The government sets out its agenda to reduce crime

I reproduce below parts of the government’s explanation of its wide ranging Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which the Commons will vote on today.

The Bill will tackle crime by:” equipping police officers with the powers and tools they need to keep themselves and all of us safe; putting the Police Covenant into law; doubling the maximum sentence for assaulting workers in emergency services; tackling unauthorised traveller encampments; requiring schools, police, councils and health authorities to work together through Violence Reduction Units to prevent serious crime; empowering the police by a new court order to target known knife carriers, making it easier for officers to stop and search those convicted of knife crime; enabling the trialling of secure schools; improving employment opportunities for ex-offenders; introducing tougher sentencing for the worst offenders and ending automatic halfway release from prison for serious crimes; and introducing tougher community sentences.

The Serious Violence Duty will require local authorities, the police, criminal justice agencies, health authorities and fire and rescue services to work together, share data and intelligence, to formulate an evidence-based analysis of the problems associated with serious violence in a local area, and then produce and implement a strategy detailing how they will respond to those particular issues. Prisons and educational establishments will also need to work with these core partners where necessary.

Protecting children and young people in vulnerable positions from sexual abuse and exploitation is a top priority for this Government and we have been reviewing the law in this area very carefully to ensure that any changes we make are the right ones. The current “positions of trust” offences criminalise sexual activity with a child under the age of 18 by people who hold a defined “position of trust” in respect of that young person even if such activity is consensual, effectively raising the age of consent from 16 to 18 in those circumstances. The positions of trust offences build on the “general” child sex offences, which make it a crime for anyone to engage in sexual activity with someone under the age of 16. Non-consensual sexual activity, whatever the age of the victim, is illegal. Following thorough engagement with stakeholders, including representatives from faith groups and the sporting sector, we have concluded that there is a clear need to extend the scope of positions of trust legislation, which currently covers a number of statutory roles such as teachers and social workers, so as to also include those who carry out certain activities within religious and sports settings, for example, those whose roles involve them in being a faith leader or sports coach. By doing this we aim to stop such people who seek to abuse their positions of trust from manipulating or exploiting young people to engage in sexual activity.

Criminal Damage to Memorials
While incidences of damage to memorials are typically of low monetary value, they very often carry a high sentimental and emotional impact. Under the current law, cases of criminal damage with a value less than £5,000 must be tried summarily and carries a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a £2,500 fine. The Bill will toughen the law where criminal damage is caused to a memorial, by removing the consideration of monetary value which would otherwise determine venue and limit sentencing powers, effectively increasing the maximum sentence from three months to 10 years’ imprisonment for criminal damage to a memorial where the value involved in monetary terms is assessed to be less than £5,000. These changes will allow the court to consider all the impacts, not just financial, so that the sentence can reflect the full range of harm caused.

Public Order
We have seen the extensive disruption that some protests have caused in recent years, stopping people getting on with their daily lives, hampering the free press and blocking access to Parliament. We need to improve the police’s ability to safely manage such highly disruptive protests by giving them new powers to manage public assemblies and processions. In particular, the Bill will:
• Widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on static protests, to match existing police powers to impose conditions on marches;

• Broaden the range of circumstances in which police may impose conditions on the generation of noise at a protest, including single person protests;

• Amend the offence relating to the breaching of conditions so that someone commits an offence where they know or ought to have known of the conditions imposed by the police;

• Introduce a delegated power enabling the Home Secretary to clarify “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the protest”; two of the thresholds at which relevant conditions can be placed on a protest should a senior police officer reasonably believe there to be a risk of the protest meeting these thresholds;

• Codify in statute the common law offence of public nuisance into in line with proposals put forward by the Law Commission

Unauthorised Encampments
As reported before on this website

Driving Offences
Whilst many deaths and injuries are the result of a tragic accident, too many of these incidents involve criminal behaviour. The Government is bringing forward changes to driving penalties to meet its longstanding commitment to ensure the courts have the powers they need to deal with those drivers who kill by dangerous driving or by careless driving when under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Our aim is to make sure that the penalties available to the courts for such offences are proportionate and reflect the seriousness of the offences committed. We will also create a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving to close an existing gap in the law.

Serious Violence Reduction Orders
Serious Violence Reduction Orders (SVROs) will give the police additional stop and search powers to target those convicted of knife and offensive weapons offences. SVROs will target those who pose the greatest risk of harm, will discourage offenders from carrying weapons again as there is a greater likelihood of being caught and brought to justice, and will help protect exploited individuals. SVRO will save lives and make communities safer. To ensure that SVRO operate as effectively as possible we will pilot the new orders before they are rolled out nationally.

Finally, the Bill will contain measures to help improve the efficiency of the court and tribunals system by modernising existing court processes to provide better services for all court users.”


  1. Mark B
    March 16, 2021

    Good morning

    There is no point in creating new laws only for them to be ignored as we have seen recently. It always seems to me that certain groups have been, and still are, treated very differently. Witness recent events.

    What concerns me is any new powers a Local Authority or government agency get is used for purposes that were not intended by the legislation.

    And where are we going to put all the criminals ? Five Star hotels, because the prisons are full.

    1. Mark B
      March 16, 2021

      I make the same points as agricola below. Yet you gold this in moderation.

      Just saying. 🙂

  2. Ian Wragg
    March 16, 2021

    Does any of this apply to organisations like ER or BLM.
    There is no mention of people who enter the country illegally.
    I would have thought that the police had enough powers if they wished to deploy them.

    1. Denis Cooper
      March 16, 2021

      Just for interest here are the results of some probability calculations I performed using this tool:

      This was the first question that I wished to answer:

      “If 1000 random women assemble on Clapham Common in reaction to the kidnapping and murder of a woman, as estimated in the media, and if at present the local Covid-19 infection rate is 0.3%, as estimated by the ONS, then what is the probability that none of those women are infected with Covid-19?”

      And the answer to that initial question is 5%, so a 95% chance that at least one is infected and potentially spreading the disease to all of the others and thence further, possibly itself leading to one or more deaths and to a larger number of long term debilitating illnesses among innocent law-abiding people.


      None infected – 0.04956308283 = 5%
      1 infected – 0.14913665844 = 15%
      2 infected – 0.22415374391 = 22%
      3 infected – 0.22437857214 = 22%
      4 infected – 0.1682839291 = 17%
      5 infected – 0.10086908328 = 10%
      6 infected – 0.05033336904 = 5%
      7 infected – 0.02150653482 = 2%
      8 infected – 0.00803259368 = 1%

      Still, that seems not to matter in this case, and the police are at fault for trying to enforce the law.

      Personally I am not keen on the police strategy of dispersing such gatherings once they have formed and the virus has had a good chance to spread among the participants; the ideal course would be to contain them and isolate each of them for however long it took to be sure that they were free of infection and could be safely released into the community.

