V1456 – Gang Assets Bill 2019 Watch

Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many as are of the opinion, aye (7)
15.56%
Of the contrary, no (36)
80%
Abstain (2)
4.44%
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
V1456 – 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
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
Absolutely not. This is an affront to liberty, is a disproportionate response and does not contain the necessary checks and balances.
Last edited by CatusStarbright; 4 weeks ago
1
The Champion.m4a
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
The fact that both the writer and the sponsor refused to even fix the obvious formatting problem is beyond me.

Although of course the fact that they are willing to seize all assets and strip hundreds of people naked because a person "in the abode" of perhaps a dormitory because someone was suspected of being at risk of joining a gang is of course an even bigger problem.

I regret that this wasn't proposed for a real-life Labour MP however - when "stop and search" is deemed a racist policy (low stake), impoverishing and stripping naked of who would ultimately predominantly be black and poor would have much affected their party's electoral prospects.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Absolutely not. This is an affront to liberty, is a disproportionate response and does not contain the necessary checks and balances.
I have to completely agree with this
0
Paracosm
  • Section Leader
  • Peer Support Volunteers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
Absolutely and categorically never.
0
London090
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
I really don't know what to decide, the bill was made for the greater good of society and to decrease influence with gangs however at the same time it unnecessarily breaches the privacy of individuals with no justification that the individual was actually involved in any sort of illegal matters.
0
Lord Vitiate
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
No - this is an affront to the liberty of the individual, the presumption of innocence before proven guilty & does not subscribe to the principle of proportionality.
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by London090)
I really don't know what to decide, the bill was made for the greater good of society and to decrease influence with gangs however at the same time it unnecessarily breaches the privacy of individuals with no justification that the individual was actually involved in any sort of illegal matters.
I would strongly advise you oppose.
0
London090
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I would strongly advise you oppose.
I was hoping one of the people who support this bill would be willing to put up a debate however this has not happened so I believe that opposing is the best choice.
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by London090)
I was hoping one of the people who support this bill would be willing to put up a debate however this has not happened so I believe that opposing is the best choice.
So far their arguments have completely ignored the opposing concerns.
0
thestudent33
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
Nay, due to the fact that it potentially affects "immediate family".
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by thestudent33)
Nay, due to the fact that it potentially affects "immediate family".
Let alone those who aren't actually involved in gang activity nor are a member of a gang.
0
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
As I stated in the debate, it's a no from me.
0
London090
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Let alone those who aren't actually involved in gang activity nor are a member of a gang.
It was an abstain from me.
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by London090)
It was an abstain from me.
Oh London... well at least it wasn’t a vote in favour
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
LemonBotex
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
Bloody hell of course not. What kind of perverted legislation is this.
0
London090
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Oh London... well at least it wasn’t a vote in favour
I saw fit to abstain, the members who wrote this bill did not take it seriously nor did they care for my vote.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
Criminals shouldn't be afforded the liberty of private communications. I don't see anything wrong having police moderate the social media of gang members. I'd go further. I'd impose CBOs to prevent them using social media.
0
The Champion.m4a
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by thestudent33)
Nay, due to the fact that it potentially affects "immediate family".
Let alone their flatmates, or people who live in the same accommodation (eg university dorms, midway homes etc). Without taking into account of the fact that in the end, the original "criminal" was only suspected to be at risk of joining a gang (which in itself would suggest a high possibility of harmful actions to the society, but still technically wouldn't have committed anything).

This bill is just an excuse to strip poor and black people literally naked.
0
The Champion.m4a
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by LemonBotex)
Bloody hell of course not. What kind of perverted legislation is this.
It was perverted indeed. With the inclusion of clothing also being taken away, the author seemed to want to have naked bodies around for his entertainment. And to make sure the gender of those nude people is right for him, he made sure to include immediate family and people living together.
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

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (67)
15.8%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (43)
10.14%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (80)
18.87%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (61)
14.39%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (46)
10.85%
How can I be the best version of myself? (127)
29.95%

Watched Threads

View All
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