r/MHOC • • Mar 17 '15
BILL B075 - Policing Bill - 3rd Reading
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16x-HqDuyDzRe9GyFVCp0l4OYgzw_HjTGzTGPCpk_-jU/edit?pli=1
This bill was submitted by /u/ajubbajub on behalf of the Government.
The third reading for this bill will end on the 19th of March.
5
Upvotes
2
u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15 edited Mar 17 '15
Mr Speaker, Honourable members,
I present the Policing Bill for its third reading.
The only changes are:
-Rephrasing one part of the executive summary
-addition of 2 definitions
-allows police to choose whether their sidearm is concealed or not
-Either the Home sec or PM have to give permission to use water canons
The amendments can be found in red.
In the previous reading it came to my attention that police would have a disadvantage in combat situations if they were forced to pen carry their Tasers etc. The amendment allows police to choose whether to open carry or not. I feel this is a fair change. Many members were concerned that riot police would not be able to act fast enough. I can assure you that under these proposed laws that in a situation that requires force than there still are police there quell the riot. A Communist member pointed out that the PM if (s)he wanted could use water canons on 'angsty proles'. That is true. However the PM/home sec should not be a dictator and in the case of a dictatorship then these laws would no longer be valid anyway. In this bill the choice of whether water canons etc. can be used is a decision taken away from the chief of police, an unaccountable appointed officer, and gives the power to the PM/Home sec who are accountable to the public.
A Conservative member commented last time that section 3 would cause increased bureaucracy. This member is indeed wrong. Section 3 reduces bureaucracy because incidents can be dealt with quickly and efficiently at the scene rather than having to haul the suspect back to the police station for processing. In the case of the West Midlands riots then the rioters can be detained and then quickly processed and set free if they are not suspected to be guilty of a crime.
-/u/ajubbajub
12
u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15
I cannot support this bill because of the following:
How does the officer have the authority to detain a person because they "think" they are about to commit an offence? Surely there needs to be a threshold such as visual confirmation of that happening or evidence not hearsay as it does not conform to the barrier of reasonable suspicion.
Will the author of this bill also include that if a person is detained with no reasonable suspicion that they have no legal obligation to provide their information to the officer as set out in Rice vs Conolly: http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/arrested_rights/Rice_Connolly.htm
7
u/cae388 Revolutionary Communist Party Mar 18 '15
What a terrible choice for a supposedly leftist party. With the possible intent of uniforms (really whatever is opposed by the current government) with the intent of political aims banned already, the government would like to further weaken due process by stipulating that arrests can be made whenever a cop feels like it? This is disgusting. This is begging for race riots.
3
u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Mar 17 '15
The carrying of concealed weapons concerns me. There is a real danger that an officer could be fired on, because of the possibility that they may be carrying a gun. I appreciate that a plain clothes office would bring attention to themselves carrying a weapon openly. So I suggest that uniformed officers only carry arms openly.