      1. Mark
        March 16, 2021

        You are assuming the probability of failing to isolate while perhaps being quite ill and at least probably having had a positive test is 100%. If 75% of those infected stay home, then the chances are 50/50 that no-one is infected at the demo. Of course, the chances of passing on the virus in an open air setting are not very high if we believe Sir Patrick Vallance, who noted there was no evidence of a rise in infections following any of the more numerous demonstrations earlier.

        1. Denis Cooper
          March 17, 2021

          I have assumed a random selection of women. As you correctly say some women who may otherwise been tempted to attend could have decided not to go because they thought they might be infected, or even knew that they were infected, and thought that it would just be too irresponsible, going too far even for them, to risk spreading the virus to large numbers of other women. On the other hand many of the women who attended this event knowing that it had been declared unlawful by a court would be sufficiently irresponsible that they would attend even they knew were heavily infected … however such considerations just create another set of uncertainties among many, including a pretty basic uncertainty about the numbers involved. The calculations are really only designed to illustrate how such large gatherings quickly generate significant risks when the general infection level is so high, and not just to the participants, and not just for these particular protests but also for celebrating football fans and opponents of lockdowns and so on, and that is why we should support the police in their efforts to stop them happening.

    2. Andy
      March 16, 2021

      The police have plenty of powers. People who enter the country illegally are here illegally and can be deported.

      If someone arrives by dinghy and claims asylum on arrival that is not illegal. It is recognised in international law that people may not always be able to claim asylum by regular routes. Particularly now to the U.K. when the government – desperate to appease the angry minority mob who votes for it – has shut off all of those regular routes people can use. Forcing desperate people and their children to risk their lives instead. Appalling.

      The dinghies are a sign that our government has failed. If 125,000 dead people, the worst recession in 300 years and the inability to export shellfish were not enough evidence for that already.

      1. Peter2
        March 16, 2021

        Yet they are not deported.
        There is an industry of lawyers who appeal their deportation.
        They are quite safe in France.

      2. glen cullen
        March 16, 2021

        Thought it was a convention to claim asylum in the first safe haven… fact I believe its an internationally recognised convention endorsed by the United Nations

      3. NickC
        March 17, 2021

        Andy, No, if someone arrives by dinghy and claims asylum on arrival it is illegal. They are meant to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Which at the least is France. We should tow them back to French waters – they, and France, would soon get the message.

    3. Caterpillar
      March 16, 2021

      Ian Wragg,

      I suspect their is little between the P.M. / Conservative MPs’ views and that of Extinction Rebellion, after all the ‘green’ policies being enacted by the Johnson Govt are there for all to see.

      I would suggest the route to cope with Ex.R. is to explain that under more CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere that the planet is greening, that more life is sustainable. Of course there are issues that with more water in the atmosphere, when flooding events occur there can be more volume – but designing and managing floods is known technology. It could also be explained that the land fall of extreme hurricanes has been greater in the past. It could be explained that low lying islands are dynamic erosion/deposition systems (and more are expanding than contracting), it should be recognised that sea levels continue their slow predictable rise (though there is evidence they have been in higher within the not so distant past), but that living below sea-level is a known, solved problem – solved hundreds of years ago (one-third of the Netherlands). Yes, the West Antarctic ice sheet might be unstable, but however humans play with emissions does not change the reality of active thermal systems below the sheet – better to prepare than to believe the human component is going to be relevant.

    4. Your comment is awaiting moderation
      March 16, 2021

      The problem is politicisation of law enforcement, same thing applies to, the judicial system, education, science and the Fourth Estate.

    5. Timaction
      March 16, 2021

      Priti Useless has done the square root of nothing about the boat people. I have a letter from my MP Mr Rees Mogg in August claiming all sort of action in the…….future and a copy letter (pro-forma) from Priti Useless talking tough but doing……..nothing at our expense. The Home Office followed up a couple of months later talking a good job but doing………nothing.
      OT My Council Tax bill arrived on Friday. A further 5% rise to add to the last five years of above inflation rises. These rises are double the rise of my work related pension and does not consider inflation on everything else. Why do the Government allow them to do this? They empty bins and recycling and the upkeep of our roads in our area resembles a third world Country. Adult social care cost has risen from £28 to over £220 since 2016. What on earth is going on.

      1. glen cullen
        March 16, 2021

        Thought we’d out sourced the task to the French….and paid them up front

    6. Hope
      March 17, 2021

      It gives the power to govt to decide what it will allow. It is called authoritarian totalitarian decision making. Govt has a taste for it under virus and now want more!

    7. Hope
      March 18, 2021

      Ian, you only have to look at any record on any of the issues under this rotten propaganda exercise to realise everything is at a historic worse position! The key element is prohibiting peaceful protest! Of course govt gets to decided what acceptable might be!

      Corbyn must be thinking why his conservative fiscally prudent manifesto by comparison to Johnson’s was not accepted by the public! He would have allowed more freedoms as well!

  3. SM
    March 16, 2021

    A genuine question: how much is done in schools to educate the young about crime, its motivations and its consequences? From which question flows another: why aren’t there Civics lessons, perhaps from the age of 14, which introduce youngsters to the concepts of government, the state, democracy v authoritarianism, right down to the simple facts of how the political system works in the UK?

    Effectively, what you have described here, Sir John, are ‘tidying up after the event’ actions; perhaps what is needed is more input into education and advising of the implications of choosing to act illegally. And how many children and young people are influenced by the perceived glamour of violence and lawbreaking implicit in so many entertainment streams?

    1. SM
      March 16, 2021

      I can’t help wondering what is either questionable or offensive about my comment that it is still in moderation after more than 14 hours?

    2. glen cullen
      March 16, 2021

      Maybe a school leaving certificate, which includes ‘UK Law’ as one of its subjects – and you need this certificate if you wish employment receiving directly or indirectly public funds or salary

    3. Hope
      March 18, 2021

      They are.

  4. agricola
    March 16, 2021

    Well that is one hell of a lot of law. How much transgression that will stop is very debatable because the offenders have to be caught by a police force noted for its absence and courts that seem to have their own agenda on sentencing. When caught and sentenced do we have a prison system large enough to hold them, or is it a training course to improve the ability to commit crime.
    You could of course deport to foreign jails all those who abuse their presence in the UK, removing a reputed 10,000 from the prison population.
    Having the law does not alter human behaviour. The problem is not solved after tonight and never will be until all the other missing components are in place.

    1. MiC
      March 16, 2021

      Penalties are not very good deterrents.

      The US has the death penalty, and yet its pro-rata murder rate is five or six times that of the UK and the European Union.

      “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”.

      Didn’t a party that actually reduced it significantly work under that heading once?

      1. No Longer Anonymous
        March 16, 2021

        hid the figures .

        1. MiC
          March 17, 2021


    2. Hope
      March 16, 2021

      Courts act on woke govt. guidelines. Hands are tied.

