New bill makes it harder to prosecute police for dangerous driving.

[Mike Sales]

I have just noticed a passing reference in an Observer article. There is no more information but I thought it needed attention drawn to it.

Another straw in the wind is the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill, published last week, to no fanfare, and about which there has been little discussion. It’s a monstrosity of a bill. Its 296 pages cover everything from making it harder to prosecute police for dangerous driving to new regulations about unauthorised encampments (which appear to be aimed at the Traveller community), from setting minimum sentences for drug trafficking to encouraging the use of British sign language interpreters in courts.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/14/if-you-thought-the-right-to-protest-was-inalienable-then-think-again

Link to the bill.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0268/200268.pdf

[Jdsk]

This Bill is a very serious matter, and yet another increase in Ministerial powers when we need the precise opposite.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

300+ pages and I will plough through them. Like Captain Oates, I may be gone some time but I will return when I have something worthwhile to offer.

[Mike Sales]

300+ pages and I will plough through them. Like Captain Oates, I may be gone some time but I will return when I have something worthwhile to offer.

Thank you. You are a very gallant gentleman, though I once met a descendant who thought Oates was probably hypothermic and confused. He just went out to empty himself and thought it might well be a long job. The others glossed over their relief by spinning his disappearance as a heroic sacrifice.

[Jdsk]

300+ pages and I will plough through them. Like Captain Oates, I may be gone some time but I will return when I have something worthwhile to offer.

Thank you. You are a very gallant gentleman, though I once met a descendant who thought Oates was probably hypothermic and confused.

Descendant or relative?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/oct/14/books.artsandhumanities

Jonathan

[Mike Sales]

Descendant or relative?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/oct/14/books.artsandhumanities

Jonathan

I did not know that, and certainly did not press him on the relationship.

[thirdcrank]

One problem with legislation such as this is the utter rag-bag way our parliamentary system operates, largely in order to get parliamentary time to get legislation through the system. Getting something tacked onto an existing bill often is the only way. One of my favourite examples of this is the way giving private parking enforcement companies access to DVLA personal data was included in the Protection of Freedoms Act.

BTW, I've no intention of providing a digest of the whole bill; apart from anything else that needs detailed knowledge of the specific subjects subject of the legislation and time to look at the legislation being amended, but I will look beyond the first half-a-dozen paragraphs.

[cycle tramp]

Just looking at it now- not being able to download the document makes it harder... I wonder if there has been some confusion. Looking at the bits I can see, it does look as if it makes it harder for police to be charged with dangerous driving.... which is hardy an improvement...

Ah, yes... but no... this is going to take someone with a bigger brain than myself to read the small print... looks like an introduction of a new crime 'causing serious injury through careless driving' clauses 64 to 66.

[Pete Owens]

It is not just driving offences - the police will be granted impunity to commit far more serious crimes.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-the-spycops-bill
And then there are the provisions to give them greater powers to suppress peaceful protests.
A few more goose steps on our long march towards becoming a police state.

[thirdcrank]

.... not being able to download the document makes it harder. ...

I'm worse than useless with IT but I downloaded the entire bill - or what I presume to be the entire bill - from the OP

Link to the bill.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... 200268.pdf

====================================================================================

Re CHIS - I've also searched and found that this is now on the statute book

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/20 ... /1/enacted

[Stevek76]

The new bill also risks criminalising events like critical mass. It's an awful piece of law making.

[thirdcrank]

I have just noticed a passing reference in an Observer article. There is no more information but I thought it needed attention drawn to it.

Another straw in the wind is the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill, published last week, to no fanfare, and about which there has been little discussion. It’s a monstrosity of a bill. Its 296 pages cover everything from making it harder to prosecute police for dangerous driving to new regulations about unauthorised encampments (which appear to be aimed at the Traveller community), from setting minimum sentences for drug trafficking to encouraging the use of British sign language interpreters in courts.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/14/if-you-thought-the-right-to-protest-was-inalienable-then-think-again

Link to the bill.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0268/200268.pdf

I've dug out a bit of background information about this although nothing that directly relates to the assertion in the thread title.

The first is to the College of Policing Guidelines on police pursuits.

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-c ... -pursuits/

The second is to the West Yorkshire Police policy on "Collisions" which has a chapter on "Tactical pursuit and containment incidents
(TPAC) "

https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/sit ... isions.pdf

(To declare an interest, the West Yorkshire Police pays my occupational pension, but it's coincidence that it was the first hit when I googled TPAC)

My interpretation of the intention of this bill is to provide a legal basis for TPAC.

I think the point Kenan Malik may be overlooking is that it's easy to prosecute police officers; it's so much harder to get a jury to convict them.

[Mike Sales]

Thanks, Third Crank. Good to see you back in the tent.

[thirdcrank]

Thanks, Third Crank. Good to see you back in the tent.

I've posted that to get it up quickly before I get to tally bogged down with the rest of the bill, which I understand is in parliament this week. You mentioned in your OP that you had no further information and I've tried to provide some. I hope some may find the time to read it.

There are various long-running problems with the police use of motor vehicles which were exacerbated when attempts were made to increase the "productivity" of patrolling police with the introduction of what used to be called panda cars. Whatever the internal police rules, when there's some sort of emergency, the pressure on panda car drivers to respond quickly can be huge. Chases in all their forms have been controversial but the traditional tactic of following until the target vehicle ran out of fuel, stopped when the occupants took the opportunity to scarper prolonged the danger the fugitive(s) might crash. I've no experience of TPAC which seems to be a recent innovation, but I don't see including it in legislation as a way of providing a loophole for those trained to carry it out.

[mattsccm]

That link that PeteOwens provided seems fair enough to me. Fail to see anything to complain about. Recent demonstrtions have shown just how irresponsible elements of the general public can be.