fact Sheet on online Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse)
Yet the supposed solution advanced in the OSB is to place a responsibility upon the social media giants of the surface web (unhidden internet) to police everyone‘s social media activity.
If the Government is so worried about child grooming on the Category 1 social media platforms, then a sensible start to tackling the problem would be for it to insist that Facebook—by far the biggest platform—does more to control the use of its site for illegal purposes since the number of people accessing Facebook via the ”dark web” now stands at 1 million per month, the tech giant announced today (April 22)
(This figure is at least 6 years old, from Apr 2016)
(However, keep in mind that the dark web is not all bad. People such as resistance groups, freedom fighters, investigative journalists in oppressive regimes (such as the UK), law enforcement who use it to set up stings to catch paedophiles and sex traffickers – there’s more).
Since, as the UK Government accepts, most of the child sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA) takes place on the “dark web”, not the surface web, then one wonders why it is felt necessary to demand that the social media platforms police everyone’s social media activity.
Could it possibly be that the purpose of the OSB has little to do with the protection of children, and more to do with the suppression of freedom of expression and free speech?
All content that is deemed to be harmful (not defined yet), is to be treated the same as illegal content, so that whatever the ‘powers that be’ decide is against their narrative is considered illegal and removed. It is to become illegal. You will be guilty of a criminal offence, carrying whatever penalties they decide are appropriate.
But note, the Government won’t be doing this, it will be the duty of the tech giants to implement these rules.
Terrorist Activity and Radicalisation
(Radicalisationis a form of exploitation which can involve people being influenced and coerced into extremism)
To suggest that the Bill is needed to tackle terrorist propaganda and online radicalisation is just not true. The Government already possesses the authority and the powers to deal with this terrorist propaganda, but chooses not to.
Platforms such as YouTube (Google) have hosted terrorist-related material for up to twenty years and no action has been taken. The Government is using this as a selling point for this legislation.
As for suggesting that radicalisation is caused by the ability of extremists to use the internet anonymously, there is simply no evidence to support that.
The Bill is not about child protection. It’s about censorship.
How the Censorship Will Work
The concepts of disinformation and misinformation are hardly mentioned in the Bill, but this is what the Bill is all about, not child protection or terrorism, but about the power to censor the internet, cyberspace.
Firstly, these terms are not defined. This will be done through secondary legislation. These terms are hidden in the phrase ‘content that is harmful to adults’. It will be the duty of Ofcom to specify how the tech giants should ‘deal with disinformation and misinformation‘.
This means specifying how the platforms should either take down the content or hide it.
But which content are they really talking about? Why… content that is harmful to adults. Also known as..content that they don’t like – content that questions the narrative.
The tech platforms will have the power to police freedom of speech. The Bill declares that content is also harmful to adults whenever the platform:
[…] has reasonable grounds
to believe that the nature of the content is such that there is a material risk
of the content having, or indirectly having, a significant adverse physical or psychological impact
on an adult of ordinary sensibilities.
The words in red, which is what the section is about, are not defined, so that if the platforms don’t want to break the Ofcom regulations, they will have to err on the side of caution and ban all content that they suspect the Minister or Ofcom might disapprove of.
So that any content that is claimed to be disinformation or misinformation will be targeted for removal, whenever and wherever it is of a description designated in regulations made by the Secretary of State as priority content that is harmful to adults.
In other words, the Secretary of State will have total control over government propaganda, what they will let you see.
This Bill, and the soon-to-be Act, are a very example of what my and previous generations fought against in two world wars. Fascism.
(For a more detailed analysis, go to:
Reforming Replacing the Human Rights Act 1998
With the proposed ‘Modern Bill of Rights’
The Government intends to replace the Human Rights Act 1998, which has protected our freedom of expression and free speech for almost a quarter of a century with a new, modern Bill of Rights, which they say will strengthen our freedoms.
This is a blatant lie. It is intended to restrict our current freedoms.
The 1998 Act has bolstered free expression in the UK in a number of areas: strengthened defamation law; enhanced protection of journalistic sources and material; strengthened protection of the right to protest; and restricted perception-based recording of non-crime incidents, among other things.
Let’s be clear about one thing. Your rights, your human rights, are not ‘granted’ to you by anyone – especially the Government.
