B1456 – Gang Assets Bill 2019 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
B1456 – Gang Assets Bill 2019, ap.ferro, 04MR17 MP, SoggyCabbages MP

An Act implementing the lawful seizure of property and control of electronic telecommunications devices of those suspected or involved in gang related criminal activity. The intention of this bill is to reduce the influence those suspected of being involved in gangs have on other young people using social media and to reduce gang member’s morale and credibility within gang subculture by seizing their property, designer clothes, expensive cars etc.


BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: It is a criminal offence punishable by law if someone when asked upon request fails to surrender a social media account to police.
Suspected gang members who hold social media accounts will be asked to surrender their login credentials to police so their accounts can be accessed and moderated.

(1) It is an offence to fail to surrender a social media account to any Home Office force is England and Wales if asked to.

(2) For the purposes of this Act:—

a) "Social Media” refers to any form of login based website or mobile app that enables users to create and share content and message other users. This includes but is not limited to
Youtube
Instagram
Facebook
Whatsapp
Twitter
Snapchat

b) “Surrender” to police refers to the act of giving login credentials, and therefore access, to any social media account that the subject may have to any Home Office force police officer who requests this information upon reasonable grounds in England and Wales.

c) “Login Credentials” refer to a password, pin, username, and any other form of identification that is required in order to operate and therefore use a social media account.

d) “Reasonable Grounds” mean that the arresting officer must believe that the subject
Has participated in a gang related crime
Is a member of a gang
Is suspected of being involved in a gang related crime
Is suspected of being a member of a gang
Is suspected to be at risk of being involved in a gang related crime
Is suspected to be at risk to becoming a member of a gang

e) “Gang” refers to any group of people who spend time in public places that see themselves as and by others as a noticeable group and engage in a range of criminal activity and violence

f) “Home Office force” refers to any of the 43 police forces that operate in England and Wales. This does not include non Home office forces such as the Ministry of Defence (MOD) Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) police.

g) “Electronic telecommunications device” include any form of electronic device that can
Send and receive electronic messages
Can receive and make telephone calls
Can access the internet

2: Enforcement and Punishment
The enforcement of this act will be the responsibility of the Home Office Police forces in England and Wales.
Punishment for failing to surrender a social media account to police would result in a £2,000 fine. Failing to do this will also result in any mobile electronic devices used by the subject to be destroyed
Punishment for evading this injunction, such as making another account without notifying police, or giving incorrect details, will result in a six month sentence in a youth detention facility.

Section Two

1: It is a criminal offence to fail to surrender possessions to police.
Police will be able to seize assets of people who are suspected of being involved in gang crime, so they can be auctioned, with the profit made going to fund police anti gang operations and gang awareness courses in schools.

(1) It is an offence to fail to surrender possessions to police under the criminal offence of Obstructing Police.

(2) For the purposes of this Act:—

(2) a. "Possessions” refers to any items that belong to the subject or immediate family. Searching officers will be given guidelines on items to seize. These include but are not limited to

Designer Clothes/Footwear
Electronic devices
Telecommunications devices
Jewellery, ie. watches
Motor vehicles (including mopeds)
Bicycles

b) “Surrender” to police refers to the act of giving access to police officers in order for them to carry out a lawful search of a property with the intention of seizing assets.

c) “Immediate family” include anyone who lives in the abode of the occupant.

2: Enforcement and Punishment
The enforcement of this act will be the responsibility of the Home Office Police forces in England and Wales.
Punishment for failing to surrender possessions will result in a £500 fine, with goods seized with force if needed.

3: Exemption
(1) The Secretary of State will be granted the power to make further exemptions to this Act as he or she finds necessary by Order.

4: Extent
This Act extends to England and Wales..

5: Commencement
The provisions of this Act come into force 5 days within being passed.

