General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
In related news, Suella Braverman will suffer no consequences for acting unlawfully.
Dose any one have a list.
There seems to have been an unusual number of attempted illegal actions from the tories since they gained power.
It seems we are constantly hearing about odd moves or attempts to work around the system. And them fighting court cases that proove what everyone thought. They are breaking the law.
Add there inventive attempt to pass laws they have already failed. And refusal of benifits constantly voting rejected as against their own created rules.
It seems worth considering their record while the still claim to be a party of law and order. Those laws only apply to folks not themselves.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The former home secretary Suella Braverman acted unlawfully in making it easier for the police to criminalise peaceful protests, the high court has ruled.
Shortly before her resignation last year, Braverman used so-called Henry VIII powers to lower the threshold for the police to impose restrictions on protests.
Regulations brought in by such means, named in reference to the monarch’s preference for legislating directly by proclamation, are subject to minimal parliamentary scrutiny and decided on an “all or nothing” basis without amendments.
In justifying the government’s move, the current home secretary, James Cleverly, had argued that no new offences or powers of a criminal nature had been created.
Green and Kerr said that while “technically correct”, the home secretary’s regulations had increased the risk to protesters of being judged to have acted criminally.
Akiko Hart, Liberty’s director, said: “This ruling is a huge victory for democracy, and sets down an important marker to show that the government cannot step outside of the law to do whatever it wants.
The original article contains 677 words, the summary contains 168 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!