Parliament is elected by the people to serve the people, not the other way round. In spite of most people not being aware of it, the UK has a written constitution, Magna Carta. Even though the Government has ‘repealed’ all but three of its Articles, this has been unlawful, if not illegal.
They say they want to rebalance the relationship between the rights of the individual and the ‘common good’ (not defined – they get to do that). This has been the cry of every dictatorship in history. It is a process of removing the rights of the individual in favour of the state.
Also they intend to make your rights dependent on your ‘behaviour’. Including your past behaviour.
Chinese ‘Social Credit System’ anyone?
Under our legal system which has served us well for 900 years, the Courts have the power to amend or reject legislation if it is unjust. The Modern Bill of Rights will remove that power. In other words, the Courts will no longer be a check on the Government bringing in laws that take away our human rights.
There will be a ‘permission’ stage if you should want to enforce your human rights in the Courts. First you will have to prove, to their satisfaction, that your claim is not ‘trivial’. (not defined – they get to do that).
Under current law the Police and local authorities have a duty to prevent breaches of human rights, especially in protecting women from domestic abuse, and worse. This duty will be severely watered down, if not removed entirely.
Where the use of Statutory Instruments has challenged our human rights, under the current law, we can seek a Judicial Review of these SIs. This check on the power of Ministers will be removed. (The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, already law)
The new Act will give the Government the power to tell the Courts how to interpret legislation. This doesn’t sound much, but it is enormous.
The administration of government is carried out by having a separation of powers into three independent branches, a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary, that is, the parliament which enacts legislation, an executive which carries out the legislation, and the Courts which interpret the legislation.
The purpose of the three independent branches is to provide checks and balances, so that there cannot be a concentration of power in any one branch. By the Government being able to direct the Courts as to how to interpret legislation, the separation of powers is made meaningless, allowing the Government (the Executive) to have complete control in all matters of state – i.e. to have sovereignty. The truth is that under natural law, the people are sovereign.
This list is by no means complete, but it will give you some idea of the ‘power grab’ taking place, especially if you consider the other Bills and Acts brought in over the last few years.
Public Order Bill 2022
This is yet another example of the government pushing a Bill through parliament, which has blanket coverage with no definitions of the words used. This makes it easier to get parliamentary support and to make the Bill an Act of Parliament, which means law. Then Secondary Legislation using Statutory Instruments can be used to define the words in any way they want. (See the opening section of this post)
In October 2021, while Parliament was debating the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill, now an Act and therefore law, the government tried to attach a series of eye-watering amendments that would have made the new legislation much, much worse. These amendments were defeated in the House of Lords.
Drum roll and fanfare – enter the Public Order Bill 2022. Its purpose is to recover the amendments lost, with a new Bill to restrict our right to protest. It is designed to clamp down on the use of direct action and civil disobedience.
Contents of Public Order Bill 2022
New ‘locking on’ offences
New Stop and Search powers
Interference with key infrastructure
Obstruction of major transport works
Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (This is the killer)
(You will see the following phrase used in this Bill over and over again:
…..activities related to a protest that resulted in, or were likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation.
Notice that none of the terms are defined. That’s where Secondary Legislation comes in)
New ‘locking on’ offences
An offence is committed if a person locks themselves onto another person, an object, or to land and causes (or could cause) serious disruption to two or more individuals or an organisation. Maximum penalty: six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
This may seem to include definitions but ‘locks’, ‘serious disruption’, ‘organisation’ are not defined. (for organisation read ‘corporation’).
A new offence is “going equipped for locking on”. Defined as having an item “in a place other than a dwelling with the intention that it may be used in the course of or in connection with” an attempt to lock on. Maximum penalty: an unlimited fine.
(if you go to the protest on a bike leave your padlock at home) (Oh and no superglue)
New Stop and Search powers
The Bill seeks to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) to give police new wide ranging powers to stop and search, including suspicion that someone is going to commit the offence of obstructing the highway, of causing a public nuisance or the new offences proposed by the Public Order Bill (see below).
Even worse, if that were possible, the Bill would introduce a blanket stop and search power that does not require ‘reasonable grounds’.
This would put the offences of obstructing the highway, of causing a public nuisance or the new offences proposed by the Public Order Bill in the same category as alleged threats of serious violence or the use of weapons.