      Foreign born criminals being deported has gone down year on year for the last ten years under Fake Tories in govt. They own this travesty against their lies tot he opposite to blame everyone else, remember Johnson stating illegal immigrants will be sent straight back- four star hotels not even detention centres.

      1. glen cullen
        March 16, 2021

        I had the pleasure of staying in the Penally and Napier Barracks back in the 80s and 90s, the heaters where on a timer, and considered old structures then…but it was better then sleeping in the field, they are safe and clean – I understand these Barracks have been deemed unsuitable for illegal immigrants ???

    3. glen cullen
      March 16, 2021

      In the past (some 300 years) we’ve had justice, law and police by consent of the people because it made sense, they where real and actionable and reflected the views of the majority of the people

      Since the 90s our politicians, our justice system and our police have become divorced from the people, I’d suggest that the peoples consent is no longer valid and our concord is broken

      1. Hope
        March 17, 2021

        Policing by consent is gone under this govt. it has deliberately politicised the police. Malt house now thinks boys should be given lessons at school to respect girls! More social engineering.

    4. Alan Jutson
      March 16, 2021

      Agree with your comment.

      Think the problem with all recent laws and regulations is that they are trying to be far too specific and are thus far too complicated, often leaving loopholes for so called clever lawyers.
      Theft is theft, no matter how you want to describe it or dress it up, Like wise same with assault, either physical or mental, with degrees of force or pressure for both.

      Simplification is in my view the key here.

      Perhaps whilst we are at it we should perhaps also look at the prosecution service and its performance.

      1. Jim Whitehead
        March 16, 2021

        G.C. and A.J.,
        I agree with both short submissions. Complexity is a lawyer’s paradise, the technical prevails over exercised judgement.

  5. Sea_Warrior
    March 16, 2021

    Lots to like here – but two things caught my eye:
    (1) ‘… tackling unauthorised traveller encampments.’ Good. Where they go, crime goes. Encampments should be dismantled the same day they appear and every vehicle on-site given the once over by the police. (To its credit, my local council has beeen extremely efficient in this regard.)
    (2) Protecting our war memorials. The one carrying the name of a relative who died serving his country in HMS ESK at the ‘The Texel Disaster’ is regularly being damaged by drunken yobs. I long to see some of them being given a lengthy community service order, to clean it, with a tooth-brush. Those caught on camera doing things like attacking the Cenotaph should be locked-up. I’ll happily turn the key.

  6. agricola
    March 16, 2021

    Can we now have a detailed analysis of the Brexit treaty which appears to be causing increasing chaos in UK/EU trade relations. Chaos to the point that it looks more like a sentence for transgression than a treaty. Are we reaching the point where we should sensibly revert to WTO rules.

    1. MiC
      March 16, 2021

      The time for such analysis is *before* it is ever agreed and ratified.

      Parliament were denied the time to do this properly.

      You voted for all this.

      Own it.

      1. Mark
        March 16, 2021

        Parliament voted to allow the previous government to undermine the negotiating position, and then to endorse the hopelessly flawed Withdrawal Agreement. The subsequent agreements were hampered by that process, and by Parliament’s and the then government’s failure to enter into the spirit of Brexit, preferring to try to concoct BRINO and even a backdoor to return to the EU.

      2. Otto
        March 20, 2021

        MiC ‘Parliament were denied the time to do this properly.’ Plus the incompetence of negotiators you say ‘we’ voted for that? How wrong can you be? Oh you’ve been propagandised.

    2. Know-Dice
      March 16, 2021

      Yes, agreed

    3. majorfrustration
      March 16, 2021

      Yes is the answer – this bickering will go on and on. And surely there must be better things for Westminster and the Civil Service to do.

    4. Andy
      March 16, 2021

      The time to do this detailed analysis was before we left.

      Government analyses things all the time to see the impact decisions will have on people. Whether it’s a new railway, closing a school, or a trade deal with Japan – they will analyse what it means to people. This happens all the time. With everything.

      Except the Brexit trade deal.

      If it were good for the U.K. not only would they have analysed it, they would have put it on the front page of every newspaper. For days.

      The reality is that by the time they signed you up to their deal even all of the Tories who voted for it knew Brexit would harm the country. So harmful that they refused to conduct an analysis showing how bad it would be.

      The OBR says 5% off GDP in the coming few years. That is significant. And that is why there will one day be prosecutions of leading Brexitists. Because while they may have had the best of intentions in 2016 by 2020 they were knowingly harming their country. They did it on purpose. And you don’t harm your country and get away with it. I hope they enjoy Belmarsh.

      1. NickC
        March 17, 2021

        Andy, We have got BINO not Brexit. And everything that’s nasty about the agreements is where the EU continues its control over us – fish, money, Northern Ireland, etc. That says most about how rotten Remain is.

    5. ian@Barkham
      March 16, 2021

      We have a Government that just doesn’t ‘get-it’. The ECJ is a foreign political Court and has no jurisdiction on a Sovereign free democracy. Or as one MEP said yesterday Boris doesn’t get it, if he and the UK accepts EU Laws and Rules the problems will go away (and that wasn’t a joke).
      The EU has yet to ratify the Treaty/Trade Agreement, yet they want to impose their Rule and suggest it is the UK breaking this un-agreed agreement. Yes WTO all the way

    6. glen cullen
      March 16, 2021

      I’d like to know what could trigger our government to move to WTO and the cancelation of the EU agreements etc

      I believe this government, hell all governments, would never go WTO

    7. Timaction
      March 16, 2021

      Totally agree and its the obvious route to bring some sense to the idiots in the EU. I think most people are just boycotting EU goods if another product is available.

    8. jon livesey
      March 16, 2021

      Parts of trade will revert to WTO rules more or less automatically. The process will be that we try to apply the FTA, find it unworkable in some area, stop applying silly regulations, and then go through the usual nonsense about the EU taking legal action, after which we’ll default to dropping the FTA, but only for that bit of trade.

      One view of the FTA is that the EU were “selling” free trade in exchange for their version of regulation. When regulation becomes too restrictive we’ll jettison the FTA for that particular bit of trade. The basic EU strategy of using trade to establish political control cannot work once you have left the EU, unless you are really foolish.

    9. acorn
      March 16, 2021

      Bit late for a detailed analysis, that should have been done before we signed up to the Withdrawal Treaty including the Northern Ireland Protocol. In Soccer terms the EU is up about seven nil. UK exports to the EU get strained through the well established, full EU “third country” filter mechanism, while the EU gets free unfettered, unfiltered access to the UK market till next year, at least.

      You can understand that non-EU countries will be going to the WTO and asking why EU goods get into the UK free when theirs currently don’t; and, how exactly does this trade agreement between the EU and UK actually complies with WTO rules for trade agreements. Meanwhile, what’s not to like for the EU and every horsemeat and counterfeit goods pedalling bandit. Lord Frosty the No Man looks like yet another bad Oxbridge hire by Boris.

