Yet More Security Theatre Legislation

The inclusion of both the Hillsborough Law and Martyn’s Law in the King’s Speech is a big moment for people power. Assuming they are implemented, these measures will do very different things – the first places a duty on public officials to comply fully with inquiries and requires bereaved families to be given fair legal funding. The second will ensure that public venues cater for the threat of terrorism in their risk planning.

Those public venues being any holding 100 or more. So your local church hall hosting women’s whist drives and bake sales, plus your neighbourhood pub, must now have a terrorism risk assessment and plan. Who thinks that’s sensible, or necessary?

The Hillsborough families have been fighting for justice on various fronts since 1989 but calls for this piece of specific legislation grew out of the second coroner’s inquests into the football disaster, which ended in 2016 and established that those who died were unlawfully killed. The inquests became an adversarial battle between the families and agencies including the police, and the law was proposed to stop other bereaved families from going through the same thing. It means there will be “a duty on public authorities and servants to tell the truth and proactively assist inquiries”, says Pete Weatherby KC, one of its chief architects.

But what the Hillsborough families have been fighting for could be said to be ‘absolution’, not justice and they’ve already had it. So why the need for more kow-towing to them? 

Martyn’s Law, meanwhile, was the brainchild of Figen Murray, whose son Martyn Hett was murdered in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack. The venue had been under no legal duty to provide a plan in case of a terror attack. Figen noticed this gap in the legislation relating to safety at public venues and made it her personal mission to close it.

I don’t disagree that Martyn was failed, but can it be said that he was exclusively failed by the venue, and only by the venue? Do the police and ambulance services not bear some of that criticism?

Martyn’s Law went through two public consultation exercises, the second of which was prompted by criticism of the proposed legislation from the Home Affairs Select Committee last spring. The committee had warned that it had “serious concerns” about the financial burden that could be placed on smaller venues. It also said the aims of the bill as it stood were “unclear”.

And despite that, it was rammed home regardless. To win votes, I guess. 

A Different Sort Of Activist Infiltration...

We're used to trans cultists and Islamists, now that other scourge of modern life has decided to worm its way into the ranks of the decision makers:

A widower has today claimed a cycling lobby in Government tried to stop his seven-year battle for tougher penalties for killer riders. It comes after the House of Commons backed an amendment this week to create three new offences for dangerous cyclists — 'causing serious injury by dangerous cycling' and 'causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling'. Campaigner Matt Briggs, 53, raised a glass to his late wife Kim upon news of the victory last Thursday, telling MailOnline it would hopefully give authorities a 'clear process to prosecution'.

They have such a process in other crimes and often drop the ball, so don't expect this to be any different... 

Kim sustained catastrophic head injuries after being hit by Charlie Alliston who was riding a fixed-gear bike with no front brakes at 18mph in Old Street, east London in 2016. She died a week later in hospital, aged just 44. Now, Mr Briggs has said one of the biggest setbacks to his campaign was 'forces' in Government that did not want cyclists to be held legally to account in the same way motorists are.

Can't be Boris, can it?  

Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Briggs said he'd 'occasionally felt like giving up', after the former transport secretary Grant Shapps stated twice that new laws would be introduced but they never materialised. 'I was brought up to believe that when people in authority say something is going to happen, it does,' Mr Briggs told the newspaper.

*boggle* 

Passing A Law Is Only The Start...

Under Clare’s law – named after Clare Wood, 36, who was murdered in 2009 by her ex-boyfriend George Appleton – people have a right to ask police whether a partner or ex-partner has a history of abusive behaviour. Public bodies can also apply to warn people who may be in danger.

Hurrah! Job done, everyone off to the pub to celebrate! 

But an analysis of official data has found dramatic variations in the implementation of Clare’s law, which is officially known as the domestic violence disclosure scheme, with some forces supplying information in up to 75% of cases, while others reject almost all requests.

Ah. Maybe not. 

Experts said there were multiple reasons why police forces could have drastically different disclosure rates, including that some did not prioritise Clare’s law requests, took different approaches to perpetrators’ privacy rights, or applied different standards when assessing whether applications met the threshold.

*sighs* Back to the drawing board...