It’s a bad law. Not automatically a bad concept- officers and other operatives do sometimes need to commit an offence, like supplying drugs as a classic example. But this law lacks meaningful oversight and approvals, and has a near total lack of limits. One of the occasions where the bill allows officers to break the law is, I’m not making this up, when it’s “in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom”. Another is to “prevent disorder”, with no clear definition of what disorder is- a political protest? Someone chaining themselves to a tree?
And while they want to claim it’s about protecting undercover police officers, it includes the Food Standards Agency, the Environmental Agency, and the Competition and Markets Authority, with no greater restraint or oversight than say an antiterrorism officer. We get why a police intelligence source might have to commit a really serious crime, when they’re dealing with the most serious of crimes- but why does the CMA need the same?
And then there’s the authorisations- it doesn’t go to a judge, or even to a senior officer outside of the operation, offences can be authorised by the person in charge of the case, who if I understand it right is themself also in the process grants themselves immunity from prosecution. Apart from everything else, that means that it’d be easier to get authorisation to commit a crime than it would be to get a wire tap order or a search warrant.
“Guv, we need a search warrant” “Nah, I need to fill in forms and stuff for that and they expect us to make a good case for it; under the Cops Do What They Want Act 2020 I authorise you to break and enter and to steal documents from that house”
It doesn’t seem a hard call, this- especially with Starmer’s background. “We can’t support this, not because of the concept but because it’s just really terrible work. It’s a job that needs doing, and that you’ve known needs doing for years, and that means it needs doing properly and that there’s no excuse for trying to ram it through. The police need protecting but so do the public, ask Baroness Lawrence OBE. If you don’t take it away and fix it, make it at least not terrible, then we can’t stop you from passing it but everyone will know it’s entirely on you. And that if you’d worked with us, we’d have a better law, officers would be in a better position, and so would the public but you just couldn’t be bothered” That sort of thing.
Right now he’s said “we can support this as long as there’s amendments”, and it looks like it’s going to be smashed through without those amendments and he’ll support it regardless, which is Milibandishly weak. And some of those amendments are such leftist madness as “probably policemen shouldn’t be raping people, amiright?” and “maybe the person who authorises the crime shouldn’t simultaneously be granting themselves immunity against any legal response, maybe at least their boss ought to have to rubber stamp it”
Am I missing something?