      If I were the EU Parliament, I would vote down this Withdrawal Treaty and let the UK totally disconnect from the EU. The UK would revert to basic WTO terms. Which is exactly what JR and his ERG/CRG mates want for purely neoliberal ideological reasons. The bilateral trade agreements the UK has, in principal, agreed so far fall far short of what the UK needs to replace the EU agreements it enjoyed as a member state. Alas, this is what you leavers voted for.

      1. NickC
        March 17, 2021

        Acorn, Nearly 90% of UK GDP is not derived from the EU. That is why Brexit (actually escaping all EU control over us) is always a winner.

  7. Fedupsoutherner
    March 16, 2021

    In general I’m in full agreement with all these changes. Punishment does not always fit the crime at present. Legislation concerning the clergy needs looking at carefully because as we all know alot of sexual abuse has taken place within the church causing alot of harm. I would also like to see harsher punishment for cruelty to animals and in particular those that are involved in trafficking, puppy farming and most of all, dog theft. The grief that this causes is immeasurable. We have become too soft on all crime in recent years and everyone I speak to agrees.

    1. Paul Cuthbertson
      March 16, 2021

      “Legislation concerning the clergy……..”
      It is far deeper and more wide spread than that.

  8. Everhopeful
    March 16, 2021

    All the ludicrous jargon in the universe can not alter the fact that successive governments have purposely destroyed every social mainstay that kept us relatively save from criminal harm.
    The above measures, ON TOP of the widespread madness will do no good.
    Hasn’t the present interfering government NOTICED what goes on in the vicious, unjust, vile, inhumane nanny state it has helped to create?

    1. ian@Barkham
      March 16, 2021

      @Everhopeful +1
      It is even possible to suggest it is the Government itself that is creating and nurturing the rise in crime – they don’t give a dam about any one but themselves so why should any one else.

      1. Everhopeful
        March 16, 2021


    2. glen cullen
      March 16, 2021

      Agree – police stations closed, police recruits needing a degree, no-go areas, police issuing fines, police commissioners, risk-assessments, stop-and-search policy, tax collection enforcement, taking the knee….
      All we ever wanted was more police walking the streets !

      1. Everhopeful
        March 16, 2021


    3. Timaction
      March 16, 2021

      This stealthy left wing Government are about to bring in sex education for ………Junior School children! All the wokeness in the world, sex education and LBGTIQ (Whatever IQ is). Parents will be banned from excluding their children by this authoritarian Government. I wouldn’t have allowed this when my now grown children went to school and I worry for my Grandchildren. Parents know what’s best and when their children should know about such things, not the Nanny state. More left wing social/socialist engineering by the former Conservative Party, now mirroring communist China.

      1. glen cullen
        March 16, 2021

        Who’s coming up with these pathetic policies …..just like allowing 10 year olds to decide what sex they want to be !!!

  9. Alan Jutson
    March 16, 2021

    All of this looks very wide ranging, so wide ranging in fact, it almost looks like the existing system is unfit for purpose.

    I await the devil in the detail before making further comment.

    1. Skylark
      March 16, 2021

      We have no shortage of laws. More laws rarely benefit the people, just lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians and the state sector in general. Laws like bus lane fines and over parking by 2 mins will be very lucrative and be enforced. Others will costly to the state and so rarely will be enforced as they would prefer higher pay and pensions to doing anything much.

  10. MiC
    March 16, 2021

    Reduce crime?

    I’d like to increase it – that is, to make things which are commonplace public life here into the very serious imprisonable offences that they are in proper countries.

    I mean of course corruption, the traffic of influence as the French and others call it, and for which public figures often do actually get jailed in their countries.

    How I wish that the funding of certain political parties here and the behaviour of their senior members could be analysed under such laws.

    1. Peter2
      March 16, 2021

      If you think corruption in public life in France is much less than UK or USA you are much mistaken MiC

      1. Fred.H
        March 17, 2021

        as usual totally bitter about the UK. Must be held against will -the only possible explanation. But allowed internet for recreation?

    2. NickC
      March 17, 2021

      Martin, The EU is riddled with corruption!

  11. Narrow Shoulders
    March 16, 2021

    The anti-socials will continue unabated while your new laws trap the mostly law-aiding. As ever with government interventions the effected will be those who fear the law not those who don’t.

    I particularly look forward tot he first (illegal ed) encampment that is moved on or the first gang member jailed for carrying a knife. I suspect I will be waiting a long time. The laws will no doubt be applied with demographic and ethnic sensitivity and as we have seen, Black Olives Matter and Extinction Rebellion protests will continue to disrupt when they feel like it and football supporters will celebrate, a few women wishing to hear speeches decrying men and those protesting against our home incarceration will no be subject to ever more heavy handed policing.

    I agree with Alan above in that this list does suggest that the system is not fit for purpose. We will have to wait to see if our new reality is better or worse.

    1. Otto
      March 20, 2021

      IMO Green Olives Matter more.

  12. Fred.H
    March 16, 2021

    The worst ‘crime’ in this country :-
    A group of 47 cancer charities says that without urgent action, the UK’s cancer death rate will rise for the first time in decades. NHS figures suggest tens of thousands fewer people started cancer treatment since the first lockdown compared to normal times.
    Radio 1 Newsbeat has spoken exclusively to One Cancer Voice about the impact of coronavirus on cancer care. The group of charities adds that the NHS needs more resources.
    It also wants to see more staff available to diagnose and treat cancer, with greater NHS access to private facilities in order to “clear the backlog”.
    The government says cancer treatment has remained a top priority and urges people to see their GP if they have symptoms.
    “We are calling on the government to invest more money in ensuring the backlog of cancer cases is reduced and eliminated,” says Michelle Mitchell, the boss of Cancer Research UK, which heads up One Cancer Voice. “We could face, in this country today, the prospect of cancer survival reducing for the first time in decades. That’s why urgent action is required by the government.”

  13. Fedupsoutherner
    March 16, 2021

    Meanwhile in the lunatic world of woke I see the University of Manchester is advising against the use of the words father and mother. We can look forward to a bonkers world if this kind of thing takes off. Another ridiculous change of speech is chest feeding instead of breastfeeding. Utter madness.

    1. glen cullen
      March 16, 2021

      Madness indeed…and this government condones it by its inaction – we fund the university we should tell it how to behave or seek private funding

  14. Fedupsoutherner
    March 16, 2021

    Can we please have more CCTV and not less.

    1. Mark
      March 16, 2021

      CCTV cameras are signs warning that you are entering an area where mugging and attacks are likely. I prefer to avoid them where possible.

    2. Paul Cuthbertson
      March 17, 2021

      BIG Brother is watching you r every move. No thank you.

  15. No Longer Anonymous
    March 16, 2021

    Dog theft (a wicked crime), stripping lead from church roofs, stealing catalytic converters from cars …

    The scum bags that do this sort of thing do not fear the police and government as much as we do.

    Priti Patel says “…too many of us feel the need to pretend to be on the phone and to clutch keys.” I’d like to point out that 99.9999% of these instances there was no crime and it was likely the man was perfectly innocent.