(These powers can be used by police to harass anyone they think is on the way to a protest)
Interference with ‘key infrastructure’
It will be an offence to interfere with “the use or operation of any key national infrastructure in England and Wales” or intending to.
The Bill also gives the Home Secretary the power to add to the following list, without parliamentary scrutiny:
- road transport
- air transport
- downstream (refining) of crude oil
- downstream (processing and purification) of natural gas
- onshore oil and gas exploration and production
- onshore electricity generation, or
- newspaper printing infrastructure
The maximum penalty is six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine in Magistrates’ Court or 12 months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine on indictment at the Crown Court.
Obstruction of major transport works
New offence of “obstructing major transport works, by blocking or interfering with equipment or blockading, for example, construction work”.
Also, an offence of obstructing staff from “taking any steps that are reasonably necessary for the purposes of facilitating, or in connection with, the construction or maintenance of any major transport works”
Maximum penalty: six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
Also known as Criminal Disruption Prevention Orders. These are ways the state can punish you if it thinks that you mightcommit an offence. Does this remind you of the movie Minority Report where you can be convicted before you commit a crime.
If this also reminds you of ASBOs (Anti Social Behaviour Orders) you are not wrong.
You do NOT need to be convicted of an offence for a SDPO to be issued. A Chief Constable can apply to a Magistrates’ Court for an order.
These orders actively encourage the expansion of police intelligence gathering on a wide range of resistance or political movements. They will allow police to target people that the authorities see as key organisers and ban them from attending, organising or promoting protests seen as “disruptive to two or more individuals or to an organisation” for two years or more, even if they have never been convicted of a crime.
Also the state may decide that they ‘become’ guilty of a crime if they break the rules of the order in any way.
As SDPOs are civil orders, the courts may be allowed to decide that an individual is likely to cause disruption based on police intelligence only.
(Under the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 governments departments may now authorise their undercover agents to commit criminal acts). I’ll add a section on this one later.
Two of the following must be met for an SDPO to be issued:
- A person has “caused or contributed to the carrying out by any other person
of activities related to a protest that resulted in, or were likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales “.
They can also include the following:
- Not associating with named people
- Not going to certain areas
- Banning people from attending protests
- Reporting to a police station at certain times
- Not participating in certain activities
- Not using the internet to commit a protest-related offence or to “carry out activities related to a protest that result in, or are likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales”.
There is also a provision in the Bill for electronic monitoring (wearing an ankle tag) of those subject to orders, for up to a year.
Believe it or not, the above is a short form analysis of the main points from the Bill.
For a more detailed analysis from the Network for Police Monitoring:
(I don’t necessarily agree with all that it says, especially regarding BLM and XR, but it is a fair analysis from a slightly different perspective than mine)
The Schools Bill
Since 1870 the Department for Education (DfE) has never run a school. Under the proposed Bill it will totally take over control of every aspect of the education of our children in over 24,000 state schools.
In addition it will ensure that ALL schools become academies by 2030. If you home educate, you will be classified as a school and fall totally under the control of the DfE.
As parents, you will have no rights whatever in deciding how your children should be educated.
For parents of children in schools, the Schools Bill represents a ‘power grab’ by the DfE. Even former education ministers in the House of Lords have raised concerns over that.
You’ll be hearing the word ‘academy’ a lot. Here is an explanation of what academy schools are now. This will change if/when the ‘Schools Bill’ becomes law.
I have put the sections that will definitely change in bold.
Academies receive funding directly from the government and are run by an academy trust. They will no longer have more control over how they do things than community schools.
Academies do not charge fees.
Academies have more control over how they do things, for example they do not have to follow the national curriculum and can set their own term times. Not any more.
Some schools choose to become academies. No longer a choice.
If a school funded by the local authority is judged as ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted then it must become an academy. All schools will become academies.
Academy trusts are not-for-profit companies. They employ the staff and have trustees who are responsible for the performance of the academies in the trust. Trusts might run a single academy or a group of academies.
Some academies are supported by sponsors such as businesses, universities, other schools, faith groups or voluntary groups. Sponsors work with the academy trust to improve the performance of their schools.
From here on in, ‘bold’ is used for emphasis and ‘italics’ for what will change if this Bill becomes law.