6: Short Title
This act may be called the GAA (Gang Assets Act) 2019
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
I’m all for being tough on crime, it’s an aye from me.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
I don't particularly seeing this doing anything other than wasting even more police time, there is also no burden of proof for suspicion stated and such seizures of assets certainly should not happen without approval of the courts.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 week ago
#4
(Original post by Connor27)
I’m all for being tough on crime, it’s an aye from me.
#ConnorTheLibber, supporting practically arbitrary seizure of assets
1
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
Absolutely not, this is a ridiculous bill which forces even those vaguely suspected of even being at risk of being involved in gang activity/becoming a member of a gang to give up their assets and social media accounts.
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
#ConnorTheLibber, supporting practically arbitrary seizure of assets
Shameful.
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
First of all, I find it quite odd to see this framed in the context of gang crime specifically, usually people use terrorism as the carrot on this particular stick of authoritarianism. Also odd to list designer clothes so specifically, and before you even list things like phones and vehicles

I could enumerate each part that I oppose purely from principle but that’s not important here because the whole bill wouldn’t work anyway. Anyone committing crime over social media will just religiously delete their messages or adopt a platform that auto deletes for them. Or just use something peer to peer which only stores the messages on device as then there’s no app or website to log into thus subverting the provisions entirely. If that’s amended, then they’d combine the two: on device, and frequent deletions. Or similarly in that case, set an iPhone up to wipe itself after x failed logins and spam bad pass codes when the popo arrive. Maybe even pretend to not have social media at all. As law enforcement, it’s not like you are able to prove or disprove such a claim
0
TheRadishPrince
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 week ago
#8
I can imagine some hardcore gangster using myspace to get around this and turning it into the social media of the criminal underworld because who's really going to check that?
2
L.Michie
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
As somebody currently working for the police (not a police officer), I don't think this is necessary. We already have POCA allowing seizure of items believed to be bought with money earned through criminal activity. Surely gang induced criminality would fall into this category?

Whilst assets are often used to lure young people into joining a gang, removing them won't stop the action. It'll only become an irritant rather than a tool that can actually have an effect on reducing gang involvement.

I also can't imagine the power to look through social media will be valuable for too long. As soon as word gets out, they'll switch to using programs allowing encryption, if they haven't already
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by L.Michie; 1 week ago
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
There's some debate over the definition of a gang, but according to the metropolitan police, 0.19% of violent crime involved someone in a known gang.

You may say that only recording known gang members is why that is so small, so lets change it to gang related, which uses the same definition for gang as this bill.

In 2017 the met police recorded about 200,000 violent crimes. A little under 400 were gang related.

Narrowing it down to just homicides and gang related crime is a higher percentage, about 15% over the last decade in our biggest city, though gang crime has been on the decline in London for about a decade.

Not only is it a bad solution, its a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
Nay.

Looking at the bill itself I was tempted to provide a cautious Aye because the intent and quality is there. Reading the comments though Jammy and Dayne have to their credit provided convincing arguments and as such, I cannot support this bill.
1
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
I feel this does nothing new.

In respect to the 'surrending of social media', the new 'Knife Crime Prevention Orders' go some way in doing so - and the police can simply liase with social media companies without requiring the involvement of the suspect in question.

In respect to the surrending of assets, I believe the Proceeds of Crime Act also already goes some way...

After also reading and acknowledging the comments from JD, Jarred and Dayne, I will be voting Nay.
0
ap.ferro
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
(Original post by Jarred)
First of all, I find it quite odd to see this framed in the context of gang crime specifically, usually people use terrorism as the carrot on this particular stick of authoritarianism. Also odd to list designer clothes so specifically, and before you even list things like phones and vehicles

I could enumerate each part that I oppose purely from principle but that’s not important here because the whole bill wouldn’t work anyway. Anyone committing crime over social media will just religiously delete their messages or adopt a platform that auto deletes for them. Or just use something peer to peer which only stores the messages on device as then there’s no app or website to log into thus subverting the provisions entirely. If that’s amended, then they’d combine the two: on device, and frequent deletions. Or similarly in that case, set an iPhone up to wipe itself after x failed logins and spam bad pass codes when the popo arrive. Maybe even pretend to not have social media at all. As law enforcement, it’s not like you are able to prove or disprove such a claim
I was the one who wrote the bill, albeit with some help, and I mentioned designer clothes specifically because they are a status symbol amongst young people
0
ap.ferro
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
(Original post by DayneD89)
There's some debate over the definition of a gang, but according to the metropolitan police, 0.19% of violent crime involved someone in a known gang.

You may say that only recording known gang members is why that is so small, so lets change it to gang related, which uses the same definition for gang as this bill.

In 2017 the met police recorded about 200,000 violent crimes. A little under 400 were gang related.

Narrowing it down to just homicides and gang related crime is a higher percentage, about 15% over the last decade in our biggest city, though gang crime has been on the decline in London for about a decade.

Not only is it a bad solution, its a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
You can read my definition of gang included from the report, a definition according to Bedfordshire Police.