    50% of the population has just been criminalised and smeared. This is because the Tories agree that getting tough on the criminals that actually commit crime is not an option – like the sugar tax, punish everyone.

    Men are still far more likely to be murdered, have their cancer ignored, die of CV-19 and die 4 years before women and lose their homes and children in a divorce.

    1. No Longer Anonymous
      March 16, 2021

      Ms Patel obviously didn’t feel nervous enough about being assaulted to spend ten years training in martial arts like I did.

      1. No Longer Anonymous
        March 16, 2021

        … and I would not have done so had there been beat policing in the dodgy London areas where I had to work at night.

    2. glen cullen
      March 16, 2021

      I honestly don’t know what the police do all day, if you car is stolen they give up a crime number to tell your insurance, if your bicycle is stolen they give you’re a website address to record it and if your house is burgled without any cctv…well forget it

      I haven’t seen any police for over 2 years apart from when its sunny and they’re issuing fines to people by my local marina for covid

  16. Shirley M
    March 16, 2021

    I am sure there will have been laws in place to deal with grooming gangs, but they were not used (for decades) until public opinion forced them to act. Will these new laws (if implemented) also be used ‘selectively’?

  17. Nig l
    March 16, 2021

    Looks good but BS because there aren’t enough police and won’t be plus the get bogged down in paper work. They have already made it clear minor robberies etc won’t be looked at. Cheque card fraud, now probably just the card has never been chased unless it was a scale that could not be overlooked. Always resources to catch motorists though.

    How many fines outstanding, fugitives not caught, illegal immigrants not repatriated.

    And re yesterday about the dangers of hydrogen, German scientists have invented a paste, benign at normal temperatures but containing the gas to be put injected into an engine via a removable cartridge, quick changeover good range. Next stage trials start next year. The view is this could revolutionise the car. As for expensive production, almost unlimited solar power in deserts across the world. As the Middle East’s oil production declines, look out for green hydrogen production. Incidentally more than one authoritative voice believes fossil fuels will no longer be extracted in four decades time, I suspect earlier.

    1. glen cullen
      March 16, 2021

      They’re finding new oil deposits in the Kurdish Region, Bermuda, the Falklands basin to name a few

  18. Old Albion
    March 16, 2021

    I wish to comment on just one of those elements within the bill, driving offences.
    I’m 69 years old my wife four years younger. I have just had a protracted negotiation with my car insurer to get a fairer premium. In a normal year we drive up to 6000 miles in a small engined saloon car. My premium will now be £320.
    Every day on TV you can watch ‘police interceptors’ or similar programmes in which long car chases end with a (usually) young male, driving without a licence or insurance. Driving dangerously, sometimes creating real risk to others.
    When sentenced the felon will typically be handed a £200 fine and six points on the licence he doesn’t have and of course banned from driving, an entitlement he also doesn’t have.
    Who is the mug here? The criminal or me?

    1. Alan Jutson
      March 17, 2021

      Old Albion

      Yes it makes you wonder, many fines do not even cover the cost of the police time in wages, let alone the overheads, courts time and costs, the sentences are an absolute joke in many cases.
      The simple fact is the criminals are having fun at everybody’s expense but their own, indeed many do not get any custodial sentences at all until they have either committed numerous crimes, or have actually badly injured someone.
      Damage to your car by one of these criminals appears just to be a case of bad luck your insurance will pay, but that is not true, because then you pay the increased premiums after any claim..

      I am sure the Police are as frustrated as we are with the system, in fact I know many feel what is the point, and why do we bother !.

    March 16, 2021

    Our lawmakers have destroyed all law

  20. Everhopeful
    March 16, 2021

    So we lose the right to protest?
    And you think that is OK JR??
    How will they police the protests they are too scared to stop?
    We KNOW…we have SEEN it happen!

  21. George Brooks.
    March 16, 2021

    Over the last 70 years we have got softer and softer resulting in the police not having enough manpower, the courts clogged, and our prisons grossly over crowded. Bring back the birch for carrying a knife or gun, causing criminal damage and SVROs.

    All the changes in the current bill are very commendable but those who commit the crimes listed in my first paragraph won’t read or understand what is in the bill and it will take years before they realise that the proposed changes have come into law.

    One birching in area will reduce knife carrying dramatically as it will the other crimes and it will save police time so that they can make our streets far safer. Instead of kids being kept by the state in prison and learning bad habits they can start work, learn a trade and contribute towards the society in which they live.

  22. Aaron Shone
    March 16, 2021

    My view is the section on public order is disgraceful, and erodes civil liberties that elected parliamentarians are supposed to protect.
    Similarly the knee jerk response to memorial defacement is to increase sentencing to a maximum of 10 years. That’s insane.

    Those two sections read like it was written by a bunch of people sitting in a gilded cage with a heavily filtered and politicised view of the country. I can’t speak for the other parts of the bill, but if they are as disassociated from reality as the public order and memorial defacement are, then this is overkill.
    I’m all for crime and punishment, but this bill seems unrealistic.

    There may be some negative bias here. I read what is happening in Hong Kong, and Myanmar, and then I read what my own government are proposing, and it seems very similar and draconian.

    I think any parliamentarian who votes for this bill in its current form really needs to think about the type of society they want them and their families to live in.


  23. Iain Moore
    March 16, 2021

    As I understand it there are already laws on the statute books that cover most of this , like…Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 says that “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”…..the problem is the lack of will to enforce the laws we have, it seems easier to create more laws than enforce them.

    1. glen cullen
      March 16, 2021

      This government isn’t just inapt, divorced from the people… they’re lazy

  24. Lisa
    March 16, 2021

    Yet more totalitarian laws that will be used to stifle protest when the emphasis should be on applying existing laws reasonably, fairly and equally. Instead we have selective policing ranging from ignoring crime completely to attacking peaceful people exercising lawful rights.

    1. Fedupsoutherner
      March 16, 2021

      Never mind the fact that they know they shouldn’t be mixing without social distancing. They aren’t bothered that they might be spreading the virus and killing others. We either uphold the law or don’t bother. The police will be wrong whatever they do.

  25. jerry
    March 16, 2021

    “empowering the police by a new court order to target known knife carriers”

    Sounds about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike, or an ASBO, worn with pride by such offenders, it is already illegal; to carry certain types of knives, it is already illegal to carry any knife without good reason.

    “enabling the trialling of secure schools”

    A return to older values, such as Borstal?

    “improving employment opportunities for ex-offenders”

    Brilliant! So some people will see crime as the only way ever get a job…

    /etc. This entire Bill is ‘Woke’, it reads as if written by two totally opposing groups, one who proposes a return to the fail ways of old, whilst the other wants more of the failed knee-jerk policies from the Blair era. The Home Office has not been fit for purpose for close on 30 years.