Under the Bill:
1. All schools must become academies by 2030.
Currently, there is a dual system whereby faith schools can choose what they teach in religious studies, and may have different admissions criteria and staffing policies to state schools.
Faith academies do not have to teach the national curriculum and have their own admissions processes. This will change.
2. New academies will have sites provided by the state and will have no say in the matter.
Currently, schools established under trusts have the right to receive or buy extra land.
Not any more.
3. Religious Education and worship policy in academies can be changed or even removed by DfE regulations.
Currently, academies have freedom to choose these policies.Not any more.
4. The Bill gives the DfE power to remove and/or replace school governors.
Currently, these decisions rest with the school. Not any more.
5. The DfE will have the right to set the school curriculum.
Currently, school heads and governors have some freedom of choice re the curriculum.
Not any more.
6. The DfE will have the right to set school hours and term times
Currently, school heads and governors have some freedom of choice in these matters. Not any more.
7. The DfE will have the right to set absence policies. Parents will have no right to get permission from the head teacher for time off for any reason.
Currently, parents have the right to request permission from the head teacher for time off, and under limited circumstances the head teacher has the right to grant permission. Not any more.
8 The DfE will have the right to set fines for absences and they will be punitive.
9. The DfE will have the right to set admission procedures regardless of the current admission policies of each school.
Currently, schools have some freedom to decide admissions policies. Not any more.
10. The DfE will have the right to set salary levels, including those of teachers.
Currently, teachers’ salaries are set through a wide ranging statutory consultation process, involving teacher unions, employers and other relevant interested parties. Not any more.
11. The DfE will have the right to ban teachers from teaching not only in schools, but also online and remotely.
12. The DfE will control how the proprietors of school spend their money, taking away their financial autonomy.
13. OFSTED will have the power to seize any material from a school (or anyone it thinks might be a school) that it sees fit. It will be a criminal offence to not comply.
14. The Bill introduces a register of children not in school including those being home schooled.
15. If your child takes a day off for any reason, you will have to register the absence with your local authority. It will be an offence to not comply, punishable by a monetary penalty.
16. You will be required to provide your local authority with any information that it demands under threat of fines or imprisonment if you fail to do so.
17. If you use a tutor, or out of school classes, the service provider will be under a duty to provide your child’s details to the local authority.
18. If a tutor or service provider fails to provide the information, or makes a clerical error, they can face closure, fines and loss of their business.
19. If a family member educates your child with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) (or 5 children or more) for some of the time, they will have to register as a school and face OFSTED inspection and the duties that schools have to provide your information to the local authority. No exceptions are made for childminders, tutors, after school clubs, forest schools, relatives and large families who home educate.
20. The Bill gives the DfE the right to close down independent schools and make it an offence for the school to continue to operate.
You will no longer have any right to choose or influence the education your child receives.
All education provision will be under the control of the Department for Education and local authorities, without exception.
National Security Bill
The National Security Bill is Home Secretary Priti Patel’s latest attempt to clamp down on journalists who report anything that challenges the Government. (but not only journalists).
But, and it’s a big but, the penalties under the Bill, if convicted, are a fine or life imprisonment, or both. If on conviction the Court felt that the offence warranted a penalty greater than a fine, it would have no option but to impose life imprisonment, no possibility of a shorter term in custody.
This is yet another Bill which doesn’t define its terms. It is so broad in its application that, just like in previous examples in this post, after it has become an Act, and thus law, the Government can make it mean anything it wants, using secondary legislation and/or statutory instruments.
“Whistleblowers, journalists and publishers focusing on national security related matters may be most at risk of being prosecuted, though any person who “copies,” “retains,” “discloses,” “distributes” or “provides access to” so called protected information could be prosecuted.
“Protected information” is defined as any “restricted material” and it need not even be classified.
Under this bill, leakers, whistleblowers, journalists or everyday members of the public, face a potential life sentence if they receive or share “protected information” which is widely defined.” (GlobalResearch.ca)
There is no ‘public interest’ defence included in the Bill. The Bill is similar in many ways to the 1917 Espionage Act which the US Government is using to prosecute the Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange.
An offence has been committed if the defendant knows or ‘ought reasonably’ to know that their conduct is ‘prejudicial to the safety or interests’ of the UK
As usual, ‘prejudicial’, ‘safety’, ‘reasonably’, ‘interests’ are not defined, but will be by whichever government is in power at the time of the prosecution.