The 400 gang related criimes or 0.19% of crime being gang related is inaccurate, because some gangs are more organised than others.

As far as this bill is concerned, a gang is a group of young people who loiter in public areas and commit crime, whether that be ASB, smoking cannabis or carrying a knife.

I was planning on calling it the Youth Violence Prevention Act (YVPA) but it was too vague and included this amidst other things which will be proposed, so I split it up
0
ap.ferro
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
(Original post by ns_2)
I feel this does nothing new.

In respect to the 'surrending of social media', the new 'Knife Crime Prevention Orders' go some way in doing so - and the police can simply liase with social media companies without requiring the involvement of the suspect in question.

In respect to the surrending of assets, I believe the Proceeds of Crime Act also already goes some way...

After also reading and acknowledging the comments from JD, Jarred and Dayne, I will be voting Nay.
Under the act they would not needed to be proven to be from criminal assets, they could simply be on grounds of suspicion, or just siezing anything of value.
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
(Original post by ap.ferro)
You can read my definition of gang included from the report, a definition according to Bedfordshire Police.

The 400 gang related criimes or 0.19% of crime being gang related is inaccurate, because some gangs are more organised than others.

As far as this bill is concerned, a gang is a group of young people who loiter in public areas and commit crime, whether that be ASB, smoking cannabis or carrying a knife.

I was planning on calling it the Youth Violence Prevention Act (YVPA) but it was too vague and included this amidst other things which will be proposed, so I split it up
Yes, the exact same definition that is used in the 'gang related' stats that I gave.
0
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
I think police time and funds are better spent elsewhere than on gang-related crime. I will vote against this if it is sent to division.

Gangs are a problem in some areas of Britain, in very urban working class areas. Elsewhere they aren't a problem, and it's potentially up to local strategies to tackle this since all gang subcultures do behave differently.

Also, the commencement section is totally unrealistic.

(Original post by Jarred)
First of all, I find it quite odd to see this framed in the context of gang crime specifically, usually people use terrorism as the carrot on this particular stick of authoritarianism. Also odd to list designer clothes so specifically, and before you even list things like phones and vehicles
You just don't understand the gang sub-culture Jarred.:cool: 'tis all about the Gucci fam.:yep: :dontknow:

Though I think I prefer using gangs to terrorism as justifications for these sorts of things. It doesn't do society good to think too much about Terrorism.
0
ap.ferro
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by DayneD89)
Yes, the exact same definition that is used in the 'gang related' stats that I gave.
You also only included violent crimes. Smoking marijuana outside of a shop whilst abusing locals isn't violent but it is still a crime. This is the first step to ending the youth-gang culture which is plaguing our nation. It is in the schools, and it is not just in the inner city or London schools. It is affecting the middle class just as it is affecting the working classes.
0
ap.ferro
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
(Original post by 04MR17)
I think police time and funds are better spent elsewhere than on gang-related crime. I will vote against this if it is sent to division.

Gangs are a problem in some areas of Britain, in very urban working class areas. Elsewhere they aren't a problem, and it's potentially up to local strategies to tackle this since all gang subcultures do behave differently.

Also, the commencement section is totally unrealistic.

You just don't understand the gang sub-culture Jarred.:cool: 'tis all about the Gucci fam.:yep: :dontknow:

Though I think I prefer using gangs to terrorism as justifications for these sorts of things. It doesn't do society good to think too much about Terrorism.
I go to school in an affluent area outside of London. There are gangs. Trust me. But there is denial of this admist many people. I have seen it first hand. And the first thing you have to do is to start taking what they love away. Then you must try and reeducate them. If that cannot be achieved, you must send them to prison.
0
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 week ago
#20
(Original post by ap.ferro)
I go to school in an affluent area outside of London. There are gangs. Trust me. But there is denial of this admist many people. I have seen it first hand. And the first thing you have to do is to start taking what they love away. Then you must try and reeducate them. If that cannot be achieved, you must send them to prison.
I went to school in one of the poorest areas of North Liverpool. It's really not about what they love. The problem revolves around themes of: pride, masculinity, disengagement with education, disengagement with society, thrill of criminality, the sense of collective and belonging. Prison isn't an antidote, the statistics demonstrate this. Young offenders institutions do an excellent job (I've been in some) but are underfunded and rare to find spaces in.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do unconditional offers make teenagers lazy?

Yes (237)
59.85%
No (159)
40.15%

Watched Threads

View All