    1. jerry
      March 16, 2021

      I’m actually surprised our host has bothered raising this Bill here, given (usual moderation times) most comments might well not be published before 7pm, meaning very few if any MP’s, not even our host perhaps, will have read the feedback this site generates before the vote.

  26. Dave Andrews
    March 16, 2021

    Tougher sentencing doesn’t get to the root cause. Take male violence demonstrated by the Sarah Everard case. We need the education system to school boys in chivalry. What use when they toddle on to their science classes to be told that human nature is the consequence of random events, and ultimately morality isn’t an absolute but an arbitrary decision?

  27. Andy
    March 16, 2021

    Sentence for rape: 5 years

    Sentence for damaging a statue: 10 years

    Tory Britain.

    1. glen cullen
      March 16, 2021

      Andy – I’d often read your comments with interest, to understand a different viewpoint, to obtain balance, to understand the full argument etc

      However, whats the point if you’re just going to misrepresent statistics like a hack journalist from rag newspaper

    2. Peter2
      March 16, 2021

      The maximum sentence for rape is 4 to 19 years and in the most serious cases be can be life in prison.

  28. The PrangWizard of England
    March 16, 2021

    Can’t be bothered to wade through all this waffle, spin and uselessness.

    What we need is a police Force (not Service) to catch criminals and the law courts to impose sentences using the present laws fully and promptly. Severe sentences are useless if police don’t catch anybody. Criminals and potential criminals should fear being caught, that is the big deterrent.

    And we don’t need apologists in all manner of parasitical ‘professions’ surrounding the system in either the police or in the courts to make excuses for the guilty, letting them off with warnings or imposing meaningless sentences.

    The idea that all the groups mentioned must constantly work together and share information is guaranteed to make the problems that exist now even worse. More meetings, more liaison committees, more reports. More failures.

    1. No Longer Anonymous
      March 17, 2021

      The City of London was surrounded by violent Metropolitan boroughs but the crime rate dropped to virtually zero at the boundary. Why ? Because there were no potential victims ? There were plenty of Rolex and Cartier wearing pedestrians there.

      Beat policing.

      Beat policing.

      Beat policing.

  29. Brian Tomkinson
    March 16, 2021

    Is not the worst and most important part of this proposed legislation that it contains sweeping and draconian powers to allow this Government to ban protests which is a direct assault on our civil liberties?
    When are MPs going to stand up for those they are elected to represent and prevent this increasingly authoritarian government from usurping our liberty, freedom and human rights?

    1. Adrian Thornton
      March 17, 2021

      I agree, our rights of freedom have been removed to peacefully protest and voice our objections to a Parliament that is not listening to us and a Government that is destroying small businesses and lives with no end in sight.
      My MP ignores my emails and letters so is no longer interested in representing me, if I only have the route of waiting for the next election that will be too late, plus, who is a viable alternative? I’m a lifelong Tory voter feeling exceedingly disenfranchised.

  30. BJC
    March 16, 2021

    We already have a great deal of protective legislation, but the weak link has always been at the highest levels of authority where personal prejudice has allowed them to place their own interpretation on the law. Nothing will change with yet more legislation, because the same authorities will be interpreting and failing to enforce it.

    We will still have rampant illegal immigration causing, encouraged, aided and abetted by authorities who will still choose to categorise the people who take part in this criminal act as “victims of exploitation”, not people who willingly pay thousands to get here……..and the courts will continue to treat criminals as victims of circumstance.

  31. agricola
    March 16, 2021

    I am not a doctor, I don’t even have an up to date first aid qualification. However I know that acquaintances who have contracted covid and recovered have also suffered blood clots. It suggests to me that covid and or its treatment can itself lead to blood clotting in some cases. Equally some people are prone to blood clotting for totally unconnected reasons. For instance, after surgery drugs are used to prevent blood clotting. I do not buy the leap that the Astra Zeneca vaccine is responsible, but see the EU action as purely political. Not only is it a snipe at the UK it is more seriously depriving millions of people in the EU protection from the virus. Criminal negligence of the EU for political purposes.

    I would tell the EU that their orders are considered cancelled and the unwanted vaccines will be diverted to countries around the World who are desperate for its protection. Were it technically possible I would sue them in their own ECJ for criminal libel , crime against their citizens, and trade blocking. Does Boris have the cohones.

  32. ian@Barkham
    March 16, 2021

    Without sounding ‘churlish’ what part of any of this will solve crime? Its just the same old platitudes regurgitated to create headlines.
    As others have said – the Government will still turn a blind eye, to those of the WOKE fraternity, the Cancel Culture, in fact any one that has a beef against society. Then load in those that illegally enter the Country stealing places from those with a genuine case.

    1. Otto
      March 20, 2021

      Why is there never any sympathy for the ignored migrant smugglers? They are being evilly exploited by thousands of migrants who tempt and groom them with large wodges of money to help them. When will this human travesty be recognised and counselling be offered to those smugglers?

  33. glen cullen
    March 16, 2021

    None of the Bill’s measures will put extra police on the beat

    Everything is reactive and never proactive

    We need to own the street; our police are in fear of the criminal, the media, walking and talking with the public

    As an organisation the Police just issue fines, forget policing by consent that ship has sailed

  34. Nig l
    March 16, 2021

    The courts system has been seriously underfunded because of regular budget cuts and hey, having caused the problem this government suddenly says it will resolve it. The Financial Services Ombudsman has 165000 cases outstanding. The NHS allegedly 6 million.

    The serious violence duty requires any number of agencies who are not renowned for their data sharing etc suddenly to find the time, they can’t do their current jobs effectively, and change their mindset and come up with a strategy. I guess 80% of crime is done by 20% of criminals. Strategy easy. Take the repeat offenders off the streets.

    Looks like a frantic knee jerk to me and I have heard it all before. So please Sir JR tells us/convince us that something will be different this time.

  35. Roy Grainger
    March 16, 2021

    I see a cyclist killed a pedestrian when they ran through a red light the other day. I don’t expect the new laws create cycling offences to match those for car drivers ?

  36. formula57
    March 16, 2021

    What is set out sounds appropriate but then it would as it is advertising copy – discernible by changing it to the opposite, for example “equipping / depriving police officers with[/of] the powers and tools they need to keep themselves and all of us safe”, to see how ridiculous it becomes.

    We would need to know how these measures mesh with those previously available, why they are really needed, how they are likely to be used, with what effect, and what rights and liberties they curtail. Also, will we get to see the secret operational protocol that provides for these new powers lying unused against certain grooming gangs and the like?

  37. Fishknife
    March 16, 2021

    Carrot and stick.

    We’ve thrown away the stick, the death penalty – apart from suicide by police. We’ve destroyed the carrot by allowing mass immigration, reducing pay for a very large proportion of our population, along with any hope of building a family in its own home, we’ve destroyed family values and created a victim culture.

    A load of mealy mouthed aspirations isn’t going to ‘cut it’.
    Street violence isn’t “a woman’s problem” it’s systemic.