The Bill will allow ministers to decide what is legal or illegal to share.
The Bill will grant ministers and intelligence operatives immunity in assisting in crimes carried out overseas, if their criminal conduct is deemed “necessary for the proper function” of those government institutions.
Committing “damage” against any “asset,” inside or outside the U.K., for “a purpose that they know, or ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom” is also punishable by a fine or life in prison, or both. (Remember the bolded phrase – it appears everywhere in this Bill).
I could go on, but suffice to say that this Bill has cross-party support with few dissenters, so it will pass through the parliamentary stages to become an Act of Parliament and thus law.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
I am only looking at the parts of the Act that affect protesting. This section updates you on the new police powers.
This Act gives the police the ability to ensure that protestors express their views in a manageable manner. (Manageable by them of course).
The conditions they can impose on protests (public assemblies) will be brought into line with the powers they currently have to control processions.
They will now be able to monitor protests by setting start and finish times. They will also be able to control noise levels. (You will probably only be allowed to stand in a corner and whisper)
Their powers have also been extended to apply to ‘single person’ protests.
Wilful obstruction of a highway will now carry a penalty increase from a maximum of £1000 to an unlimited fine and/or 6 months imprisonment
If you breach conditions imposed by the police, this offence has been amended. An offence can be committed where a person “knows or ought to have known” that a condition has been imposed.
Previously public nuisance was a common law offence. Under this Act it has now been restated in statute. This was done, they say, to provide clarity to both the police and potential offenders of what conduct is now forbidden. (Actually it enables the powers that be to change the definition of public nuisance by statutory instrument or secondary legislation as and when they choose).
The police will now have the power to ensure that vehicular entrances to the ‘Parliamentary Estate’ remain unobstructed.
The Act has introduced Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) – local authorities can make a PSPO near schools and sites providing vaccination/test and trace services.
Covert Human Intelligence Sources Act
The reason I have included this Bill in the list is that resistance groups are being targeted by undercover agents. They also form part of the controlled opposition. They are also responsible for ‘false flag’ attacks.
This applies to undercover operatives and agents whose role is to infiltrate criminal organisations in order to gather evidence that may be used in future prosecutions.
“Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) are crucial in preventing and safeguarding victims from many serious crimes including terrorism, drugs and firearms offences and child sexual exploitation.
Participation in criminal conduct is an essential and inescapable feature of CHIS use, otherwise they will not be credible or gain the trust of those under investigation. This enables them to work their way into the heart of groups that would cause us harm, finding information and intelligence which other investigative measures may never detect.
The Bill provides an express power to authorise CHIS to participate in conduct which would otherwise constitute a criminal offence.” (Gov.uk)
Although this seems very reasonable and necessary, the Bill is considered by many to be unfit for purpose.
“Though the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT) backed MI5’s ability to authorise involvement in criminality, two of the five judges disagreed – the first dissent in the IPT’s two-decade history. One described the government’s claimed basis for the policy as setting a “dangerous precedent”.
Seeking to put longstanding secret protocols on a statutory footing is welcome. But the legislation that has resulted currently offers astounding scope for the use of such sources. Most alarmingly, it does not rule out murder, torture or sexual offences. The argument is that otherwise criminals will be able to test those they suspect with a “checklist”, as if they might not already sound them out.” (The Guardian. Not my favourite source but correct on this occasion)
What is also worrying is the broad range of Government departments included.
Relevant public authorities included in the Bill:
• Any of the intelligence services
• Any police force
• The National Crime Agency
• Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
• Any of Her Majesty’s Forces
• The Home Office
• The Ministry of Justice
• The Department of Health and Social Care (for the MHRA)
• The Competition and Markets Authority
• The Environment Agency
• The Financial Conduct Authority
• The Food Standards Agency
• The Gambling Commission
• The Serious Fraud Office
Sources I use (among others)
UKColumn.org Highly recommended. Truly Independent news media. Live broadcasts Mon, Wed, Fri 1 pm. Available on Rumble, Bitchute, Odysee, Brand New Tube.
IainDavis.com Highly recommended. Investigates in depth. Also appears on UKColumn above.
UKHealth Security Agency
Office for National Statistics