    One solution would be the use of a mobile phone’s camera to send an image of concern with location to ‘an incident centre’. A universal “panic button”, a modern 999 call with automated response by drone, with human backup if necessary.

    Why are we spending fortunes on locking people up when we could offer them an implant to “A.I.”monitor their location 24/7 at minimal cost ? Medical advances could allow blood analysis to signal alcohol or drug abuse.

  38. Bill
    March 16, 2021

    I don’t see reference anywhere to politicians speaking untruths or to the outlawing of purveyors of deliberate and damaging fake news that threatens the economic wellbeing of the nation.

    1. MiC
      March 16, 2021

      No, interesting, eh?

      John’s party would never get elected if they were crimes, I’d say.

      1. NickC
        March 17, 2021

        Well, Martin, nearly everything you claim is an untruth. So are you volunteering for prison?

  39. MickN
    March 16, 2021

    There are already punishments available. I still can’t get my head around how someone can set fire to our national flag on our most sacred war memorial and yet walk free from court. Is this not criminal damage? Offending public decency? possibly even arson? We need to start using the sentences available rather than try to look tough by increasing them.

  40. BW
    March 16, 2021

    Got my Council Tax bill today. Totally wiped out any small pension increase, and more. Just feel mugged. Clearly Wokingham Council are not listening to JR on lower taxation.

    1. glen cullen
      March 16, 2021

      I believe every council up and down the land is increasing council tax by 5%

  41. Elizabeth Spooner
    March 16, 2021

    No law is any good if it cannot be enforced quickly and fairly. The every increasing delays in the courts mean that this cannot be done at the moment. Reopen many of the courts that were closed in a mad rush to centralise everything over the past 20 or 30 years and there might be some chance of fair justice. Concentrate on reducing delays and properly enforcing the ones we do have, before enacting any more laws.

  42. Mark
    March 16, 2021

    The powers the police most need are of good judgement.

    That includes not pandering to XR or BLM because there are politicians who sympathise with them and use them cynically to push radical agendas. I suspect some politicians and police have found the power they have in present circumstances is a heady mix. It will have to be reined in, not amplified without proper oversight. If the authorities and politicians (see e.g. the SNP criminalising opinion in people’s homes) are not capable of good judgement then we need to replace them with those who are.

  43. john McDonald
    March 16, 2021

    Laws are not much good if you don’t have enough police to enforce them.
    The support given to our Police in recent days trying to enforce the laws MP’s have already put in place is
    an absolute disgrace.
    It seems that MP’s will do anything to be in favour of the latest protest fashion even if it against the Laws
    they have enacted.
    We don’t need more laws, we need more MP’s to support the police. The BBC was the biggest stirrer in fanning more unrest. It show the same picture for four days of a woman protester being restrained.
    If they (MPs) don’t realise that all these protest groups are being infiltrated by people who just want to cause trouble and carry out criminal acts under the cloak of legal protest, or even have a political agenda not related to the protest subject. then they alt not to be in Parliament

    1. Fedupsoutherner
      March 16, 2021

      At last John, someone talking sense. Is this ‘vigil’ really necessary? When I was growing up we didn’t have these public shows of grief for everything especially when we didn’t even know the person. They were asked to move on but didn’t. What did they expect? Many obviously had another agenda.

  44. a-tracy
    March 16, 2021

    Yesterday I was reading how a woman from London tried to defraud a UK insurance company of £400,000 by setting up a false death certificate from Zimbabwe but her husband was very much alive and working in the NHS. She was sentenced at Inner London Crown Court on 15 March 2021, to two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years and 100 hours of community service, with a twenty-five day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement.

    The Insurance company said: “This is also very good news for our genuine customers, who ultimately bear the cost of fraud through their premiums.” However, the judge didn’t award the insurance companies costs of investigation or the court case so the genuine customers pay again for her crime and she gets away virtually free and we get to pay her unemployment benefit.

  45. Dee
    March 16, 2021

    Pritti Patel has spent so much time making sure the true Brits are kept in line by removing yet more freedoms that she has had no time to sort out the millions of illegals in our Country. Including murderers, rapist, robbers, assault felons just to name a few. Nothing changed there again?

  46. Nick
    March 16, 2021

    A bit of a Curate’s Egg. Some good bits, no doubt, but until the government proscribe both XR and BLM as (words left out ed)organisations, then I simply have no confidence that they have the resolve to actually tackle the problem and confront the enemies of society.

    Priti Useless talks a lot but delivers little, if anything. Still no deportations of illegal migrants and foreign criminals (or action to prevent appeals against deportation), still no action to resile from the ECHR, and still no action to stop the courts from interfering in political decisions.

  47. agricola
    March 16, 2021

    Time to wake up re the unworkable NI protocol. It was a minefield laid by the EU with the express intention of forcing the UK back into their set of regulations and jurisdiction by the ECJ. Michels statement confirms this by stating our return to their jurisdiction would solve all problems.
    My response is absolutely no. There should be absolutely no EU involvement in domestic trade between NI and the rest of the UK. If this causes The EU to demand a hard border then it is their responsibility to create it on Southern Irish territory and to live with the consequences.
    It must be made abundently clear to the EU that they are dealing with a totally sovereign state. If they wish to play legal games their place to take fheir case is the International Court in the Haag , the WTO, or the United Nations. All payments to the EU should be frozen until matters are resolved. All fishing licences in UK territorial waters should be revoked. Any furfher interference in trade should be met with very visible retaliation. Time to play hardball.

  48. mancunius
    March 16, 2021

    The police already have extensive powers which they exercise in a wilfully discretionary way, ignoring or intervening depending on the orders of their local Chief Constable, and the fashions in ‘seriousness’ dictated by pressure groups.
    The new Bill simply gives the police a wider range of ‘offences’ within which to pick and choose. It does not introduce the concept of forcing the police to pursue crime, or that of equality before the law.
    You do not mention magistrates and sentencing, a rather important aspect: I wonder to what extent police reluctance is down to their knowledge of the local judiciary’s ‘tolerant’ ajudication and sentencing ? You must be as aware as the rest of us that the judiciary has been mainly recruited for the past 50 years from the left-leaning area of the profession. The result is that the police target and search violent urban areas less than elsewhere, not more. New legislation will not alter that, unless they know they have judicial support for a change.

  49. jon livesey
    March 16, 2021

    Maybe slightly off-topic, but I think you can tell something about the shape of a society by the laws it introduces. Having to protect war memorials, which were treated as something more or less sacred even a couple of decades ago, tells you quite a lot about who is driving anti-social and anti-history violence, and where they think they can inflict pain on the native culture.

    Attacking memorials is a way of saying that you are prepared to do damage to the parts of a society which were previously protected by a strong social consensus rather than physical force. To bring in new laws says that you are prepared to use force to oblige the anti-social to observe those conventions. It’s a pretty healthy reaction.

    1. glen cullen
      March 16, 2021

      Good points – I agree with your underlining assumption that our politicians and school teachers have set the conditions for our youth to rebel with impunity against our history

  50. christopher carr
    March 16, 2021

    I am conservative, perhaps reactionary by the standards of people 40 or 50 years younger (and my next-door neighbour).
    Yet this list made the hair on the back of my head stand on end. It’s not so much any individual item (though some do frighten me) but the impression it gives of how authority views the people – with suspicion, anger, lack of empathy.
    Confirming the idea that “The ten most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.'”
    I hope very much that my impression is wrong.

    BTW Mr Redwood, many thanks for your Diary.

  51. Pauline Baxter
    March 16, 2021

    Most of what you have said about this Bill makes sense.
    BUT – Isn’t it the case that introducing more measures against PROTESTS are really a means of removing our FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
    While it is obvious the XReb protests were a great nuisance to individuals and businesses they did no long term harm.
    The B.L.M. OUTRAGES Could, and should have been dealt with far more strictly and effectively within the existing laws.
    I doubt very much that this new law will cause the police to target B.L.M. type crime.
    More likely, under the present Government’s autocratic style this law will be used to prevent legitimate PROTEST.

    1. glen cullen
      March 16, 2021

      Good timing also announcing the increase in our reserve stock and funding for our nuclear weapons this week….

    2. Adrian Thornton
      March 17, 2021

      Wholeheartedly agree.

  52. Mike Wilson
    March 16, 2021

    Feels a bit ‘police stateish’ to me.

    As for the driving stuff – driving incidents / accidents are notoriously difficult to apportion blame for the cause. Anyone can shriek ‘he was driving dangerously’ when, in fact, what has happened was an accident. Many accidents are caused by a combination of factors. I can see this being used in a heavy handed manner and in such a way we’ll all be terrified to drive. It seems part of an agenda to deny us the freedom owning a car provides.

  53. Excalibur
    March 16, 2021

    As an ex police officer myself, I believe the police in UK already have too much power, JR. These new draconian measures will only extend these powers. I remember the training mantra at the Hendon Police College was “by the use of tact and good humour”. Well one doesn’t see much of either these days. Arbitrary arrest, the use of force and poor backing from the courts have all detracted from justice being seen to be done. The ‘us and them’ mentality prevails.

    I don.t believe the documentary tv series on police actions help, either. Policemen are not entitled to have a view. They should present the evidence impartially. What they may think privately is another matter.

    1. glen cullen
      March 16, 2021

      Agree – good words

    2. steve
      March 16, 2021


      “As an ex police officer myself, I believe the police in UK already have too much power”

      Citing the latest demo’s, from what I can make of it the police are damned if they do, damned if they dont. Personally I think the better option would have been to simply ignore the demonstrators, when they realised no one was listening and there was no one to help them play their little martydom game, they’d have little option but to go home. Or the water canon, perhaps.

      If these people think our police are bad they should try living in some south american country, then they’d know what bad police is.

  54. Margaret Brandreth-
    March 16, 2021

    Like many , I feel that knife crime is the hardest to eradicate .At one time we were able to carry swiss army knives around for general use and leisure , for example when camping or during other outdoor pursuits , but the thugs have spoiled this for us. The length of scissor blades are measured when travelling by plane. As usual the innocent have to pay for the guilty.

    Public order is difficult as I have witnessed cases where one is made to pay for the bad ,jealous ,behaviour of others.As long as one or more club together to make a complaint,and it doesn’t need to be genuine : it stands and the innocent again become victimised.

    I am all for better control , however there are many lynch mobs around longing to get their own way at the expense of others.

  55. everyone knows
    March 16, 2021

    Everyone knows you are trying to push tyrannical laws off the back of faked news events.

    It will be how you are all remebered.

  56. MG
    March 16, 2021

    Yet more virtue signalling. Just enforce existing laws.

  57. Caterpillar
    March 16, 2021

    Today Conservative MPs and Johnson Govt have confirmed their authoritarian foundation, using the camouflage of a few points to ram through the authoritarianism. In this case ‘vile’ is not sufficiently strong a word. Destroying the economy, freedom and now the values of the country for the joy of dictatorial power. ‘You’ all need to look deep into yourselves, into your colleagues and into your ‘leader’ – get a grip and loosen his grip.

  58. steve
    March 16, 2021


    Interestng article.
    Firstly re demondtstions and police powers. My advice to government is; be careful, do not dare challenge our enshrined rights. However I do think the demo mob has turned to using anything they can get their hands on as an excuse to kick off. They will even martyr people who they didnt know and never met, without so muh as a by your leave to the grieving families.

    Now, vehicle ‘accidents’

    The following, is fact – There is NO SUCH THING as a road traffic accident. Either someone did something they should not have done, or chose not to do something they should have. The only variation being that if for instance a driver was incapable of performing an emergency stop, in which case you could argue they shouldnt have been driving in the first place.

    The best way to reduce road related deaths and injuries is to take german cars, and certain 4×4 bully wagons off the road. Sales tax and insurance tax would be a good way to take the toys off the kind of a-holes that drive ’em. These people think they can push everyone else around, often with fatal results.
    Also driving too close to the vehicle in front should carry an automatic custodial sentence and vehicle confiscation, in my opinion.

    Another way would be to publicly name offenders who by their selfish actions cause road closures, that way, everyone who was caused a delay could hold the offender personally liable for the cost of lost time and loss of earnings etc. Act arrogantly on the road – pay thousands of people compensation out of one’s own pocket.

  59. Keith
    March 16, 2021

    Government has gone nuts.. new extra police powers and revival of interest into SE Asia. We’ll need more than a aircraft carrier if we are to impress out there. 2021 not 1821

  60. Lindsay McDougall
    March 17, 2021

    And what about financial crime, the scourge of our age? I have a proposal to deal with that. A judge may set a sentence for a financial crime, and the time served should be that or however long it takes to produce goods to the value of double the amount stolen, in prison workshops. It must be genuine marketable produce – none of your Shawshank Redemption nonsense. Half of the money would be used to compensate the victim in full and the other half to compensate partially taxpayers for the cost of the prison service. I’ll spell it out: someone who is caught embezzling a million pounds will either return the money or spend a great deal of time in prisons. Implied is a need for more prison workshops.
    We should keep first offenders for minor crimes out of prison, because prison turns them into hardened criminals via contact with ‘old lags’. Better to bring back ‘cruel and unusual’ punishments at the lower end of the spectrum – I refer to the stocks and the cat of nine tails, and not the rack, public hanging and the oubliette.

  61. Fred.H
    March 17, 2021

    Reduce crime?- — catch and punish the criminals!

  62. Mr Fisher
    March 18, 2021

    Appalled that you should support the suppression of peaceful protest on the grounds that it risks causing annoyance or unease.

    The present government has been causing considerable annoyance and unease to millions for the past year.

    Will you be volunteering to spend 10 years in prison?

Comments are closed.